Does segregation help the experienced cyclist?

[Wanlock Dod]

...Fourthly, there are some indicator-experiments that seem to indicate that reduced traffic and more policing of drivers will increase cycling. Two examples are, respectively, the (permanent or temporary) banning of cars from city centres in places like Madrid or Paris; the various UK police initiatives & drives to reduce close-passing...

It is indeed a pleasure to congratulate you on using Paris to provide an example of a city which has so far only had three car free days, and which is trying to increase levels of cycling through the provision of better cycle infrastructure.

Similarly, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence to suggest that Madrid has been investing in cycling infrastructure for quite some time, and that the adoption of a Traffic Limited Zone/Zero Emission Zone is a very recent thing. Can you provide any evidence to suggest that the adoption of traffic reducing measures has had more of an effect than the provision of cycling infrastructure in Madrid?

[Cugel]

...Fourthly, there are some indicator-experiments that seem to indicate that reduced traffic and more policing of drivers will increase cycling. Two examples are, respectively, the (permanent or temporary) banning of cars from city centres in places like Madrid or Paris; the various UK police initiatives & drives to reduce close-passing...

It is indeed a pleasure to congratulate you on using Paris to provide an example of a city which has so far only had three car free days, and which is trying to increase levels of cycling through the provision of better cycle infrastructure.

Similarly, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence to suggest that Madrid has been investing in cycling infrastructure for quite some time, and that the adoption of a Traffic Limited Zone/Zero Emission Zone is a very recent thing. Can you provide any evidence to suggest that the adoption of traffic reducing measures has had more of an effect than the provision of cycling infrastructure in Madrid?

As I keep trying to say - the causes and effects are complex. It's not really possible to disentangle them all.

My overarching point is that improving the behaviour of motorised traffic by a significant degree of policing will, by it's very nature, make more drivers conform more often to the rules. This will reduce the potential for harm to others, particularly pedestrians and cyclists but also drivers themselves. Go far enough with policing car use (including some new rules inhibiting their use) and other harms, such as CO2 and pollution-generation, will be reduced.

Cycling infrastructure does nothing about that, really. This is especially so when the infrastructure is very expensive and doesn't pay for itself (as policing would, via fines). And also when the huge majority of the cycling infrastructure so far supplied is inadequate or even dangerous in many ways. It seems a piecemeal and inadequate solution to increasing cycling. The roads are already there and just need the loonies removing.

At bottom I feel those pushing for cycling infrastructure are being a bit selfish - as well as consumerist in assuming an "at last, a new product" will solve everything. What about the remaining problems of all those car loons charging about?

Cugel

[TrevA]

Not sure if this has been posted before:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/22-lo ... e-cyclists

Examples of infrastructure gone wrong.

[reohn2]

.......... The roads are already there and just need the loonies removing.

That's a fact,the problem is the political,for it is political,will to remove them

At bottom I feel those pushing for cycling infrastructure are being a bit selfish - as well as consumerist in assuming an "at last, a new product" will solve everything. What about the remaining problems of all those car loons charging about?

Cugel

Here we disagree,there are areas where cycling and motors need separating,where the tere's traffic congestion such as towns and cities,and yes I agree with motor restrictions in those area towns and cities but there'll always be some motor traffic.
That said the UK is way behind the curve in private motor restrictions with a population that seems to believe we can carry on at the rate we are presently with all it's associated problems.
Whichever,there needs to be some radical rethinking on transport of human beings about this quite populated small collection islands we call home,as we certainly can't carry one the way we are.

Here's a very small example of the utter madness that persists today in this the fifth richest economy in the world:-
Monday this week I took a ride along the Bridgewater arm of the L&L canal from Leigh toward Manchester a distance of some 10miles or so,to look at the newly laid shared use towpath that can be ridden into Manchester city centre.
It was great!
The madness is that,this high quality towpath has been laid for more than five years but(and it's a big one),there's been two sections of it amounting to over a km in total that didn't meet and were a quagmire of impassable grey wet 2inch deep sludge 90% of the time,leaving a totally traffic free route unusable.
I believe the cause of this lunacy was a dispute between two councils on paying for the bits of path, which needed the Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham and Chris Boardman to step and do something about it.
It's an example of the kind of bureaucratic lunacy that persists

[mjr]

As I keep trying to say - the causes and effects are complex. It's not really possible to disentangle them all.

That's great, but later you fall back to

The roads are already there and just need the loonies removing.

which contradicts it, doesn't it?

I also think the later statement is not true. If we keep the current dangerously-bad-for-cycling road layouts, then no amount of policing will solve all the problems.

My overarching point is that improving the behaviour of motorised traffic by a significant degree of policing will, by it's very nature, make more drivers conform more often to the rules.

I ask again, is there any evidence for that?

Cycling infrastructure does nothing about that, really. This is especially so when the infrastructure is very expensive and doesn't pay for itself (as policing would, via fines).

Firstly, funding policing with fines is politically unacceptable and opposed every time it is suggested, usually blocking it. Even if you can convince motorists to support greater traffic policing (and that is a big if IMO), I think it is even less likely you will get them to agree to that.

Secondly, cycling infrastructure is a relatively cheap form of road-building, although there have been some disgraceful scandals of funding motoring infrastructure and twee heritage schemes from cycling project budgets.

Also, many current UK infrastructure inadequacies have little to do with money. In some cases, better infrastructure like reallocating one of three carriageway lanes to a two-way cycleway and erecting kerb islands with posts would be cheaper than the substandard stuff that was actually built. In others, things like approach angles at crossings don't cost any different.

Finally, no-one is saying that more cycling infrastructure will solve all problems. I think it is necessary but not sufficient.

And also when the huge majority of the cycling infrastructure so far supplied is inadequate or even dangerous in many ways. It seems a piecemeal and inadequate solution to increasing cycling.

Yes, it is piecemeal and not adequate alone. Few argue otherwise. Equally, increased traffic policing is piecemeal and even more inadequate.

At bottom I feel those pushing for cycling infrastructure are being a bit selfish - as well as consumerist in assuming an "at last, a new product" will solve everything. What about the remaining problems of all those car loons charging about?

I feel you are arguing against people that do not exist, some sort of infrastructure absolutists who say it will cure everything and we do not need any other measures, when most of us involved in the Space For Cycling campaigns have also been involved in other campaigns getting more policing, such as Road Justice, 20's Plenty, RDRF and Stop The Killing. This has been pointed out often enough that your continued use of Aunt Sally arguments and refusal to answer questions for evidence on the so-called "tried and tested" policing is pretty disingenuous.

[reohn2]

Not sure if this has been posted before:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/22-lo ... e-cyclists

Examples of infrastructure gone wrong.

It's nice knowing you're being provided for... ......by LUNATICS!

[mjr]

Not sure if this has been posted before:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/22-lo ... e-cyclists

Examples of infrastructure gone wrong.

It's nice knowing you're being provided for... ......by LUNATICS!

Provided for by motorists.

Anyway, that's from 2014, about half have been fixed to my knowledge and it's not exactly unknown for carriageways to be built wrong either. I'd agree that cycleways usually take longer to get fixed, though - I think my record so far is two years to get smooth tarmac instead of a bizarre not-shown-on-plans 2m dirt-and-high-kerb gap, although six months to replace a missing manhole cover was also pretty bad.

[reohn2]

.......... although six months to replace a missing manhole cover was also pretty bad.

That's a compo claim in waiting

[mattheus]

@mjr;
I am genuinely in favour of GOOD infrastructure, but what do you say to those riders whose main experience is of this sort of thing:

Not sure if this has been posted before:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/22-lo ... e-cyclists

Examples of infrastructure gone wrong.

It's nice knowing you're being provided for... ......by LUNATICS!

Now, I'm not saying that most of the stuff near me is quite *that* bad, but the vast majority is:
- slower for me, or
- dumps me back on a busy road in a stressful way, and
- requires me to run very tough/slow tyres, and
- makes me pray for dry conditions (or free dry-cleaning at my destination).
- (oh and this morning required a chain-saw to get through! )

So, that is the ... pessimistic view. What can you - an optimist in these matters - tell me to persuade me to campaign for more of this stuff, because you know it will be fit for purpose in future??

[TrevA]

Monday this week I took a ride along the Bridgewater arm of the L&L canal from Leigh toward Manchester a distance of some 10miles or so,to look at the newly laid shared use towpath that can be ridden into Manchester city centre.
It was great!
The madness is that,this high quality towpath has been laid for more than five years but(and it's a big one),there's been two sections of it amounting to over a km in total that didn't meet and were a quagmire of impassable grey wet 2inch deep sludge 90% of the time,leaving a totally traffic free route unusable.
I believe the cause of this lunacy was a dispute between two councils on paying for the bits of path, which needed the Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham and Chris Boardman to step and do something about it.
It's an example of the kind of bureaucratic lunacy that persists

I wonder if we would be better off with unitary local authorities, where there is single responsibility for an entire area.

Locally, Nottm City Council is very pro-cycling and spent a lot of money on some very good cycling infrastructure, but it stops at the City/County boundary. The County Council couldn’t care less about cyclists. They have made some token efforts in turning pavements into cyclepaths with the use of signs and dropped kerbs but they are unusable for anyone wanting to make decent progress.

[reohn2]

Monday this week I took a ride along the Bridgewater arm of the L&L canal from Leigh toward Manchester a distance of some 10miles or so,to look at the newly laid shared use towpath that can be ridden into Manchester city centre.
It was great!
The madness is that,this high quality towpath has been laid for more than five years but(and it's a big one),there's been two sections of it amounting to over a km in total that didn't meet and were a quagmire of impassable grey wet 2inch deep sludge 90% of the time,leaving a totally traffic free route unusable.
I believe the cause of this lunacy was a dispute between two councils on paying for the bits of path, which needed the Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham and Chris Boardman to step and do something about it.
It's an example of the kind of bureaucratic lunacy that persists

I wonder if we would be better off with unitary local authorities, where there is single responsibility for an entire area.

Locally, Nottm City Council is very pro-cycling and spent a lot of money on some very good cycling infrastructure, but it stops at the City/County boundary. The County Council couldn’t care less about cyclists. They have made some token efforts in turning pavements into ctcylepaths with the use of signs and dropped kerbs but they are unusable for anyone wanting to make decent progress.

It needs a national approach with high build/design standards that favour the cyclist not the motorist.
NL standard is the standard the UK should be aiming for,and not the present bolt on second or even fifth class none standards presently laughable if it weren't so tragic,excuses for infrastructure,that most LA's are currently being allowed to get away with

[mjr]

@mjr;
I am genuinely in favour of GOOD infrastructure, but what do you say to those riders whose main experience is of this sort of thing:

Not sure if this has been posted before:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/22-lo ... e-cyclists

Examples of infrastructure gone wrong.

It's nice knowing you're being provided for... ......by LUNATICS!

Now, I'm not saying that most of the stuff near me is quite *that* bad, but the vast majority is:
- slower for me, or
- dumps me back on a busy road in a stressful way, and
- requires me to run very tough/slow tyres, and
- makes me pray for dry conditions (or free dry-cleaning at my destination).
- (oh and this morning required a chain-saw to get through! )

So, that is the ... pessimistic view. What can you - an optimist in these matters - tell me to persuade me to campaign for more of this stuff, because you know it will be fit for purpose in future??

I would tell you that I agree with your assessment for far too much current UK infrastructure (slower mainly because of bad design, same for dumping onto busy roads, the rest bad maintenance), but I have also ridden infrastructure in Belgium and the Netherlands that simply does not do it (as well as stuff in France which does it less and stuff in Portugal which is worse than what we have!) and that's what we must push for. A critical part of any infrastructure campaign is for decent binding standards, unlike the current weak guidance. So something more like 2014's London Cycle Design Standards (which only binds TfL, as I understand it, sadly) than the bad old Local Transport Note 2/08 (poor quality and binds no-one). I believe that building more bad old 1990s-style stuff like most of that in the linked article may as well not be done, on balance.

By the way, I met Norfolk's council highways workers on one cycleway yesterday, chainsawing and mini-diggering it clear after recent storms. Infrastructure also needs maintenance, but occasional clearances are much cheaper than all the rebuilding and surface repairs that motorists and their crashes and fires require. So I think things are improving in some council areas, as they need to prioritise where the money goes and so much of cycling provision is now an obvious quick win.

[Cugel]

.......... The roads are already there and just need the loonies removing.

That's a fact,the problem is the political,for it is political,will to remove them

At bottom I feel those pushing for cycling infrastructure are being a bit selfish - as well as consumerist in assuming an "at last, a new product" will solve everything. What about the remaining problems of all those car loons charging about?

Cugel

Here we disagree,there are areas where cycling and motors need separating,where the tere's traffic congestion such as towns and cities,and yes I agree with motor restrictions in those area towns and cities but there'll always be some motor traffic.
That said the UK is way behind the curve in private motor restrictions with a population that seems to believe we can carry on at the rate we are presently with all it's associated problems.
Whichever,there needs to be some radical rethinking on transport of human beings about this quite populated small collection islands we call home,as we certainly can't carry one the way we are.

Here's a very small example of the utter madness that persists today in this the fifth richest economy in the world:-
Monday this week I took a ride along the Bridgewater arm of the L&L canal from Leigh toward Manchester a distance of some 10miles or so,to look at the newly laid shared use towpath that can be ridden into Manchester city centre.
It was great!
The madness is that,this high quality towpath has been laid for more than five years but(and it's a big one),there's been two sections of it amounting to over a km in total that didn't meet and were a quagmire of impassable grey wet 2inch deep sludge 90% of the time,leaving a totally traffic free route unusable.
I believe the cause of this lunacy was a dispute between two councils on paying for the bits of path, which needed the Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham and Chris Boardman to step and do something about it.
It's an example of the kind of bureaucratic lunacy that persists

Some dedicated cycle paths make sense, especially when they reduce the cost of making them via reuse of old stuff such as canal towpaths and old railway lines. But even these have their problems: such as sharing + overcrowding with pedestrians; few in number and often avoiding the populated areas that people want to do A to B journeys between. Still, they can be useful.

But imagine if all the road routes between the places that people typically drive needed to be replicated with cyclepath (and separate pedestrian path). It would cost zillions! It would eat even more land. There will be the disputes and delays that you mention, of various kinds. It will never happen.

Meanwhile, even a slight provision of so-called cycling infrastructure will tend to encourage the car-loon organisations and advocates to call even louder for a ban on cyclists from the roads .... where carmageddon will continue less a few cyclist deaths & mamimings.

It might be politically difficult but heavy-duty changes to the motoring dominance we all suffer from in so many ways is the only cost-effective, practical and achievable way to move people en-masse from cars to bikes. (Assuming that's the objective). Car policing and reduction will also contribute significantly to perhaps the much more serious problems of pollution and CO2 generation; and several other car-caused ills.

And the roads are then for everyone.

Cugel

[mattheus]

ah yes, maintenance ...

You've just reminded me to go to https://www.fillthathole.org.uk/hazards/report ...

Done. please cross your fingers for us in our hour of need!

[mjr]

Some dedicated cycle paths make sense, especially when they reduce the cost of making them via reuse of old stuff such as canal towpaths and old railway lines. But even these have their problems: such as sharing + overcrowding with pedestrians; few in number and often avoiding the populated areas that people want to do A to B journeys between. Still, they can be useful.

The overcrowding demonstrates how needed they are and how much more of these we need.

But imagine if all the road routes between the places that people typically drive needed to be replicated with cyclepath (and separate pedestrian path). It would cost zillions! It would eat even more land. There will be the disputes and delays that you mention, of various kinds. It will never happen.

You could equip all the rest of the A road network, plus 20(urban)/40(rural) limits on minor roads which are cycle routes, for less than the cost of just HS2, which is already a small fraction of the current announced expressway/motorway-building budget. It may cost a lot but it is a lot less than alternatives. What are our priorities here?

It may eat some more land but not as much as you may think because many trunk roads already have disused cycleways alongside them (see Carlton Reid's research).

I agree that it seems like it will never happen. The UK is in thrall to motorists so much that even some cyclists argue against redesigning roads to include cycleways

Meanwhile, even a slight provision of so-called cycling infrastructure will tend to encourage the car-loon organisations and advocates to call even louder for a ban on cyclists from the roads

Calling for more traffic policing to encourage cycling and walking will also have them calling loudly for bans as a simpler alternative. Actually, I think those calls will continue no matter what we do.

It might be politically difficult but heavy-duty changes to the motoring dominance we all suffer from in so many ways is the only cost-effective, practical and achievable way to move people en-masse from cars to bikes. (Assuming that's the objective). Car policing and reduction will also contribute significantly to perhaps the much more serious problems of pollution and CO2 generation; and several other car-caused ills.

And the roads are then for everyone.

Lovely. Motherhood and apple pie, but how?

And is any strategy that ignores road redesigns really "heavy-duty changes"? Any increase in traffic police could be reallocated to other duties overnight as soon as a car-crazed PM takes office.