Cycling UK Forum

I don't speak on behalf of CTC, but I'd say the real issue in the UK isn't segregation versus non-segregation, but who is put first: motorists or non-motorists.

The UK "solution" is to put the motorist first. The purpose of segregation is to keep bikes out of their way, usually at a safety and convenience cost to the cyclist.

The best Dutch practise puts cyclists (and pedestrians) first. They put in a cycle route from point A to point B. If motorists also want to get from A to B, their needs are put second. If anyone has a convenience cost, it is the motorist.

nigel_s wrote:The vast majority of the British public have rejected cycling as transport because they don't want to mix with motor traffic on a bike.

Actually for the majority its because getting in their car is so much easier. Convenience, physical effort required, wadeva.
In very congested towns, short journeys become very popular by bike; that's because it becomes more convenient than driving. [it's faster and doesn't take too much effort]


Of the ones that genuinely fear motor traffic, their fear is out of proportion to the real dangers. The way their friends/family drive probably increases this fear!The more cyclists they know, their fear reduces.

Pete Owens wrote:

Richard Mann wrote:Hi Pete - have you worked out how fast the traffic is going at the two sites on the A49 yet? We could do with a bit more evidence, and a bit less abuse.

Straight answers 0 - Obfuscation 15

This is a study of the effects of cycle lanes on cyclists road space - and if you genuinely have difficulty comprehending the fact that cyclists prefer overtaking trucks to leave more space then there is a clue in the paragraph above. Though your repeated refusal to give a straight answer suggests that you do understand this - despite your continued advocacy of even narrower lanes.

Other studies do show the effect of cycle lanes (as with all lane markings) is to increase motor vehicle speeds - again a feature most cyclists would agree was undesirable.

In short, if you prefer drivers to overtake too close too fast and with less care then cycle lanes are for you.

I agree that cycle lanes aren't appropriate on roads where typical speeds are greater than 30mph. Have you worked out how fast the traffic is going at the two sites on the A49 yet?

I for one would love the Netherlands' model of segregation. Motor traffic giving way where cycle paths cross roads is a feature that makes their system work.

On the other hand our 'system' continues to place riders in dangerous positions without right of way.

So I'm totally against segregation in the UK and the CTC is right to so represent my opposition.

byegad wrote:I for one would love the Netherlands' model of segregation. Motor traffic giving way where cycle paths cross roads is a feature that makes their system work.

On the other hand our 'system' continues to place riders in dangerous positions without right of way.

So I'm totally against segregation in the UK and the CTC is right to so represent my opposition.

Yep, me too - but you forgot an other important feature - strict(er) liability in the case of collision.

byegad wrote:I for one would love the Netherlands' model of segregation. Motor traffic giving way where cycle paths cross roads is a feature that makes their system work.

On the other hand our 'system' continues to place riders in dangerous positions without right of way.

So I'm totally against segregation in the UK and the CTC is right to so represent my opposition.

The CTC (and LCC) seem mute on the issue of Right of Way - should they not be campaigning DfT to change the rules on right of way to facilitate segregated lanes as in Holland. A few photos and description of the difference are on my blog here:
http://kenningtonpob.blogspot.com/2010/10/segregation-and-integration.html

Richard Mann wrote:

Richard Mann wrote:Hi Pete - have you worked out how fast the traffic is going at the two sites on the A49 yet? We could do with a bit more evidence, and a bit less abuse.

Have you worked out how fast the traffic is going at the two sites on the A49 yet?

The two sites on the A49 in Pete's study would appear to be in (1) a 30mph zone and (2) a 40mph zone. Pete's claim that the only difference between the two sites is the presence/absence of cycle lanes would not appear to be correct.

Pete also seems to have forgotten that the speeding-up effect of a cycle lane in TRL549 only amounted to 2% (and was in a distinctly artificial scenario with no oncoming/conflicting traffic).

Out here in the real world, cycle lanes (none of which are remotely 2m wide) have proved effective at increasing cycling, and helping to slow traffic on congested 30mph-limit roads.

As for the original topic - cycle tracks are fine as secondary facilities for slow/cautious cyclists. Fast cyclists should be on the road at priority junctions.

Speshact wrote:should they not be campaigning DfT to change the rules on right of way to facilitate segregated lanes as in Holland.

No change of law required (this is in the UK, not Holland):

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie= ... 53.36,,0,5

You can do it if you want (and if you've got room)

byegad wrote:I for one would love the Netherlands' model of segregation. Motor traffic giving way where cycle paths cross roads is a feature that makes their system work.

What makes their system work is that unlike the UK where segregation is the only thing they are prepared to consider, the Dutch do implement the hierarchy of provision - as advocated by the CTC.

Unlike the UK:-
They DO act to reduce the volume of traffic.
They DO act to reduce speeds.
The DO design their roads and junctions to prioritise the needs of pedestrians and cyclists.
The DO implement stricter liability.
The DO re-allocate road space.
They DO implement integrated solutions such as home-zones, cycle priority streets and shared space.
The DO design their towns on a compact model to reduce the distances people need to travel.
All these things combined make their roads very safe places for pedestrians and cyclists so that the inherently unsafe cycle paths are workable.

If you implement segregation without acting to make the roads safe then you end up with Milton Keynes.

On the other hand our 'system' continues to place riders in dangerous positions without right of way.

The right of way makes no difference whatsoever to safety - though is critical for cycle paths to be useable.
Indeed the very reason that the UK implements cyclist dismount signs at cycle-path junctions is that they are aware of how dangerous the arrangement is.
I know of a number of cases where designers have wanted to implement cycle priority, but this has been reversed by the safety auditors.

Speshact wrote:

byegad wrote:I for one would love the Netherlands' model of segregation. Motor traffic giving way where cycle paths cross roads is a feature that makes their system work.

On the other hand our 'system' continues to place riders in dangerous positions without right of way.

So I'm totally against segregation in the UK and the CTC is right to so represent my opposition.

The CTC (and LCC) seem mute on the issue of Right of Way - should they not be campaigning DfT to change the rules on right of way to facilitate segregated lanes as in Holland. A few photos and description of the difference are on my blog here:
http://kenningtonpob.blogspot.com/2010/10/segregation-and-integration.html

If you look at the Dutch roundabout you can see that the key difference is the basic geometry.

UK roundabouts are set out to maximise motor vehicle throughput and speed.
Exit and entry roads are be wide and flared - usually to two lanes.
They join the roundabout at a tangent, so that drivers can enter and leave without slowing down - or signalling.
The circulatory carriageway is wide and the diameter larger so they can drive round at speed.
This is why roundabouts in the UK are nasty for pedestrians and cyclists - whether on or off the carriageway.

In the NL and much of the continent, roundabouts are designed to reduce speed.
See this traffic advisory leaflet on compact geometry:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... ontine4078
This is characterised by:
Arms that are perpendicular, rather than tangential to the roundabout,
Single lane entries and exits, with minimal flare
Narrow circulatory carriageway and a tight geometry.
All these features make for a much calmer and cycle friendly junction - which is even preferable to traffic lights - particularly if you want to turn right.

Without these features any cycle paths crossing the arms of the roundabout are lethal, and even dutch cycle paths often yield priority at roundabouts.

In a velomobile, but it gives you the idea of how it could be. 2m22s had me clutching the brake levers though

Richard Mann wrote:

Speshact wrote:should they not be campaigning DfT to change the rules on right of way to facilitate segregated lanes as in Holland.

No change of law required (this is in the UK, not Holland):

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie= ... 53.36,,0,5

You can do it if you want (and if you've got room)

In the Netherlands, as I understand it, motorists would have to wait for pedestrians about to cross the road. Here the motorists have right of way turning into the road unless the pedestrian is already on the road. Likewise when traffic lights are green on the main road, pedestrians going straight ahead also have the green 'man' and cars turning must give way. All these measures reinforce the fact that traffic turning off must give way to people continuing in the parallel lanes (be they footpath or cycle path).

CSH 3 resulted in the kind of markings shown in your example that used to exist being removed when the Cycling Superhighway was painted over the previously-existing segregated cycle path http://kenningtonpob.blogspot.com/2010/07/poppies-cafe-car-park-has-priority.html . Note the Mayor's reply in the comment a reader has added.

I agree with all Pete's comments re geometry etc.

squeaker wrote:In a velomobile, but it gives you the idea of how it could be. 2m22s had me clutching the brake levers though

He's a pretty poor cyclist - overtaking on the nearside at a junction with traffic moving on his offside.

Speshact wrote:Here the motorists have right of way turning into the road unless the pedestrian is already on the road.

Are you absolutely sure? I thought it was undefined (neither party has priority). Plus I thought advice to faster road users is to accept responsibility and defer to pedestrians in such situations; whether they do so is of course another matter.

Geometry/visibility/vertical deflection certainly helps though.

George Riches wrote:He's a pretty poor cyclist - overtaking on the nearside at a junction with traffic moving on his offside.

I thought he was OK there, isn't the right turning motor vehicle required to give way?