A good reason to bar cyclists

[squeaker]

So what does the highway authority do?

Not allowing the foliage to grow up to (and over) the carriageway edge would be a start, as it would dramatically improve sightlines when driving NW

[thirdcrank]

peetee

Just in case you are missing the drift, it's the kind of thinking that you apply to this that has got us to where we are now.

[tykeboy2003]

Should this road junction become cyclist free?

No, it should be made safe for all road users.

[peetee]

Just in case you are missing the drift, it's the kind of thinking that you apply to this that has got us to where we are now.

Please read again my first post:

Should this road junction become cyclist free?

I was inviting comment and an understanding of the difficulty of a solution in the case of this junction.

I think it is admirable that so many take the stance of defending our right to use the highway, however I would surmise that the majority of cyclists would rather chose a safe route than demonstrate that right and that is apparent in the infrequency of riders using this junction and the road it leads to. I believe it is because that road is so potentially hazardous and unpopular and an alternative cycle route is provided that the junction has been designed with no provision.
What I find unacceptable is that some years after the fatal incident there are no cautionary signs in place and the signage to direct cyclists to the purpose installed segregated route is very poor on the approach to this junction.

[Lance Dopestrong]

If the highways folk had done their job properly then the majority of cyclists would be using not instead.

As it stands in your contention less cyclists would use it, giving the council incentive to not design the next junction to accommodate cyclists on the basis that they didn't use the last one. The more often it happens, the more acceptable it becomes, and suddenly we're on the bus or in the car.

This isn't hysteria, it's human nature. If we acquiesce this time they will expect us to next time, further disincentivising them from considering cyclists in the design.

And then there's the financial question. I pay higher rate income tax, and as I'm paying for it I'll blooming well ride on it. If they wish to refund me and my fellow tax paying cyclists commensurately, then so be it. Until they do they should be building roads suitable for all legal classes of user, and when they do not we should be holding them to account

[Vorpal]

I don't know the area, but the roads in question appear to be 30 mph and 40 mph speed limits. I can see that the road environment is likely to be hostile, large A roads often are. However, I've ridden in environments that I believe are somewhat worse, and I don't see any reason to ban cyclists there.

That said, I see plenty of opportunity to improve the design. In addition, there is plenty of space for fully segregated facilities. There's no excuse not to provide for cyclists.

[Lance Dopestrong]

The environment is benign. It cares not one way of the other.

Its the motorised users of the road that can behave in a hostile manner, and its their behaviour that needs addressing.

[pwa]

The environment is benign. It cares not one way of the other.

Its the motorised users of the road that can behave in a hostile manner, and its their behaviour that needs addressing.

It is a small point and does not take away from the force of what you are saying, but when I cycle everything beyond me and my bike is "environment". That includes the road surface, the weather and yes, other road users.

[thirdcrank]

peetee

There's an underlying problem here about the way things are done in this country and in particular how it affects cyclists. There's a failure to appreciate the difference between policy and what I'll term technology. In the sphere of public provision such as roads, the theory is that politicians decide policy and the technical experts deal with the implementation. Obviously, the policy can only be decided with advice about feasibility etc from those experts. The reality tends to be quite different. Politicians decide in a general wishy-washy sort of way that they want to encourage cycling, then the highwaymen explain how things like maximising capacity for motor traffic make decent cycling provision impractical whenever an individual road scheme is being considered. Both sides are effectively hiding behind the other.

An example of what I am talking about occurred with Cycle Audit and Review, which would have helped prevent the general drift towards the roads being increasingly hostile towards cycling. The highwaymen effectively killed it off, announcing it would only be applied to specific cycling schemes, when the original idea was the exact opposite. We are left with cycling provision often being treated as an unimportant extra, to be settled after the general design is finalised and delegated to the least experienced staff on the basis that any fool can design a cycling scheme. They advertise their incompetence with CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs, then when cyclists ignore the rubbish they have concocted, it's a case of money being spent and cyclists being ungrateful.

[mjr]

Closing a bit of road to cyclists should only happen in very extreme circumstances. But in those circumstances it should happen. And to preserve life, it should happen straight away, as a first measure, even before an alternative is thought about. It is regrettable that bad planning gets us to that point, but in that situation the priority has to be saving life. Providing alternatives, though essential, takes time. We cannot have people in unacceptably high danger during that time.

The thing is, exactly the same argument should be applied to closing that road to all motorised users, in order to preserve the safety and conserve the energy of the most vulnerable users, until it can be rebuilt to minimise the dangers.

It never is, though, so it shouldn't be applied to closing a vital network road to non-motorised users.

[Vorpal]

The environment is benign. It cares not one way of the other.

Its the motorised users of the road that can behave in a hostile manner, and its their behaviour that needs addressing.

If the environment is full of soot chugging motor vehicles with frustrated drivers, that's hardly benign

[pwa]

Closing a bit of road to cyclists should only happen in very extreme circumstances. But in those circumstances it should happen. And to preserve life, it should happen straight away, as a first measure, even before an alternative is thought about. It is regrettable that bad planning gets us to that point, but in that situation the priority has to be saving life. Providing alternatives, though essential, takes time. We cannot have people in unacceptably high danger during that time.

The thing is, exactly the same argument should be applied to closing that road to all motorised users, in order to preserve the safety and conserve the energy of the most vulnerable users, until it can be rebuilt to minimise the dangers.

It never is, though, so it shouldn't be applied to closing a vital network road to non-motorised users.

I practice I don't think the very small number of quasi-motorways I would consider ready for a cycling ban could be considered part of a vital cycling network. They are not used by cyclists anyway. For those roads a parallel network of cycle tracks must be the answer.

[Ruadh495]

That's the case with the original example. There is an alternative, it's slightly cumbersome and could be improved, but it's there and most cyclists are using it. Better signage would certainly help.

Ideally all roads would be safe for cycling, then there would be no need to build "cycle infrastructure". Making roads safe for cycling means removing the large number of high speed motor vehicles. That's not going to happen (at least in the short / medium term) so the best we can do is segregated infrastructure. If losing the official use of some bits of carriageway (which unofficially we can't use anyway due to said motor vehicles) is the price of good infrastructure, it might be a worthwhile compromise. Any bans must be conditional on adequate alternatives though.

"Adequate" to my mind, means both sides of the road (so no constant crossing and no contraflowing). It means at least 1.5M wide (and that's each side, not total), with separate provision for pedestrians. It means continuous, so priority over minor side roads and underpasses / bridges for major ones. It means a good surface which is maintained (ie swept, vegetation cut back, holes filled) at least as regularly as the carriageway. It means direct, the availability of a wiggly route through urban side streets can not be used to justify a cycling ban on a major arterial road.

If (and it's a big "if") cycling infrastructure were constructed to that standard, I could support mandatory use. Where such infrastructure does not exist, cycling on the carriageway should be supported by motor speed limits not exceeding 30mph.

[pwa]

That's the case with the original example. There is an alternative, it's slightly cumbersome and could be improved, but it's there and most cyclists are using it. Better signage would certainly help.

Ideally all roads would be safe for cycling, then there would be no need to build "cycle infrastructure". Making roads safe for cycling means removing the large number of high speed motor vehicles. That's not going to happen (at least in the short / medium term) so the best we can do is segregated infrastructure. If losing the official use of some bits of carriageway (which unofficially we can't use anyway due to said motor vehicles) is the price of good infrastructure, it might be a worthwhile compromise. Any bans must be conditional on adequate alternatives though.

"Adequate" to my mind, means both sides of the road (so no constant crossing and no contraflowing). It means at least 1.5M wide (and that's each side, not total), with separate provision for pedestrians. It means continuous, so priority over minor side roads and underpasses / bridges for major ones. It means a good surface which is maintained (ie swept, vegetation cut back, holes filled) at least as regularly as the carriageway. It means direct, the availability of a wiggly route through urban side streets can not be used to justify a cycling ban on a major arterial road.

If (and it's a big "if") cycling infrastructure were constructed to that standard, I could support mandatory use. Where such infrastructure does not exist, cycling on the carriageway should be supported by motor speed limits not exceeding 30mph.

I see thing much as you do, though I do think roads that have become like motorways will stay that way and we are better off with good quality parallel routes. Like yourself I hate wiggly routes that repeatedly require that you behave like a pedestrian and have to keep stopping while all the motorised traffic flows freely.

[Vorpal]

I practice I don't think the very small number of quasi-motorways I would consider ready for a cycling ban could be considered part of a vital cycling network. They are not used by cyclists anyway. For those roads a parallel network of cycle tracks must be the answer.

The problem is that these 'quasi-motorways' are really just motorways on the cheap. You see, to meet motorway design standards is much more expensive than to meet dual carraigeway design standards. In addition, in order to make something a motorway, and actually ban cyclists, they must provide reasonable alternatives. Highways authorities' ideas of reasonable, and mine won't always agree, but at least there is a requirement.

On the other hand, these motorways on the cheap are still technically and legally cycling routes, so not only do they save money on infrastructure, but they don't even have to do anything for cyclists! I'm sure that there are some who see that as a win all around.