Cycling UK campaign - Ask your council for cycle space during lockdown

[jgurney]

. And then of course I realised that if I'm going at 15mph along the bollards bit and the cyclist in front is only doing 12 I've got no way of overtaking.

That reads exactly like the many motorists who moan about being delayed by a cyclist. What's the harm in riding at 12 mph till an overtaking opportunity arises?

The point is that something called a cycle facility should not have the effect of causing cyclists to have to travel at a lower speed than they could before the so-called facility existed. That is hardly facilitating.

[jgurney]

you certainly shouldn't be attempting to ride though a bus stop at 12mph let alone blasting through at 15 even if it has been designated as a cycleway)

Of course not, which is why something which passes through a bus stop should not be being called a cycleway. Cyclists should not be being put the position of having to choose between using a so-called cycle route which involves riding through a bus stop or braving the wrath of drivers making close passes and yelling 'get in the bike lane' because they can see some fool has put a cycle route there.

[ChrisButch]

The (IMHO) fact remains cycle space during lockdown is an irrelevance here.

We disagree with you, the we being just about everyone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52524807

There's nothing in that article which states, or even implies, that the anticipated growth in cycling will take place only on segregated facilities. Its main theme, in any case, is the post-lockdown future, not the present context in full lockdown

[PH]

. And then of course I realised that if I'm going at 15mph along the bollards bit and the cyclist in front is only doing 12 I've got no way of overtaking.

That reads exactly like the many motorists who moan about being delayed by a cyclist. What's the harm in riding at 12 mph till an overtaking opportunity arises?

The point is that something called a cycle facility should not have the effect of causing cyclists to have to travel at a lower speed than they could before the so-called facility existed. That is hardly facilitating.

I thought the above reply already addressed the impossibility of facilitating every road user. If you get more people on bikes then there will be some bike congestion, whether they ride. My starting point is that an increase in cycling is a good thing and should be accommodated. If we start with the idea that it's only a good thing as long as it doesn't cause anyone any inconvenience, it won't happen.

[PH]

The (IMHO) fact remains cycle space during lockdown is an irrelevance here.

We disagree with you, the we being just about everyone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52524807

There's nothing in that article which states, or even implies, that the anticipated growth in cycling will take place only on segregated facilities. Its main theme, in any case, is the post-lockdown future, not the present context in full lockdown

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand your point. Nowhere at anytime has anyone slightly suggested that cycling would only take place on segregated facilities, I have no idea how anyone could have come up with such a notion.
Then the focus is on putting in measures to deal with the increase in cycling whilst still considering social distancing. Before or after the current restrictions change is a small point, there never has been anything like a complete lockdown, like many others I'm still cycling to work every day.

[jgurney]

If you get more people on bikes then there will be some bike congestion, whether they ride.

I'm not convinced of that. If you get more people out of cars and on bikes instead there should be less congestion - bikes require a lot less space than cars.

My starting point is that an increase in cycling is a good thing and should be accommodated.

Yes, definitely, but building something that leaves cyclists having to travel slower than they could before is not accomodating cycling.

[PH]

Yes, definitely, but building something that leaves cyclists having to travel slower than they could before is not accomodating cycling.

I don't think we'll reach agreement on this, just so there's no misunderstanding I'll make this my last reply - You can't ride through the center of Amsterdam, or Copenhagen, or probably any of the other cities where cycling is popular at 15 mph. I've only once ventured on to the London Super Highway, I doubt many can average a fast speed on those either. That's the trade off, everyone will decide for themselves if they consider it a price worth paying, I've made my thoughts clear. Of course if or when cycling becomes more popular we should be demanding more space and more restrictions on motorised transport, but it's one step at a time.

[ChrisButch]

We disagree with you, the we being just about everyone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52524807

There's nothing in that article which states, or even implies, that the anticipated growth in cycling will take place only on segregated facilities. Its main theme, in any case, is the post-lockdown future, not the present context in full lockdown

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand your point. Nowhere at anytime has anyone slightly suggested that cycling would only take place on segregated facilities, I have no idea how anyone could have come up with such a notion.
Then the focus is on putting in measures to deal with the increase in cycling whilst still considering social distancing. Before or after the current restrictions change is a small point, there never has been anything like a complete lockdown, like many others I'm still cycling to work every day.

My point is that, contrary to your assertion, none of the sources quoted in the article says anything incompatible with pedals2slowly's position.

[PH]

My point is that, contrary to your assertion, none of the sources quoted in the article says anything incompatible with pedals2slowly's position.

Well, I'd have assumed they could make their own point without you trying to argue it for them.
As for the article not being incompatible, I find that idea as extraordinary as your first post, it's baffling how anyone could find these two statements compatible.
pedals2slowly

Nope, still not of interest here, we don't need more space, there's plenty.

from the link

It has led communities, UK transport groups and public health experts to call for radical changes - some already happening globally - such as wider pavements, traffic restrictions and cycle networks.

[Oldjohnw]

£2bn for cycling and walking.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2-bi ... =immediate

[pedals2slowly]

We disagree with you, the we being just about everyone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52524807

How can you disagree with me when you don't know the council I am talking about?

As I say, big cities maybe, rural councils nope.

[Oldjohnw]

Reallocating road space;

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... o-covid-19

[pedals2slowly]

Do you not think that segregation is appropriate on main roads?

That depends on the main road.
Locally we have a main road, superseded by the motorway, traffic is light and the carriageway is very wide, so no segregated lanes not required.
The request is specifically 'during lockdown', traffic is even lighter and so all main roads are not busy, so no cycle space needed.

I've seen plenty of family groups with young children enjoying riding along the main roads for once and obvious newby cyclists looking wobbly but on the 'busiest' roads in town.

Cyclists risk making themselves look like fools and will lose credibility for asking for something unnecessary when there are far more important things to be concentrating on.

The situation is different once we get 'back to normal' and in this area, still very different to the big cities where cycle congestion is reality, I wish it were a problem here but that is some way in the future and needs major infrastructure change to encourage cycling, not just a few extra painted lines on the road

[pedals2slowly]

There will never be separate cycle facilities down narrow streets of terraced houses,

No, but they can be 20mph access-only no-through-motors.

along narrow roads with shops all along them, so cyclists need to have confidence to ride assertively and feel safe everywhere and not be restricted to the minority of roads with cycle facilities.

Do you really believe it's mainly the fault of new cyclists not being assertive?

New towns, new estates, new retail parks and big cities fair enough but one size does not fit all.

Doing those to consistent decent standards would be a good start.

Stick to the discussion, we are debating cycle space during lockdown. Yes 20 mph and no through roads are fine but doesn't give cyclists more road space.

You introduced the word 'mainly' in relation to assertiveness - please don't create your own argument (again)

[PH]

We disagree with you, the we being just about everyone.

How can you disagree with me when you don't know the council I am talking about?

I've based it on what do know, what you've told us:

I've been a campaigner here for 30+ years ....It does matter what I think because I have influence

And yet

I can't believe the number of adults still riding on pavements when the road is literally empty.

When you've worked out why those people are still riding on pavements, you might find your campaigning more effective and you could use your influence for good.
EDIT - You're still at it

so no cycle space needed.

So why do you think they're still riding on the pavement