Cycling UK Forum

Whilst I accept and endorse the danish approach we are campaigning for I do wonder if it does disadvantage the experienced road cyclist. I accept that the main advantage of cycling infrastructure investment it to increase cycling take up. However I want to see a similar effort into curbing bad driver attitude, probably through better enforcement and stiffer penalties.

Infrastructure to increase take up yes, but not the logical extension that may exclude cyclists from roads where there is infrastructure.

A road near me was a typical 1 lane 2 ways 'A' road in a city, I used it daily and had no issues at all over 5 years. Now the road has been narrowed by a segregated bike lane and now I feel compelled to use the bike lane. However in 1 year I have had 3 near misses despite extreme vigilance. The increased dangers consist of:

less maintenance, so more debris, flooding, tree litter etc
pedestrian's aimless meandersings
cars turning across lane despite cyclist right of way
people driving down lane!
erratic novice cycling
other users (skateboarders, mobility scooters, skaters, E-whatever...)

Now, when we have this massive investment (ha ha) and more cyclists feel compelled (bullied) into using the new facilities, then the presence on the road is reduced. How much I have no idea. It is presence that contributes more than anything to safer roads. I am sure you have experienced the attitude difference between a city where cycling has taken off as opposed to some provincial backwater (I'm thinking Lincolnshire here btw). It is just down to presence, takes years yes...

So my real question here is, has any of this been considered by any of the cycling lobbyists?

I am a very experienced cyclist, slowing down a bit now
I never want to cycle on the road because nearly all drivers break the law in my small town
The solution is enforcement, a 50% reduction in traffic is realistic
Monbiot suggests 90%

The answer to the title question is sometimes.
When it does,it does,but when it doesn't,it doesn't,the choice is entirely up to any cyclist.

Yes, it's been considered. In short, it's why we want a Dutch/French approach where cycleways should be built as mini roads with all the good junction designs and so on, where you see road clubs out training on them, rather than a Danish approach where dotted lines on pavements are acceptable and side road crossings only need some paint (which works there with their cycling levels but probably won't with ours).

Also, if you were stubborn enough to ride on the carriageway before and the cycleway is that defective, please keep riding on the carriageway while reporting the defects until they're fixed. Most people won't have the neck to do that, so many won't point out the problems for fear it'll get their only route closed rather than fixed although that's pretty unlikely (but not unknown, sadly).

All of these problems will get worse as conventional bicycles are lumped together with e scooters, electric bikes and other "sustainable" transport and forced, either by coercion or legislation to use the dedicated "facilities".

flat tyre wrote:All of these problems will get worse as conventional bicycles are lumped together with e scooters, electric bikes and other "sustainable" transport and forced, either by coercion or legislation to use the dedicated "facilities".

I think you've more to fear from the experienced racer using cycleways too fast for traffic volumes than from a legal e bike limited to 15½mph on electric.

If we could just build and maintain cycleways to decent standards instead of compromising to their detriment every time, we could easily be in a better situation than the Netherlands because mopeds are rarely allowed in ours.

No it doesn't and it doesn't help inexperienced/young/old either, it's a flawed 'solution' even at It s very best.

This is better for everyone but still not perfect.

The utility cyclist wrote:This is better for everyone but still not perfect.
C9H59j1WAAAvFcd.jpg

Those triangles blowing in from the left look like they could cause a crash!

mjr wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:This is better for everyone but still not perfect.
C9H59j1WAAAvFcd.jpg

Those triangles blowing in from the left look like they could cause a crash!

Could possibly get in the spokes if they get blown sideways but as there are no following cars and no stupid 'kerb' or raised protective edging it won't be a big deal as there's enough width to avoid them.

The utility cyclist wrote:No it doesn't and it doesn't help inexperienced/young/old either, it's a flawed 'solution' even at It s very best.
This is better for everyone but still not perfect.

Your message is unclear, the cyclists in the photo appear to be segregated.

mike whittaker wrote:Whilst I accept and endorse the danish approach we are campaigning for ......

Who's "we"?
Don't count me in with "we".

I'd like to curb the traffic and educate the drivers. That's all that's needed. Make anyone who want's to learn to drive, get cycling experience and pass a thorough cycling test even before they get behind the wheel.

It's all very well having cycling infrastructure in towns and cities, but we don't all live in them and many of us never want to live in them either.

Mick F wrote:

mike whittaker wrote:Whilst I accept and endorse the danish approach we are campaigning for ......

Who's "we"?
Don't count me in with "we".

I'd like to curb the traffic and educate the drivers. That's all that's needed. Make anyone who want's to learn to drive, get cycling experience and pass a thorough cycling test even before they get behind the wheel.

It's all very well having cycling infrastructure in towns and cities, but we don't all live in them and many of us never want to live in them either.

Yes I was wondering who "we" were. Segregated cycle ways outside major cities just won't happen and I don't think they are needed.
What we do need is reduced speed limits, which are enforced, proper traffic calming in urban areas and well signposted cycle routes.

There are places for good high standard segregation and there are places where it cannot and will not work.
But motorists should be made to respect vulnerable road users,as it is UK motorists have had their own illegal way for far too long IMO

Ron wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:No it doesn't and it doesn't help inexperienced/young/old either, it's a flawed 'solution' even at It s very best.
This is better for everyone but still not perfect.

Your message is unclear, the cyclists in the photo appear to be segregated.

My message is clear enough, you need to look again, It's clearly not segregated , no barrier or kerb divider, here's another view.

Segregation, even in cities, will never be 100%, so cyclists and other road users need to be able to share roads in a civilised and mutually respectful way. My nearest towns are about four miles away and they are both unlikely to be able to find much extra room for traffic segregation, except on new housing estates. If I venture a little further afield then yes, there are converted rail tracks that are nicer than the parallel roads, and I use them when I go that way. Because it suits me to do so. But close to home the roads are country lanes and I use them on a bike as I would in a car, with the full knowledge and conviction that I have a right to be there. In practice that is very rarely challenged.