Not convinced on cycle lanes

[Pete Owens]

Except that cycle facilities do not generate any extra cycle traffic, but suppress it by reinforcing the perception that cycling is dangerous (in the same way helmet promotion does)

That's easy to believe looking at facilities in the UK. I think it rings pretty hollow if you stand near a segregated facility in Amsterdam or Copenhagen.

They do plenty of good things to encourage cycling in those countries.

Things that do make cycling more pleasant and safe.

Things such as strict liability.
Things such as home zones,
Things such as lower speed limits,
Things such as motor hostile town planning,
Things such as reallocation of road space
things such as shared space
....

Things that I would like to see copied here.

Why do cyclepath advocates see the one thing that they copied from our new towns and the one measure that is widely implemented here.

In the UK places with widespread segregated cyclepath networks see lower levels of cycling than those without.
In Holland, towns without cycle facilities see just as much cycling as those with.

When cyclists in such locales start demanding en masse to be put back into the motor traffic on trunk roads and busy urban streets, I'll take notice and drop my belief in the idea that facilities have a role to play in the encouragement of cycling. (And I'll drop my opposition to helmet promotion when they start wearing helmets en masse too).

Helmet promotion and cycle lane promotion are two sides of the same coin. Both emphasise how dangerous cycling is in order to justify themselves. Both actually make cycling less safe in practice.

And there are the non-safety related benefits of taking the cyclist out of the traffic insanity and rewarding them for there better transport choice by giving them a reasonably clear run.

You can't be serious.

Yes, I am. When a cyclist in the UK encounters a long queue of traffic, they generally have 3 choices.
1. Wait in the queue.
2. Use the footpath to get to the front.
3. Filter up the inside, middle or outside.

All 3 choices aren't pleasant or easy,

Simple 3. Overtake on the right. Just like the cars do when the traffic is free flowing.

or in the case of 2, legal.

for a very good reason, but unfortunately becoming increasingly legal due the the widespread introduction of cycle paths

Cyclists on a segregated facility don't encounter queues of motor vehicles, they ride past. I loved doing that when I've visited Amsterdam.

Unfortunately the roads in the UK have these inconvient features known as junctions. Every time you stop and start adds the equivalent of 100m to your journey.

[Pete Owens]

I'm interested in CJ's comments because of his undoubted expertise and because I'd like to see safety measures based in fact rather than assumption. That said, the link that I provided is to a summary by John Franklin, who is also a considerable expert. The research that he cites is not American biased as I see it, nor is it evidently skewed by wrong way riding.

Several of those reports highlight the additional danger of two-way paths and the wrong way junction encounters they produce. For example: "At junctions cycle tracks 3.4 times more dangerous than using road, but rising to 11.9 riding in 'wrong' direction." Many of the other studies that find cycle paths more dangerous will surely also be based on figures inflated by wrong way riders.

Isn't the factor of 3 for right way riding significant enough for you?

And as for figures such as 3.4 times more dangerous even when going the "right" way: this is merely a collision counting exercise that does not take any account of different levels of injury severity or skill that may be associated with "road warriors", as opposed to "sidepath creepers".

If anything, collisions will be more severe because they tend to be further from the junction where vehicles are moving faster, and direct hits rather than glancing blows with left hook type crashes.

I think it's very likely that the sort of person who prefers to ride on roads is much better at avoiding accidents.

This is self evidently true; they are demonstrating this ability by the very fact that they are riding where they are least likely to have a collision ie on the road.

This does rather contradict your previous steriotype of "road warrior" steriotype.

Those who are so confident that they'll even ride in 70mph traffic however, seem to really cop it when they do get hit! On the other hand I daresay most of the relatively frequent collisions suffered by those too timid and wobbly to leave the supposed sanctuary of a sidepath result in nothing worse than cuts and bruises.

The vast majority of crashes occur at junctions - where the wobbly cyclist does indeed need to leave the sancturary of the side path to emerge into the path of unsuspecting drivers. Even if cyclepaths reduced the risk to zero between junctions then you would still increase the risk overall

Unless comparisons of road and sidepath cycling make at least some attempt to control for those two factors, I don't think very much can be concluded from them - apart from the importance of good design and of motivating drivers to give way to cyclists using them.

Well Franklins own study of the MK redways did exactly that.

In Britain we have bad design and un-motivated drivers. So I agree that cycling facilities are usually worse than no facility here. First we need strict liability and strong penalties for drivers who infringe the right-of-way of a vulnerable road user. Then we need enforced continental-style standards for cyclepath construction. But even without those things, you've surely got to admit that many British trunk roads have become such hostile places to ride a bicycle - virtual motorways but without a hard shoulder - that almost any kind of path would be better than nothing alongside those roads at least.

Trunk roads are irrelevant for cycling.
They are designed for high speed long distance journies and tend to bypass the places cyclists want to go.
When junctions are far apart, then a parallel facility is harmless, but for that sort of route the distance between junctions is further than most cycling trips are in total. Cycling is most useful for short trips within towns. It is here that we need to improve conditions for cycling, and here that all the facilities are being built.

Even if you were going to build cycle paths connecting towns, why on earth would you put them right next to a noisy polluted road, rather than take a direct line through open countryside.

At the other extreme, I agree that cyclepaths or neither use nor ornament where traffic speeds and densities are low, and that it's infitely better to calm traffic than to separate cyclists from it. However the Hans Moderman open-plan strategy also requires that drivers be better motivated than British drivers are, not to bully cyclists and pedestrians out of their way.

On the contrary if you create an environment where it is very difficult for drivers to notice cyclists about to cross their path (as cyclepaths do) then you really do need a very high degree of skill, observation and motivation from drivers for them to be remotely safe. All those praising dutch facilities are actually praising the high degree of skill of dutch drivers ("and they DO give way"). Just think if they applied that degree of skill and motivation with cyclists riding where they were easy to see.

The shared space design works precicely by civilizing drivers and working with the grain of human nature. We do have shared spaces - supermarket car parks, campsites, and the like and these do not feel remotely threatening. When we implement designs that give the impression of a space meant for machines rather than people (as our highway engineers do) drivers react to that environment. Those shared space schemes that have been implemented in the UK have worked very well.

[Ron]

Trunk roads are irrelevant for cycling.
They are designed for high speed long distance journies and tend to bypass the places cyclists want to go..

Trunk roads are far from irrelevant, they provide the most direct, and frequently the only viable route between communities.
You should have made clear from the beginning that you were speaking only of urban cycling and the thread could have taken a different course altogether.
It would be sensible to put the cycle path alongside the road because generally speaking the trunk road follows a direct route. If cyclists were required to take a less direct route they would be seeking alternative modes of transport.

[psmiffy]

I am ambivalent about cycle paths – where they are very good and go where I want then I use them - if they are of a poor standard then I will not use them – Personally in the UK (and in some of the cycle friendly European countries) I prefer to use the road whilst cycling in towns and cities – outside of towns I would like there to be good quality cycle paths following the main roads such as I am used to when cycling in some (but not all) European countries.

However, we lag a long way behind many European countries (a good or a bad thing?) – Segregation (and I use the word deliberately) of cycle traffic was first proposed in Holland at the first motoring congress in 1920 – Many of the cycle paths that I used along main roads in Holland and Germany in the late 60s were constructed in the 30s (not necessarily to promote cycling though)

Whatever you say or think the provision of safe cycling infrastructure for the utility cyclist is self evident in Holland and Germany.

[thirdcrank]

I think the the main thing to be aware of are that proper trunk roads (they may even now be called something else) once upon a time shown on OS maps as red labelled A660(T) and in green last time I bought an OS map, are the fiefdom of the Highways Agency - the military wing of the ministry of transport and not the local councils. In my experience, the Highways Agency is committed to doing the absolute minimum for cyclists, and when it does, to do so in the most utterly shoddy manner possible. (If anybody else knows better, I'd be pleased to find I am wrong.) The national network of A and B roads should be important to any cyclist actually intending going anywhere because they generally follow the easiest and most practical route between places, having been developed over the centuries.

Unfortunately, what has happened is that the growth in traffic over the last 40+ years has often made these unpleasant places to be. The HA in particular has "improved" roads to near motorway standard with only a token nod to cyclists - as in either ignoring their existence or providing something useless intended only to get them out of the way. At the same time, minor roads in the area of any improvement are likely to be closed off or made discontinuous as the HA strives to minimise their effect on its projects and on its budgets.

When any minster of transport talks of promoting cycling, the antics of the HA just demonstrate what complete humbugs most politicians are. IMO.

[anothereye]

In my experience, the Highways Agency is committed to doing the absolute minimum for cyclists, and when it does, to do so in the most utterly shoddy manner possible. (If anybody else knows better, I'd be pleased to find I am wrong.)

Marie Vesco was killed on the A23 South of Crawley; in some ways it is worse,for cyclists, than a motor-way as there are 3 lanes and no slip-road.
At the inquest the coroner asked (using 'Rule 43') the Highways Agency to pull their finger out and get the parallel cycle route properly sign-posted. The DoT replied that they had a timetable to get it done and they were not going to do it any quicker (I paraphrase).

[TheJollyJimLad]

Trunk roads are irrelevant for cycling.
They are designed for high speed long distance journies and tend to bypass the places cyclists want to go..

Trunk roads are far from irrelevant, they provide the most direct, and frequently the only viable route between communities.
You should have made clear from the beginning that you were speaking only of urban cycling and the thread could have taken a different course altogether.
It would be sensible to put the cycle path alongside the road because generally speaking the trunk road follows a direct route. If cyclists were required to take a less direct route they would be seeking alternative modes of transport.

I think the point is that a lot of modern trunk roads have evolved and expanded to the point where they just become a sequence of bypasses which isn't the most pleasant cycling atmosphere. They don't really link anything without the help of further large scale infrastructure, hence Pete's point (I believe) that cyclists would prefer a direct route but with stops for rest, refuelling or points of interest (probably where the original trunk road would have run).

Where trunk roads are of benefit is where they cut their way through hills. A cyclist wishing to travel north from where i live in Worthing for example only has the A24 as an option which is now a very fast dual carriageway with no cycling provision (which is a pity as it would link the Monarchs Way and the South Downs Way).

So yes, it would be good to see a segregated path along stretches of dual carriageway that have become motorways in all but name but as part of a more joined up signed network linking with secondary roads that's still direct but with more chance for stops, enjoy the scenery and have a less hostile environment.

And whilst I'm wishing, a million pounds in used notes would also come in handy.

[tali42]

Why do cyclepath advocates see the one thing that they copied from our new towns and the one measure that is widely implemented here.

I am not blind to other initiatives in NL to promote cycling. Strict liability, home zones, motor hostile town centres are all good ideas, that could be adopted in the UK at far less cost than high quality facilities. Exactly how that improves my cycle journey from the home zone to the motor hostile town centre isn't clear. As for shared space and strict liability, I'm sceptical that they change the world view from behind the steering wheel that much. I've visited NL, and I've seen drivers pull the same sort of stunts common in the UK.

None of those things are particularly applicable to roads with high traffic volumes and speeds.

Why do advocates for integration of cycling with traffic focus on the one issue of safety at junctions while ignoring the issue of subjective safety and convinience. We have a few studies point out the issue of junctions and suddenly segregated facilities of any standard are an abomination. To me it is no more than a reason to be make sure that junctions with segregated are design to minimize this elevated risk. The junction issue is the only issue with segregation worth considering, because the rest of the objections fall into the "It is too difficult/expensive" or "Take back the streets/Critical Mass" class.

In Holland, towns without cycle facilities see just as much cycling as those with.

That last statement could do with some supporting evidence. Unless we're talking small villages, I'm not sure which towns this could apply to since all the towns I've seen in NL had facilities or traffic calming to a very high degree.

[Pete Owens]

Why do cyclepath advocates see the one thing that they copied from our new towns and the one measure that is widely implemented here.

I am not blind to other initiatives in NL to promote cycling. Strict liability, home zones, motor hostile town centres are all good ideas,

And these things explain why vulnerable road users including pedestrians are much better off than the UK.
So comparing NL to UK tells you absolutely nothing about the merits of facilities, especially as the one thing highway engineers have in common is their enthusiasm to force us off the roads.

You have to compare like with like.
ie compare a town in the UK without cycle paths to one with and extensive network - and you will see how the cycle paths discourage cycling. Compare a town in Holland built around segregation to one with where cyclists are allowed to ride on the roads and you can see how cycling is safer in the latter.

There are many examples of new towns it the UK that have been planned around comprehensive segregated cycle path networks. While these claim to be following the Dutch model, they forget the important bit - the slower speeds, the auto-hostile planning, etc all those things that help pedestrians.

For an example of how to attract cyclists without facilities thake a look at:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... Hilden.pdf
Warrington's twin town in Germany achieved a 25% modal share for cycling while spending a fraction of the amount Warrington does on cycle facilities by reducing speeds and introducing home zones. ie they took on board the important lessons from the Dutch while ignoring the bits they got wrong.

that could be adopted in the UK at far less cost than high quality facilities. Exactly how that improves my cycle journey from the home zone to the motor hostile town centre isn't clear. As for shared space and strict liability, I'm sceptical that they change the world view from behind the steering wheel that much. I've visited NL, and I've seen drivers pull the same sort of stunts common in the UK.

Strange, all the othe cycle path advocates point out how good the dutch drivers are at giving way to cyclists - indeed cycle paths could not work remotely safely without an enormous degree of care on the part of drivers.

None of those things are particularly applicable to roads with high traffic volumes and speeds.

if you are concerned with speed then the solution is to make the road safer by reducing the speed limit - not to make it more dangerous by installing pavement paths.

Why do advocates for integration of cycling with traffic focus on the one issue of safety

Mainly because we value our lives and that of our children, (Do you not think that safety is important?)
but also because most advocates of segregation will claim that the reason for their advocacy is their mistaken belief that cycle paths are safer than roads.

while ignoring the issue of subjective safety

When subjective safety is different from objective safety that is a serious problem as it results in ignorant people doing dangerous things such as riding on the pavement. It is important to tackle this by education (thus bringing the subjective into line with the objective) - rather than reinforcing their mistaken beliefs thus encouraging the dangerous behaviour.

and convinience.

OK lets talk about convenience.

I don't think the CYCLIST DISMOUNT sign is there for my convenience. Do you?
I don't think bumping up and down kerbs is convenient. Do you?
I don't think broken glass makes for a good riding surface. Do you?
I don't think that constanly stoping and starting at every drive and side road is convenient. Do you?
I don't think weaving around random street furniture is convenient. do you?
I don't think barriers across the cycle path are convenient. Do you?
I don't think block paving is superior to tarmac. Do you?
I don't think providing wheel grabbing ruts is helpful. Do you?
I don't find sharp right-angle bands convenient. Do you?
I don't find flights of steps convenient. Do you?
I don't find riding through bus shelters convenient. Do you?

For over 100 example of convenience see:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... -the-month

Now I know, at this point you will say that Dutch facilities are not as bad as that. This is no doubt true, but entirely irrelevant. If you ask your local highway engineer nicely, he will be only too pleased to design more rubbish.
If you campaign for segregation in the UK then you are campaigning for c**P - please stop.

And while there are still cyclists campaigning in favour of segregation those of us trying to persuade them to make conditions better rather than worse will continue to be marginalised and expected to be grateful for our Bantustans.

We have a few studies point out the issue of junctions and suddenly segregated facilities of any standard are an abomination.

All the research into segregation shows that road-side cycle paths of whatever quality are inherently less safe than the road. Unless of course you happen to be aware of evidence to the contrary.

To me it is no more than a reason to be make sure that junctions with segregated are design to minimize this elevated risk.

It can't be done (and not for lack of trying) it is a matter of basic geometry. If you arrange for conflicting streams of traffic to arrive at what is an inevitably more complex junction arrangement then you are asking for trouble.

The junction issue is the only issue with segregation worth considering, because the rest of the objections fall into the "It is too difficult/expensive" or "Take back the streets/Critical Mass" class.

Segregation makes cycling less safe, harder work, slower, less direct, inconvenient, and requires greater skill - and that is before you consider the extra hazards imposed by poor quality design.

In Holland, towns without cycle facilities see just as much cycling as those with.

That last statement could do with some supporting evidence. Unless we're talking small villages, I'm not sure which towns this could apply to since all the towns I've seen in NL had facilities or traffic calming to a very high degree.

As you point out - it slowing the motor vehicles that is the key NOT segregation.

[Pete Owens]

Trunk roads are irrelevant for cycling.
They are designed for high speed long distance journies and tend to bypass the places cyclists want to go..

Trunk roads are far from irrelevant, they provide the most direct, and frequently the only viable route between communities.

Only on the scale of tens of miles - well beyond the scope of the vast majority of cycling journies.
Trunk roads are designed to be fast rather than direct.

At a local scale they have tended (at least the stealth motorways) to be built as a sequence of bypasses, taking long sweeping detours to avoid the places that cyclists want to go. The distance from the town centre to the by-pass is further than the entire length of the vast majority of cycling trips.

You should have made clear from the beginning that you were speaking only of urban cycling and the thread could have taken a different course altogether.

In terms of utility trips cycling is overwhelmingly an urban activity.
The number of people commuting the sort of distances trunk roads are designed to serve is miniscule - even in Holland.

If we are talking leisure cycling then it is the quality, rather than the directness of a route that is important. Why on earth would you choose to ride on a cycle path right next to a noisy road when you could choose a quiet country lane.

It would be sensible to put the cycle path alongside the road because generally speaking the trunk road follows a direct route. If cyclists were required to take a less direct route they would be seeking alternative modes of transport.

If you are going to build a direct inter-urban cycle path, wouldn't it be better to provide a route between two places that are not already served by a direct road link - thus providing cyclists with extra choices of destination.

However, although putting cycle paths that will be virtually unused alongside trunk roads is a waste of resourses. It does have the merit of being harmlesss - unlike most of the engineering that is supposedly intended to encourage us.

[glueman]

Most of us want to see many more people cycling as a means of transport, an increase by a factor of 10 would do for starters and we'd still be massively outnumbered by cars.

How we achieve that is a matter of opinion. Equating specialist provision with a cavalier approach to safety is silly and misleading. This is not an invitation for a wall of 'facts', just an opinion.

[byegad]

I agree the execution of cycling provisions are almost universally bad. The A689 between Sedgefield and the A19 was improved for cars to near motorway standards and a cycle track/footpath was added alongside. The surface is a loose gravel rolled 'flat' and is so bad I lost my grip on my handlebars on ripples so big they were like a newly ploughed field at less than 10mph. Add to that the fact that even on the smoother parts it's like pedalling through treacle and it is useless for cycling purposes.

I fear that campaigning for more segregated routes is going to see a lot more money wasted on similar so called facilities and end with compulsory use.

Campaigning for segregated routes is a dangerous direction for cycling organisations to take even if the intention is honourable and I sincerely wish that we were not having this sort of discussion with government.

[CJ]

Why on earth would you choose to ride on a cycle path right next to a noisy road when you could choose a quiet country lane.

Because the main road is in the valley, whereas the quiet country lane goes over the top of the hill! Apart from urban bypasses it's invariably the quieter road route that goes "around the houses" and "over hill and dale".

I have no time for a cycle campaign philosophy that considers only built-up areas. Admittedly those areas have the potential for greater numerical growth, but unless you've got a plan for how to connect those areas with their hinterland, and ultimately with one another, you literally do not have a joined-up philosophy.

We should not forget that Britons on average live further from their work than any other nation in Europe. This is no surprise when you consider how long we've been promoting the benefits to individuals of home ownership and to business of a flexible workforce. Thus people become fixed in one place, whilst their place work is anything but. And the place that most people would choose to be fixed in tends not to be the urban centre. What is the point after all, in putting down roots near work, if that work is liable to flit without so much as a by your leave?

Whilst the above factors remain operational in British society, a policy that isn't "access all areas" will not serve a majority of the people who may be interested in taking up cycling.

[reohn2]

I agree the execution of cycling provisions are almost universally bad. The A689 between Sedgefield and the A19 was improved for cars to near motorway standards and a cycle track/footpath was added alongside. The surface is a loose gravel rolled 'flat' and is so bad I lost my grip on my handlebars on ripples so big they were like a newly ploughed field at less than 10mph. Add to that the fact that even on the smoother parts it's like pedalling through treacle and it is useless for cycling purposes.

I fear that campaigning for more segregated routes is going to see a lot more money wasted on similar so called facilities and end with compulsory use.

Campaigning for segregated routes is a dangerous direction for cycling organisations to take even if the intention is honourable and I sincerely wish that we were not having this sort of discussion with government.

This is a very good point,if we're not careful we may get what we ask for!

[glueman]

I agree the execution of cycling provisions are almost universally bad. The A689 between Sedgefield and the A19 was improved for cars to near motorway standards and a cycle track/footpath was added alongside. The surface is a loose gravel rolled 'flat' and is so bad I lost my grip on my handlebars on ripples so big they were like a newly ploughed field at less than 10mph. Add to that the fact that even on the smoother parts it's like pedalling through treacle and it is useless for cycling purposes.

I fear that campaigning for more segregated routes is going to see a lot more money wasted on similar so called facilities and end with compulsory use.

Campaigning for segregated routes is a dangerous direction for cycling organisations to take even if the intention is honourable and I sincerely wish that we were not having this sort of discussion with government.

This is a very good point,if we're not careful we may get what we ask for!

That may be true if we think cycling figures are pretty much maxed out at current levels. I don't think we've even begun to scratch the surface of potential growth numbers but if they arrive it'll be through a raft of measures including lower speeds and higher penalties for transgressive drivers but they'll never come via the current campaigning fashion of 'you''ll be fine on the road'.

People are too intelligent to believe that. I've ridden a bike on the road for over 40 years but I never believe 'I'll be fine' and quite often wonder how I got home in one piece. That reality is unacceptable for many - do we say 'best get back in your car then'?