City centre cycling ban

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
pedals2slowly
Posts: 72
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 7:50pm

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby pedals2slowly » 25 Oct 2018, 8:37pm

Richard Fairhurst wrote: You are entitled to your opinion that City Walls Road and Deansway are "safe and rideable", but it's not one I share, nor is it that of a couple of people I know who spend their time actively campaigning for better cycling conditions in Worcester.


You don't mention how often you have cycled on City Walls road or Deansway.
I will stick with my opinion and I'm sure you will stick with yours.

I started campaigning for cycling facilities in Worcester in 1985, Sabrina Bridge I count as one of my achievements .
Unfortunately local Cycling campaigners are self-elected, they often claim to represent specific groups or organisations but I've not come across any election or nomination process, nor an vetting or Quality Assurance. The reasons they get involved are many faceted but none of them seem to canvas local cyclists opinion well, and if they do, tend to argue their own view point (much like this forum :lol: )
Whilst well meaning, (I would not dissuade them from the work they do, I was one of them for many years) their opinions are not balanced (mine wasn't, I just wanted safe routes for me to get to work)
Only yesterday I asked the 'main man' in Worcester what his campaign for driver education was. (After we had been through the extensive list of cycle infrastructure, which will be much the same in 10 years time) The only thing he could come up with was the 1.5 m mat purchased for the Safer Roads Partnership with no information if it would be used or not.

Educate cyclists to ride safely and they will tackle the majority of Worcester City roads, drivers will be more aware of cyclists and behave better.
Take cyclist off the road and the reverse is true.

pedals2slowly
Posts: 72
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 7:50pm

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby pedals2slowly » 25 Oct 2018, 8:53pm

The utility cyclist wrote:How about a 5 year old, someone with limited mobility/physical ability, how about a 105 year old?
If it isn't accessible for all then it's not safe enough and is unridable except for the confident and have good riding skills, even people with the skills will not want to ride on such roads simply through fear, or are you ignorant of the major factor as to why not just women won't cycle on the roads but most adults never mind children?
Why should the only access to a town/city centre be restricted for the benefit of those that are polluting and physically harming others?

Sorry but I absolutely do not agree with your premise and I ride on 70mph bypass roads often, but then I am in a very tiny minority, I would pick a more limited access (to motor vehicles) and lower speed road every single time, asking the majority to transit a road to simply access somewhere but only if they have special skills and balls of steel is not acceptable in the slightest, not even close.


I accept your point about 5 year olds, but that's a bit extreme, even cycle paths are inaccessible to them without adult supervision. Wouldn't it be great if it was safe for a 5 year old to ride any road in Worcester? That will never happen if we divert cyclists off roads and onto segregated paths. (or through busy pedestrian areas)

I'm all for shared use city centres and often use Worcester high street after 4 pm when pedestrian numbers are low, but if I want to get from A to B quickly the 'Inner ring road' is better.
Access is restricted to prevent pedestrian/cycle conflict, nothing to do with motor vehicles which are banned already.
70 mph bypass - not relevant, I guess you don't know the roads we are talking about? I think the same as you on that count. I'm agreeing again, not arguing......

bikepacker
Posts: 1975
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:08pm
Location: Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby bikepacker » 25 Oct 2018, 9:49pm

I had a spell of 5 years as RTR for the Worcester area having many meetings with council officers and councillors. My overwhelming thought at the end of the meetings was that many of Worcester’s officials tolerate but dislike cyclists. A view also shared by the local paper Worcester News which is very anti-cycling.

Saying that in some of the pedestrian areas there are cyclists that cause problems with bad riding. Not however Friar St in one of the photographs, very few complaints emanate from there. The main area for complaints is Broad St between The Cross and Angel Place, this gets very busy with wandering pedestrians and I have seen cyclists shout obscenities to some shoppers for meandering. I do walk through this area during the designated pedestrian times when going into the city centre, if only for a quiet life. If just passing through I take one of the alternative routes and there are some.
There is your way. There is my way. But there is no "the way".

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17190
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby Vorpal » 26 Oct 2018, 6:38am

pedals2slowly wrote:I accept your point about 5 year olds, but that's a bit extreme, even cycle paths are inaccessible to them without adult supervision. Wouldn't it be great if it was safe for a 5 year old to ride any road in Worcester? That will never happen if we divert cyclists off roads and onto segregated paths. (or through busy pedestrian areas)

Well then what about 8 years olds, riding to school without adult supervision, as they do in Denmark or the Netherlands?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15019
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby Si » 26 Oct 2018, 9:16am

Vehicular Cyling.....
Both roads and infra should be designed for people on bikes not for cyclists. I earn a living from teaching people to ride in traffic yet i do not see this as an answer - only proper infra will solve our problems and get a significant number of peoole on bikes. Thus just because you or i might be happy riding on a particular road does not mean that that road is fine for cycling on.....you'll just get the hard core and the brave using it while the majority stay in theit cars and just use the bike yo ride around the park at the weekend.

On the other hand, if we make our towns cycle-friendly like some of the northern european ones, then not only do we improve things for bike riders but for the whole of society.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13736
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby mjr » 26 Oct 2018, 11:54am

pedals2slowly wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote: You are entitled to your opinion that City Walls Road and Deansway are "safe and rideable", but it's not one I share, nor is it that of a couple of people I know who spend their time actively campaigning for better cycling conditions in Worcester.


You don't mention how often you have cycled on City Walls road or Deansway.
I will stick with my opinion and I'm sure you will stick with yours.

:lol: Disqualifying all opinions that a road is unpleasant to ride if the rider doesn't ride it often seems a great way to declare all roads as great to cycle on!

pedals2slowly wrote:I started campaigning for cycling facilities in Worcester in 1985, Sabrina Bridge I count as one of my achievements .

Why shouldn't cyclists use Worcester Bridge instead, to control the motorists on it and educate them about driving safely near cyclists?

pedals2slowly wrote:Unfortunately local Cycling campaigners are self-elected, they often claim to represent specific groups or organisations but I've not come across any election or nomination process, nor an vetting or Quality Assurance. The reasons they get involved are many faceted but none of them seem to canvas local cyclists opinion well, and if they do, tend to argue their own view point (much like this forum :lol: )

Cool. Who elected you and how did you canvas local cyclists opinion well?

Also, ignorance of the nomination processes doesn't mean they don't exist. Maybe, just maybe, if you joined one of the cycling organisations, you might have discovered them - or more likely, had your vehicularist views challenged.

pedals2slowly wrote:Educate cyclists to ride safely and they will tackle the majority of Worcester City roads, drivers will be more aware of cyclists and behave better.
Take cyclist off the road and the reverse is true.

Roads like Friar Street do not stop being roads just because motor vehicles are banned from them. Reopen such roads to cyclists and it'll also improve things for walkers because motorists will have to slow at junctions with them and expect vehicles(cycles) to be emerging, not only walkers that they can almost always bully into yielding (often with highways engineer complicity) and who almost never have cameras.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2426
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby The utility cyclist » 26 Oct 2018, 11:55am

mjr wrote:
Debs wrote:The above photo on the OP's 'Cycling Weekly' news link shows Friar Street in Worcester city centre.

It definitely looks very unsuitable for cycling along.

Why? It looks ideal to me, like so many streets I've cycled along in neighbouring countries. One shouldn't ride fast along it (the marked carriageway is too narrow for that and the seating on the footways will mean people walk on the carriageway) and I can see that you'd be walking or at walking pace at peak shopping time but what a gorgeous street of old buildings with flowers. It's so much more attractive than being told to go cycle along the alternative motorised traffic sewers between big box retail parks, isn't it? Dink along, and maybe stop and lean your bike up against the fence of one of the pavement bars for a drink or lunch. It could be luvverly!

And in practise this is exactly what happens when people are allowed safe/r access by bike, far from losing trade, town centres increase trade as has been seen in the link I gave earlier re Cheltenham. Having a narrow minded view to closing off access to a healthy mode of travel, one that is also used by the less able and those that simply do not want to drive in and park up is ludicrous, it's also unlawful.

Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 1393
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby Richard Fairhurst » 26 Oct 2018, 12:23pm

pedals2slowly wrote:You don't mention how often you have cycled on City Walls road or Deansway.


Enough to know that I no longer wish to do so again. Like the A14 from Cambridge to Huntingdon... I have cycled that; it was faintly terrifying; I'm not going to try again to ascertain whether, despite the fairly clear evidence, it's magically become a pleasant cycling road. There's that old quote about the definition of insanity being "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"...
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2426
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby The utility cyclist » 26 Oct 2018, 12:29pm

Si wrote:Vehicular Cyling.....
Both roads and infra should be designed for people on bikes not for cyclists. I earn a living from teaching people to ride in traffic yet i do not see this as an answer - only proper infra will solve our problems and get a significant number of peoole on bikes. Thus just because you or i might be happy riding on a particular road does not mean that that road is fine for cycling on.....you'll just get the hard core and the brave using it while the majority stay in theit cars and just use the bike yo ride around the park at the weekend.

On the other hand, if we make our towns cycle-friendly like some of the northern european ones, then not only do we improve things for bike riders but for the whole of society.

far be it for me to say this is incorrect, however it is, in fact it's not even the best solution, the Dutch have proven it's not the best solution and the Danish and latterly the Norwegians are the leaders in increasing cycling and making it safer by stopping up roads to motorists/motoring completely, giving over the existing highways back to cyclists. THAT is the 'only' true solution that works for mass cycling.

Segregated infra fails in many parts, it fails on being convoluted, yes even the Dutch have a convoluted, meandering, circuitous infra system that forces you to go further than if in motorvehicle, this is simply a fact, even Michael Coalville-Andersen states that people on foot/bike want to and will make to take the most direct route, specific cycle infra rarely ever does this, roads for the most part do. Having circuitous stop start infra is a part of the problem that puts people off from cycling because it's still not better/easier than driving.

Second, infra is not wide enough for mass cycling on the levels we want it to be, not for the type of mass cycling we have/want in the UK, that is various types of people on bikes at various speeds, including your serial commuter to 5 year olds. Most of the segregated infra in NL is not wide enough for this for it to be safe.
Thirdly, the criss crossing of roads by segregated infra has also proven to be extremely dangerous, even in NL where cyclists are kept apart from motorists and supposedly most motorists are cyclists too, there are over 60 reported deaths annually where segregated cross roads where the motorists are supposed to give way. On a highway totally bereft of motor vehicles, this would be removed completely.
Taking back a whole 6metre lane for bi-directional cycling not only would be instant in terms of not having to wait for something to be built, it would be wide enough for all types of cycling with space to spare. It would be direct and to every single part of the nation without any place being disconnected.
What is being built in the UK is not even close to acceptable, have you seen the Manchester infra that Chris Boardman is bigging up, sorry but I'm not impressed, stopping up all motor traffic along that section of road would have been a far better solution.
Can segregated improve things to what we have currently, it can if it's built to the very highest standards - and that's the problem, it isn't or simply not being built at all. 2.5m in each direction as a minimum (so that overtaking can be done safely for the reason I gave) and direct and connected having priority over motor vehicles, but that simply will not and never has being built here, nor is it built anywhere else.
Last edited by The utility cyclist on 26 Oct 2018, 12:49pm, edited 1 time in total.

pedals2slowly
Posts: 72
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 7:50pm

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby pedals2slowly » 26 Oct 2018, 12:48pm

mjr wrote::lol: Disqualifying all opinions that a road is unpleasant to ride if the rider doesn't ride it often seems a great way to declare all roads as great to cycle on!


The point is how can you make a sensible judgement if you don't know the road and the local conditions?

mjr wrote: Why shouldn't cyclists use Worcester Bridge instead, to control the motorists on it and educate them about driving safely near cyclists?

They do and I do.

mjr wrote: Cool. Who elected you and how did you canvas local cyclists opinion well?

Nobody elected me, that's the point! Ditto, it's merely my opinions from being familiar with the local roads, active member of most local cycling and transportation groups, commuter and leisure cyclist.

mjr wrote: Also, ignorance of the nomination processes doesn't mean they don't exist. Maybe, just maybe, if you joined one of the cycling organisations, you might have discovered them - or more likely, had your vehicularist views challenged.

I have held positions of responsibility for many years in local groups affiliated to or part of national organisations.
Vehicularist - if you mean cyclists occupying road space like cars, yes, but only when sensible, not all the time.

mjr wrote:Roads like Friar Street do not stop being roads just because motor vehicles are banned from them. Reopen such roads to cyclists and it'll also improve things for walkers because motorists will have to slow at junctions with them and expect vehicles(cycles) to be emerging, not only walkers that they can almost always bully into yielding (often with highways engineer complicity) and who almost never have cameras.

They become pedestrianised areas with no need for cycles to use them if there were safe through routes for the same journey.
Cyclists cannot expect everywhere to be available to them, just as pedestrians, motor vehicles, horse riders cannot expect to go everywhere.
I see no reason why there cannot be one N/S and one E/W cycle route through the city, as proposed 20+ years ago and still on the current campaigners hit list but there is absolutely no prospect of this happening in the next decade - we have to look at alternatives
I am turning off notifications.
Come to Worcester some time as the cycling in the countryside around is second to none.
If you ride with any of the local groups or in the city centre the chances are that you will bump into me and we could discuss rationally and actually understand what the other meant. Social media is like any other technology - great when used sensibly, appalling when misused!

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17190
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby Vorpal » 26 Oct 2018, 12:53pm

The utility cyclist wrote:far be it for me to say this is incorrect, however it is, in fact it's not even the best solution, the Dutch have proven it's not the best solution and the Danish and latterly the Norwegians are the leaders in increasing cycling and making it safer by stopping up roads to motorists/motoring completely, giving over the existing highways back to cyclists. THAT is the 'only' true solution that works for mass cycling.

<snip>

Can segregated improve things to what we have currently, it can if it's built to the very highest standards - and that's the problem, it isn't or simply not being built at all. 2.5m in each direction as a minimum (so that overtaking can be done safely for the reason I gave) and direct and connected having priority over motor vehicles, but that simply will not and never has being built here, nor is it built anywhere else.
I think it depends upon the infrastructure. Roadside and shared use cycle paths are not ideal, especially when they go around roundabouts with multiple crossings. But some of the best examples of segregated infrastructure I've used were in Amsterdam, where going into the centre, I used a broad, purpose-built cycleway for several miles. It went between apartment complexes, and housing estates, fairly directly into the centre. Once in the centre, I was mostly on old streets which either did not allow any motor vehicles, or allowed them only for access, such as deliveries.

Many paths in the Netherlands are not as convenient as the roads.

In general, though, I agree. The best infrastructure is what we already have. We just need to get rid of the cars. :mrgreen:

One of the solutions in Norway is to limit permeability. Cars go into & out of residential areas on one or two main roads, and all the rest are blocked off at one end, or part way down. They tend to use boom gates here. They can be pushed with care from one direction, but have to be held open from the other.

That way emergency services can go through, or if the main road is blocked in an emergency, the boom gate can be locked open. There is room on one end for a pedal cycle or motorcycle and small trailer to pass.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17190
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby Vorpal » 26 Oct 2018, 1:03pm

pedals2slowly wrote:if there were safe through routes for the same journey.

That's the nub, isn't it? People wouldn't ride like idiots through the town centre, if there were better optins available.

If cyclists have a choice between a busy dual carriageway, and a (single) town centre route, they'll mostly take the town centre route, even if they are commuting cyclists in a hurry.

It's not that cycling should be banned in the centre, nor that all cyclists should be required to use the busy dual carriageway, but that there should be routes suitable for all cyclists.

If there isn't a suitable route for cyclists commuting through the town centre, or cyclists who want to commute, but don't want to share with the motors, what then?

Bikeability is one answer, but it's not an answer that suits everyone. And those who don't want to share with lorries will either break the law, or simply not cycle.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

johncarnie
Posts: 91
Joined: 2 Dec 2011, 3:53pm

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby johncarnie » 26 Oct 2018, 1:09pm

There is no solution to the shared and pedestrianised problem. Pedestrians by their nature tend not to walk in straight lines, stop without warning and change direction without signalling!(me included). Even when there are specific lanes for cyclists, pedestrians forget and wander across. I lived in Worcester and only used the pedestrianised part when I was actually going into the city. To get round the city I used the roads and canal/river! There were always the selfish prats who rode recklessly, but more of a problem were the SBD mobility scooters. Is Councillor Amos* going to ban them as well?
*Amos was and always will be a self-serving hypocrite who will do anything (changes his politics, takes walks on Hamstead Heath (ahem!) and takes the populist line) to get his name in the papers!

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13736
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby mjr » 26 Oct 2018, 1:25pm

The utility cyclist wrote:far be it for me to say this is incorrect, however it is, in fact it's not even the best solution, the Dutch have proven it's not the best solution and the Danish and latterly the Norwegians are the leaders in increasing cycling and making it safer by stopping up roads to motorists/motoring completely, giving over the existing highways back to cyclists. THAT is the 'only' true solution that works for mass cycling.

1. Citation required.
2. The Danish seem far keener on roadside cycleways than the Dutch, in my experience. I rode far more Dutch "cycleways" that were actually bollarded carriageways than in Denmark, but they were styled to make them look like primarily cycle routes and discourage motoring. Meanwhile, I've ridden paths in Denmark apparently converted for cycling just by dotting white paint up their middle which I don't remember seeing in NL.
3. How will we ever get enough cyclists that politicians approve stopping up more roads without cycleways to attract enough cyclists? Has any democracy anywhere ever managed to do that?

Vorpal wrote:Many paths in the Netherlands are not as convenient as the roads. [...] One of the solutions in Norway is to limit permeability. Cars go into & out of residential areas on one or two main roads, and all the rest are blocked off at one end, or part way down.

That's the general solution for cycling in the Netherlands too. They take it further, with lots of things like this where 50m was converted to cycleway which leads to 2.7 miles of carriageway used only by cyclists and residents despite no formal restriction at access points like https://mapstreetview.com/#uyn9q_2y9yk_9r.0_-uh43

I don't understand what paths have to do with cycling - do you mean that better cycling infrastructure makes walking less convenient?

Vorpal wrote:That way emergency services can go through, or if the main road is blocked in an emergency, the boom gate can be locked open. There is room on one end for a pedal cycle or motorcycle and small trailer to pass.

We had some of those in King's Lynn, but some dimwits have replaced the booms with longer ones, closing the routes to all except recumbents. :roll: There are cycleways paralleling it about 100m east and west, so it wasn't a particularly critical connection and there are bigger fish to fry.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13736
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: City centre cycling ban

Postby mjr » 26 Oct 2018, 1:53pm

The utility cyclist wrote:Thirdly, the criss crossing of roads by segregated infra has also proven to be extremely dangerous, even in NL where cyclists are kept apart from motorists and supposedly most motorists are cyclists too, there are over 60 reported deaths annually where segregated cross roads where the motorists are supposed to give way. On a highway totally bereft of motor vehicles, this would be removed completely.

Oh and this was another logical flaw IMO: if the highway was totally bereft of motor vehicles, they wouldn't be killing the cyclists on the cycleways either, so we could just as well completely remove the highways. It's totally ridiculous to blame all junction deaths on the cycleways, but you're in good company because Franklin did that in his notorious Milton Keynes reports.

The utility cyclist wrote:Can segregated improve things to what we have currently, it can if it's built to the very highest standards - and that's the problem, it isn't or simply not being built at all. 2.5m in each direction as a minimum (so that overtaking can be done safely for the reason I gave) and direct and connected having priority over motor vehicles, but that simply will not and never has being built here, nor is it built anywhere else.

Let me get this straight: we should oppose cycleways that are only 2.1m wide in each direction (latest Cambridge and London ones - although a short stretch in Hyde Park is 3m each way) and direct and connected having priority over motor vehicles, rather than welcome them as a step forwards while pushing for at least 2.5m? That sounds like the sort of logic which left a brave few cyclists getting swamped by motor traffic on Blackfriars Bridge while most people felt they'd rather be motor traffic. I feel we need to get more people cycling first because then all political arguments to get more space should become easier, but we know that it doesn't work just telling people to go ride into traffic and offering them training.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.