Crap cyclepaths

[Mark1978]

Each case needs to be judged on its merits.

It does indeed, but I feel we need to get out of the current situation where nothing, or very little, is done. By having guidance that all A-roads, or perhaps all roads with vehicle traffic over a certain threshold, should have cycle facilities, it stops local authorities washing their hands of the issue.

[Adam S]

It does indeed, but I feel we need to get out of the current situation where nothing, or very little, is done. By having guidance that all A-roads, or perhaps all roads with vehicle traffic over a certain threshold, should have cycle facilities, it stops local authorities washing their hands of the issue.

Much more practical, road classification is too arbitrary.

[snibgo]

Make no mistake - this is not about avoiding roads altogether, but making enticing places for the newcomer to start. Once they have started, and have started to gain confidence, we give them the tools to ride on the road.

Please excuse me for quoting just one paragraph, but to me this paragraph is key.

I have many misgivings about the potential of segregated facilities for increasing cycling, but if "enticing places" encourage people to start cycling, and they progress to cycling anywhere, I'm all in favour.

In much the same way as car drivers start learning about the steering wheel and brake in places with little other traffic.

Roads with speed limits over 40mph to have separate cycle path (not shared with peds)

If the paths had no financial, environmental or social cost, fine. But they do have such costs. (The social cost is because not all roads will get their cycle path at the same time, and some will never get them at all, and cyclists will be discouraged from using these.)

[Mark1978]

As I've said upthread we need to get away from the idea that cycle facilities must always be zero / very little cost and have zero impact on the road network at large.

[snibgo]

True, but given they have costs and we have limited resources, where do the priorities lie? I am surrounded by village-hopping country lanes, and would object to the massive cost of providing them with cycle paths. The busy major A-road, with the same speed limit, is far more deserving.

[Si]

As I've said upthread we need to get away from the idea that cycle facilities must always be zero / very little cost and have zero impact on the road network at large.

But for us, we have been given a finite amount of money and are doing what we can with it. Given the choice between using this money for what we can, or refusing to do anything until someone gives us more money, I'm sure that you'll agree that doing what little we can is the answer.

After all, the more people we can get on bikes now (the more voters that we can convert to cycling), the more chance of getting more money in the future.

[Ron]

Each case needs to be judged on its merits.

Exactly!
I think someone could produce a formula to determine if a segregated path or onroad lane was required. Some of the factors to be input to the formula would be width of road, speed limit in force, average speed of motor traffic, volume of motor traffic at peak period, etc. etc.

[TonyR]

But for us, we have been given a finite amount of money and are doing what we can with it. Given the choice between using this money for what we can, or refusing to do anything until someone gives us more money, I'm sure that you'll agree that doing what little we can is the answer.

This is one of the main reasons we have so much crap cycling infrastructure - the anything, no matter how bad, is better than nothing attitude.

[reohn2]

But for us, we have been given a finite amount of money and are doing what we can with it. Given the choice between using this money for what we can, or refusing to do anything until someone gives us more money, I'm sure that you'll agree that doing what little we can is the answer.

This is one of the main reasons we have so much crap cycling infrastructure - the anything, no matter how bad, is better than nothing attitude.

+1

[661-Pete]

My workplace (private sector) seems to be governed, increasingly over the years, by the box-ticking mentality - which is one reason why I've decided to retire early. I don't imagine Local Government are much better...

[gaz]

I'm throwing in a quote from another thread:

In many cases Sustrans will face the same problem as the rest of us, that digging our heels in for something better than the bare minimum feels a risky strategy (and in my experience, authorities do nothing to discourage this perception). To accept crumbs, or hold out for cake?

It's easy to hold out for cake when you are already well fed, but if you are starving you'll welcome the crumbs.

Confident experienced cyclists are well fed by the road network but inexperienced cyclists are left starving. Inexperienced cyclists welcome crumby facilities.

The motorists want to have their cake that they paid for and eat it*. If they see a cyclist eating their cake they don't like it. If they see a cyclist eating their cake when there are crumbs available...

*And then park on top of the crumbs.

Edit - Expanded quote to improve context.

[reohn2]

Then there are the cycling organisations who accept the crumbs gratefully from the cake makers..................

[Si]

But for us, we have been given a finite amount of money and are doing what we can with it. Given the choice between using this money for what we can, or refusing to do anything until someone gives us more money, I'm sure that you'll agree that doing what little we can is the answer.

This is one of the main reasons we have so much crap cycling infrastructure - the anything, no matter how bad, is better than nothing attitude.

Except, for our case, that that is not what I said. There is a difference between comparing the scope of projects and the quality of projects. And even if we are comparing quality, the mark will vary depending upon the target usership. You might suggest a cycleroute is rubbish because it doesn't take you directly from A to B on a segregated cycle-superhighway. Yet if it meanders all round the houses, past lots of schools, etc, then I'd say that the kids that can use it to ride to school will think it's great. Like I said from the start, we aren't building cycle paths for cyclists, we are building them for potential cyclists.

Also you need to recognise the fact that quality is not necessarily dependent on money. There have been lots of bits of high quality infrastructure build for little money (e.g. on my old commute there was an excellent bit of contraflow, only about 3 yards long, that meant cyclists didn't have to go all round the multi-lane one-way system), and there has been some real rubbish built for lots of money (see my posts on the Mercian Way). It's the implementers that tend to decide the quality.

Let's look at it another way - now we can't get every motorist to obey the rules of the road over night can we? Does that mean that we shouldn't try to get at least some to obey the rules of the road? Following your logic, if we can't fix the whole problem then we might as well not fix any of it.

[Mark1978]

For those who don't want cycle paths because they make them travel at a slow pace read this article http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2008/09/speed.html

[TonyR]

For those who don't want cycle paths because they make them travel at a slow pace read this article http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2008/09/speed.html

David was full time in love with Dutch infrastructure before he moved there and you have to read his articles with that in mind. For example the bit about

"There are, of course, also more traditional racers as seen on the right. As you see in the photo, they also use the cycle paths, and of course they gain from being able to do so."

needs to be qualified with the fact that cyclists are banned from many of the roads and have no choice but to use the cyclepath (with drivers being worse than the Brits at indicating you should not be there if you try). So to photograph a group of racing cyclists on a cyclepath is not an indication that they are choosing to be there but that they have no choice but to be there. And I am sure you can find bits where you can do 70km/hr but there are large parts where you can't do much more than 15kph because of the design or other cyclists.