Cyclists shouldn't be on the road!

[Tangled Metal]

Are we the risk or cars?

Serious question because cars are generally travelling at similar speeds but we are the ones out of step. Could that mean we're the risk to be removed? If that's the case then the hierarchy you talked about would be to remove cyclists from the same carriageway as cars.

[Cunobelin]

Are we the risk or cars?

Serious question because cars are generally travelling at similar speeds but we are the ones out of step. Could that mean we're the risk to be removed? If that's the case then the hierarchy you talked about would be to remove cyclists from the same carriageway as cars.

Except the hierarchy is about the hazard not the employee

This suggestion is the opposite. what is suggested is that there is a risk from manual handling, so sack the employee!

But lets follow this further... so now we remove:

Commercial vehicles, caravans, smaller cars, mopeds, delivery vehicles, electric cars

All the above have speed restrictions and therefore will not be travelling at similar speeds


One could also argue that there is a similar speed difference between young and elderly pedestrians - ban old people from pavements?

There is a speed difference between cyclists and pedestrians - ban pedestrians

Children are slower than adults - ban children

Where do you want to stop?

[Tangled Metal]

Only cyclists travelling at my speed so long as they're not in front of me.

Yes you've guessed it, I want my own private cycle route. Others can use it with my permission (licensed of course by me). That can and will be removed if you cycle faster than me, get in my way or record a strava time better than mine. Which leads to strava segments. When I first ride a new segment all times get zeroed!

I can take things to extremes too. Unless I'm not mistaken I've yet to hear of an elderly pedestrian taking out a car or indeed a cyclist.

If you want hazards then it's speed differentials between modes of transport. That makes a good hazard to consider. A 60mph limit road with bends, rises (undulations) and double white lines in the centre. Whether you like it or not cars and bikes are not that compatible with regards to speed on such a stretch. All my opinion is about, which led to this thread, is that such a route would work better without those two users in potential conflict. Separation due to the hazards/risks involved. It's a lot easier to create a cycle path than change mindset of drivers.

Lancaster has been a cycling demonstration town (city since 60/70s) from the very first 5 towns chosen. It's had cycling promotion very well funded for a number of years while that scheme was running. It's designated a lot of car free cycle routes (mixed use but ones that are working pretty well considering their flaws). There's clearly marked on road ASLs, cycle lanes/awareness markings, etc. Mostly drivers are ok with cyclists but there's no guarantees about that. There isn't a a Dutch or Danish attitude to cyclists.

BTW I understand Dutch drivers drive closer to cyclists because they're used to them and cyclists to motorists. That's what I've heard from people I've met who've lived there or come from there. It's safe because there is a better mindset with motorists towards cyclists. It can happen but it's not there by a long way here.

BTW if separation is such a bad idea why does it get itself used across the country and overseas so much? Even Columbia has a day they ban cars from the main cross city route one day a week to encourage cycling. Separation of motorists and cyclists IMHO is a good idea but I'm not talking universal use.

IMHO the best option is corridors of separation into key areas. Guess I'm thinking of the system a lot if Netherlands have. It seems to me they have had a long time to plan in cycling as transport. Main routes for cars and areas with restriction that forces motorists onto these main routes to get further afield. Leaving areas with slow traffic, one way systems, blocked off routes to prevent rat runs, etc.

Back to my local area segregation was deemed a very good idea on the Lancaster centre to university route down the A6. They got the necessary funding for it from the government IIRC to create a segregated cycle route. The idea was to cut cyclist deaths and accidents. Shame the council didn't spend it correctly and fraudulently frittered it away.

[Postboxer]

How about making two way roads in built up areas, one way for motors, the other way for cyclists, both would be able to get everywhere, it would just mean a slightly longer route. It wouldn't work everywhere, but could right turns then be reduced, by making the one way system be straight on or left as much as possible, would make it a faff to turn right though.

[meic]

It is quite amazing the amount of ridiculous rules and infrastructure that is put into place to try and curtail the dangerous (negligent or malicious) driving of motorists but they will always find a way to do something stupid and kill somebody, so long as the attitude remains the same.

Driving around towns is a rather ridiculous affair nowadays with one way systems making the journeys within towns substantially longer which is the same as increasing the number of vehicles on the road.
Some of us get the hint and park up once then walk the rest but many dont.

I am more swayed towards the model of having less infrastructure but stricter rules about priority being universally removed from motor vehicles in town and given to pedestrians, with cyclists somewhere between.

[[XAP]Bob]

If you want hazards then it's speed differentials between modes of transport. That makes a good hazard to consider. A 60mph limit road with bends, rises (undulations) and double white lines in the centre. Whether you like it or not cars and bikes are not that compatible with regards to speed on such a stretch. All my opinion is about, which led to this thread, is that such a route would work better without those two users in potential conflict. Separation due to the hazards/risks involved. It's a lot easier to create a cycle path than change mindset of drivers.

Surely the correct approach is therefore to lower that differential. It shouldn't be a 60mph limit if you can't see far enough ahead to stop from 60mph in the distance you can see to be clear.

The road sounds like it needs a lower speed limit, not the random banning of some legitimate users.
We can then enforce that speed limit, and routinely ban those who are unable to adhere to it...

Go to 0:50 and watch the first 'incident'
[youtube]2eGumLqAihI[/youtube]

[Tangled Metal]

I'm sorry but enforcement, changing driver's attitudes, etc. It seems to me that people want to get the best solution or nothing. Personally these things are very unlikely to happen or are a long game matter. Segregation where possible is a short game solution. Short term but I'm think more achievable.

If you hold on for the best option you end up with the worst for longer.

P.S. anyone know what's happening about the missing cycle route money matter for the Lancaster city to university A6 cycle path? Did any information come from the council as to where it went?

[meic]

Short term but I'm think more achievable.

I would question that it is more achievable. Yes you can easily build one path along side a dual carriageway for cyclists for a million pounds. To try and do this for the whole network door to door for every dwelling and destination is beyond comprehension and certainly makes controlling drivers or even totally replacing them with robotic vehicles seem a far more practical solution.

[Tangled Metal]

Once again for those ignoring this point. I'm talking about main commuter routes not door to door. If you want you can make the idea sound even more infeasible by mentioning personalised conveyor belts for each cyclist or some other extreme idea to support your argument.

Let's talk realism or just clarify my point further, I'm proposing segregation on certain main cycle commuter routes where there's a need. I'm not talking about side roads unless they're busy commuter routes too. I'm certainly not suggesting door to door segregation. This idea is a variation of the CS routes in London. A sink route that collects traffic from surrounding side roads and routes. It's the fastest route in for cyclists, most direct route.

Taking this route as an example, put a segregated cycle path alongside it. That allows for safer passage for cyclist, less interaction with motorists and is likely to be a lot less than a million pounds. However add up all these opportunities you'd get a big bill that would take political clout to get budgeted.

I think this is a start that in some places is worth doing and indeed is argue a necessity due to the accident rate. I understand that was the reasoning behind the money allocation to the A6 cycle path.

I suppose a cheaper solution is to wait for attitudes to change perhaps supplemented with a few publicised but relatively cheap gimmicks like the bike mats. Just like we've been doing so far. How is that working out? You get cyclists moaning about close passes then you see cyclists in cars doing the close pass thing. Seriously cars with good bikes on racks or inside the car being driven with terrible consideration for fellow cyclists and other users. I see that a lot. If our own subset of the population can't keep a safe attitude to cyclists when driving you really think non-cycling drivers will?

[meic]

Once again for those ignoring this point. I'm talking about main commuter routes not door to door.

Well yes, I was rather ignoring this point as it wasnt in the OP or the posts preceding my own. I do seem to have (and still am ) missed it altogether.

The main commuter routes occasionally are segregated in exactly the way you now say, not many have a problem with that, apart possibly from the fact the route isnt going where they want to go.

I cant see how this fits at all with the thread title.

[Ruadh495]

The irony I can see here is that the better segregation works, the less it is needed. Good quality segregated routes, which feel safer (even if they aren't) encourage more people to use bicycles (not "take up the sport of cycling", but actually use a bicycle where they would have used a car). This means less cars, which means more road space and tamer traffic, so cycling on the road feels safer too and the segregated infrastructure seems unnecessary.

Getting from where we are now to there, though, requires building the infrastructure even if it makes itself redundant in the long term.

[Tangled Metal]

Put simply, I'm talking about separation of cyclists, motorists and pedestrians on routes that can't be avoided. To clarify this with an example, my commute route is a single carriageway A road through a few villages that's popular with commuters and end2enders.

This was from an early post after the first mention of animals and country lanes. Perhaps in didn't make it clear enough, sorry, but in my mind I thought it was clear enough. I didn't spell it out that I was talking about commuter routes, I only left it to clarify in my second post IIRC.

I must admit I often don't put my view across well but if you look at the above snippet from my second post, the bold bits kind of explains the routes I'm looking at.

BTW round here they do not have cycle paths on a lot of the roads into Lancaster which give me the reason I believe it's needed. The only one is a decent route from glasson dock (not many live there), a good route from Halton way and from Morecambe. The routes north and south are best for cars.

I reckon just 2 cycle paths are needed to cater for a significant number of users of these routes. One of these routes was fully funded until the council spent the money elsewhere despite it supposedly being given as ringfenced just for that route. It seems DfT thought segregation of cyclists on that route was a very good idea or the money wouldn't have been given. Shame it didn't happen.

Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on segregation. As a concession, I'll certainly agree to a two pronged attack. Segregation on such trunk cycling routes and attempts to change drivers attitudes/behaviours. Add to that the redesign of roads / junctions to make them safer for cyclists and a long term goal should be to change urban planning to put emphasis on humans not cars. This last one is about the Dutch system in Amsterdam where there are key transit roads and each area deposits it's motorised traffic onto these main routes. Cutting out rat runs down side streets, blocking off roads, pedestrian/cyclist only developments with residents parking on the edges, etc. Streets closed to.motorised traffic at times kids are likely to be about. All these things should be developed. I'm not ruling them out just considering what is the fastest way to get safer routes for cyclists. I think segregation could he that fast route to safety on key routes. Some places are already well on the way to this.

[meic]

I dont think that the disagreement is that great.
I am all for giving cyclists special routes when there is a demand.

My local example would be entering Swansea. From the West there is a totally segregated, seldom interrupted cycle path which is a pleasure to use. From the East there is a less pleasant add on to the dual carriageway.

If every city was given something like Swansea's western approach for each of North, South, East and West that it has, that would be affordable, not too challenging, useful and welcome.
On the other hand it would be detrimental if this was used as an excuse to bar us from other roads which we are currently free to use.

[Tangled Metal]

I think it's likely to need some instrument to change a route in order to restrict one form of transportation. IIRC one such are TROs to stop trials bikes going over worn routes traditionally called BOATs. Walna Scar Road between Coniston and Dunnerdale IIRC often has one in place. Other means more permanent too.

My point being so far the roads I've known to ban cycling are all routes that you would not want to ride at any cost and are effectively mini motorways. They've all had some form of redesignation to achieve bike free status. I doubt just having a cycle path alongside would result in a ban without other good reason supporting it.

I could be wrong and that happens.

[david7591]

As a retired teacher I have a lot less confidence than you in the power of education. In many cases genetic modification would be required !
The Dutch have shown that infrastructure works; can you point to any examples where "proper enforcement and public education" has actually done the job ?

Drink driving?