Quality Infra

[ianrobo]

No way in UK as the politicians too afraid fo the 'car lobby' but at the weekend I took this in the Ghent area of Belgium, a 60km ride - 58km on cycle lanes of various types and it was bloody fantastic !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKb_yi3cRjo

We can do this here but whilst people lie then of course we face a very hard battle !

[PRL]

Judging from the bus stop near the beginning that lane also doubles as a footway. May not be an issue depending on usage.

[ianrobo]

Judging from the bus stop near the beginning that lane also doubles as a footway. May not be an issue depending on usage.

yes your right there is shared usage in areas but I asked about this and pedestrians and cyclists understand the protocols etc and no incidents, on the road outside my hotel you had trams, buses, cars, cycles and peds all sharing and no issue at all as everyone is respectful ...

[atlas_shrugged]

Yes this IS lovely.

All side roads had to give way to the cycle path
There was no dipping down and up to go past driveways and side roads.
The cycle path had a continuous surface.
No 90 degree bends.

This was probably even designed using a specification for cycleways.

[The utility cyclist]

Meh, whilst I get it's continuous it falls well short of 2.5metres and is basically a reasonable quality footpath (I noted the numerous and significant bumps you experienced), you're also in the firing line of parked vehicles for a fair section of it, personally with that amount of motor traffic I'd rather be on the road.
Your small country town is little more than a hamlet by the looks of it, it's nothing like a 'small' town in the UK, the density of traffic both on road and on foot would change that layout supplanted here hugely in its effectiveness.
At the speeds you're going at I'd far rather it was a much better quality/wider lane that did not put me too close to other dangers and if in the UK other vulnerable users of the path going in both directions i.e. pedestrians
Also, why have you got a light on in day-time if you are on segregated infra, and it looks like a ridiculously bright flasher too given its throw?

Sorry but I don't agree that it's quality infra that I would want to use for the reasons I've given.

[mjr]

Meh, whilst I get it's continuous it falls well short of 2.5metres and is basically a reasonable quality footpath (I noted the numerous and significant bumps you experienced), you're also in the firing line of parked vehicles for a fair section of it, personally with that amount of motor traffic I'd rather be on the road.

You seem to be someone who is willing to tolerate cars approaching rapidly from behind in the same lane and often whipping by half-in the same lane, which many simply aren't.

There's about 30 seconds at 3m on the edge of Ghent where the parked cars look a problem and I don't think that's to their current standard (which I think would be to have cars parked between carriageway and cycleway with a buffer zone on the cycleway side for doors to swing open), but even there, the cycle lane looks wide enough to ride clear of the door zone.

Most of the rural stuff looks like about 2m effective width for a mostly one-way track, which is in between the minimum and desirable widths given in the latest UK guidance. It's probably below what's required by the current Flemish standards, but I've no idea when it was built.

Your small country town is little more than a hamlet by the looks of it, it's nothing like a 'small' town in the UK, the density of traffic both on road and on foot would change that layout supplanted here hugely in its effectiveness.

The map shown at the start suggests it may be Nevele, which is a municipality of 2,000 residents, which I think is more than a hamlet, but only a small town. The difference to a UK small town is that it has probably been redesigned not to be dominated by motor traffic - nothing drastic, just lots of little subtle things, including strong positive signposting to encourage motorists to remain on their major routes, 30kmh limits on high streets and residential roads, with some pretty rudimentary cycleways outside that, with bypasses across junctions when possible and red paint (mostly) and priority across when it it's not. It's basically what might happen if we rolled out the best of London, Cambridge, or Norwich nationwide - not the Netherlands, not even Denmark, but a big step up.

At the speeds you're going at I'd far rather it was a much better quality/wider lane that did not put me too close to other dangers and if in the UK other vulnerable users of the path going in both directions i.e. pedestrians

The traffic seemed light enough that it didn't look like width was putting anyone in danger. I hope and expect that they're actually measuring traffic levels and expanding cycling and walking provision when needed, unlike the UK where local government is currently cutting measurement of cycling as an unnecessary expense - the current politicians probably won't be in charge when the transport planning mistakes resulting from Garbage In Garbage Out are realised.

Also, why have you got a light on in day-time if you are on segregated infra, and it looks like a ridiculously bright flasher too given its throw?

I did wonder that. It's only visible on part of the film, so was it the filmer or another nearby rider?

Sorry but I don't agree that it's quality infra that I would want to use for the reasons I've given.

It's not ideal - I've read elsewhere that Ghent isn't as good as Bruges but I've yet to visit it for myself - but even their dodgy infrastructure is far superior to most in this country.

[Cugel]

My own preference is for no dedicated cycling infrastructure except for a full-width cycle path running parallel to a fast/busy main road where the route would be useful to cyclists that need it (i.e. commuters not leisure cyclists). I'm against the cycling infrastructure approach for these reasons:

1. If such infrastructure is seen as "the solution" to cyclists being in danger on the roads, we'll eventually end up being banned from the roads, with very little replacement cycling infrastructure provided, which will anyway be inadequate because shared with pedestrians and/or not properly designed or maintained. Look about and see what there is now in the way of such infrastructure... 90% poor and/or inadequate. Much of it is lethal (e.g. painted left hand strips in towns inviting us to be doored, kerb-squashed or left-hooked).

The danger to cyclists from road traffic, even now, is not that great. The mass media (including that put out by Cycling UK) amplifies the seeming danger by going on about every incident. It's more risky to do things in your garden with tools or to go up and down stairs every day. The roads, even now, are best kept as a shared resource for all users, including cyclists, horses, tractors and everything else.

There's a tendency in Western Europe, particularly the UK and the USA (and Oz) to promote motorist "freedoms" at the expense of everyone elses' freedoms. Motorists should not be privileged over everyone else. Rather, they should be forced to be more dutiful and caring by means of proper application of traffic laws that already exist. If money needs to be spent to improve safety, it should be spent on more policemen.

****

I've spent 60 years cycling British (and other) roads with no problems. I've been knocked off once by a car in tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of miles. I like the freedom of the roads as much as any Clarkson ... and I'm more responsible when using them, damage them far less and am not a danger to others. I want to keep on being able to be a road cyclist, not reliant on rubbish cycling infrastructure or the odd nice farmer who will tell me to get on his land (most won't, believe me).

Cugel

[mjr]

My own preference is for no dedicated cycling infrastructure except for a full-width cycle path running parallel to a fast/busy main road where the route would be useful to cyclists that need it (i.e. commuters not leisure cyclists). I'm against the cycling infrastructure approach for these reasons:

1. If such infrastructure is seen as "the solution" to cyclists being in danger on the roads, we'll eventually end up being banned from the roads, with very little replacement cycling infrastructure provided, which will anyway be inadequate because shared with pedestrians and/or not properly designed or maintained. Look about and see what there is now in the way of such infrastructure... 90% poor and/or inadequate. Much of it is lethal (e.g. painted left hand strips in towns inviting us to be doored, kerb-squashed or left-hooked).

Left hooking is a problem needing enforcement, kerb-squashing is less likely where the lane widths all meet minimums (the UK problem is that many don't) and easy dooring is usually a design error.

Why the pessimism about infrastructure? Why will only "very little" infrastructure be provided and why will it be inadequate? Why can the Netherlands and Denmark, now Flanders and increasingly more of France do it but the UK generally can't? Why can't we generalise the few places building some decent stuff and spread the good practice nationwide?

Why the optimism about lack of infrastructure meaning we won't be banned? Last I heard, we're being banned from the new bit of the A14 without there being any alternative infrastructure. We've been banned from a few sections of the A45 and there's an attempt to ban us from the A63 which only have partial alternative infrastructure. We've not been formally banned from recently-upgraded non-motorway sections of major roads like the A1 or A11 or A14 but we might as well have been - cycling has been effectively designed out of major roads without any reasonable alternative provided. They don't even bother to paint joke cycle symbols in the shoulders like they used to on the A43 and A5.

The danger to cyclists from road traffic, even now, is not that great. The mass media (including that put out by Cycling UK) amplifies the seeming danger by going on about every incident. It's more risky to do things in your garden with tools or to go up and down stairs every day. The roads, even now, are best kept as a shared resource for all users, including cyclists, horses, tractors and everything else.

On one level, I agree. The danger isn't that great and most roads must remain available to all. But they're not really shared any more, even now. Motorists have grabbed the lion's share by throwing their weight and width around with force.

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-lions-share/ isn't exactly about this, but I think the conclusion applies almost as well to this: "The legacy of “share the road” is suppression of, and increased danger to, the less heavily-armed side of the sharing. It is a mantra which promotes poisonous attitudes that give the more heavily-armed side a sense of entitlement and embitterment, and it is absolutely harmful to both cycling levels and the welfare of those who are bold enough to cycle. It is discriminatory, in allowing only the thick-skinned and the able-bodied to choose to cycle.

It’s high time this malicious and threadbare pseudo-philosophy was hung out to dry."

There's a tendency in Western Europe, particularly the UK and the USA (and Oz) to promote motorist "freedoms" at the expense of everyone elses' freedoms. Motorists should not be privileged over everyone else. Rather, they should be forced to be more dutiful and caring by means of proper application of traffic laws that already exist. If money needs to be spent to improve safety, it should be spent on more policemen.

Ah, should, should, should... if wishes were horses. How are you going to make it so? By appealing to the powerful cycling lobby which doesn't actually exist - and never will unless we do things to get more people cycling from the current pretty awful starting point?

I've spent 60 years cycling British (and other) roads with no problems. I've been knocked off once by a car in tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of miles. I like the freedom of the roads as much as any Clarkson ... and I'm more responsible when using them, damage them far less and am not a danger to others. I want to keep on being able to be a road cyclist, not reliant on rubbish cycling infrastructure or the odd nice farmer who will tell me to get on his land (most won't, believe me).

I'm a couple of decades behind you, but I've already been knocked off once. I don't want to be reliant on cycling infrastructure but I do really want more of it as an option and the better the better. My happiest cycling days have been in places that have better cycling infrastructure than the current UK average, from growing up near Milton Keynes, to visits to the Netherlands and Denmark. It seems daft to oppose that while offering no realistic solutions, only "people can join me walking/cycling among traffic that can kill us with relatively little penalty until we convince politicians to admit they were wrong to let this situation develop and do a complete U-turn on the law and police funding and priorities".

[Cugel]

Why the pessimism about infrastructure? Why will only "very little" infrastructure be provided and why will it be inadequate? Why can the Netherlands and Denmark, now Flanders and increasingly more of France do it but the UK generally can't? Why can't we generalise the few places building some decent stuff and spread the good practice nationwide?
......

The pessimism is based in realism. I might quote your own remark from the same post: "Ah, should, should, should... if wishes were horses. How are you going to make it so? By appealing to the powerful cycling lobby which doesn't actually exist - and never will unless we do things to get more people cycling from the current pretty awful starting point"?

If you agree that cycling is no more dangerous than a bit of gardening (probably less so) perhaps you will also agree that it's less dangerous than being a pedestrian on a street or ... a motorist? The statistics seem unequivocal, after all. This being so, why spend zillions (not that a UK government ever will) on needless cycling infrastructure that may reduce your chance of a serious accident by 0.01% (or even increase it) even if it does cater to the otherwise inept who can't learn to ride a bike in traffic (or, more accurately, won't learn because the mass media, helmet fanatics and other doomsayers frighten their horse)?

Perhaps the zillions could be spent on policing the aggressive antics of Mr Toad, as this will reduce not only cycling deaths & injuries but also those of pedestrians and Toads, probably in great numbers. Yes, I know "should, should, should...., horse-wishes, etc.". But the Toad-catching laws already exist, they merely need to be applied by rozzer & beak.

Cugel

[The utility cyclist]

As ive posted elsewhere.
Once you take into account the massive differential in actual usable segregated cycling for UK v NL which reduces the exposure rate to motorvehicles massively in favour to NL (by at least 10:1) then adjust the cycled miles per person to people who actually cycle (not per population head) plus the supposed safety in numbers factor, the segregated Dutch cyclist system appears to have a relatively high death toll and not as effective as people think/push it to be.

Despite the massively reduced exposure rate in a country that supposedly is the leader in cycling safety the death toll is currently 150-180 though many more older deaths bucking the reduction trend due to e-bike use!
Even their iverall road KSI rate per billion miles is higher than the UK, but with segregated cyclists doing a huge share of the miles away from motorvehicles and supposedly better drivers whom are more likely to be cyclists themselves than in the UK how can this possibly be???

People say well many cycle deaths are self induced (without actually producing facts) , but facts are segregated infra has problens of its own that everyone bar a small handful won't acknowledge.

Even in NL not all roads have segregated infra, not all people on bikes want to cycle on mediocre infra as per the video of the OP, so when motorists are in this situation they are less adept at understanding their responsibilities even if they may cycle a bit themselves.
In cities like Amsterdamn infra isn't enough, it's failing due to sheer numbers, solution, take back the roads completely, this should be the case in all major conurbations, at the least one side of the highway so a 4.8m cycle highway on through roads with priority everywhere over motorists and their conveyance. If we are to have such high numbers using bikes of all speeds and types why are we continually trying to cram them into a small space?
Ask many cycle commuters if they would choose a narrow path such as in the video if it had children and their parents tootling along at 7-8mph and/or even worse had peds on it. No chance, not unless the lane was 3m/wide enough to be able to get around them safely with a margin for error on the part of the more vulnerable (which we want right?)

Other downsides of infra, you'll notice how it meanders in many places - not in this video but just look at many residential areas, yes it's safer but it's indirect, fine if you're on a leisurely amble, fine if your kids primary school is within the residential area itself not so fine if you're wanting to get to work, go for a fitness ride or a fast leisure ride as many UK cyclists do.

Also would the Dutch segregated infra work for most of the CUK/cycle clubs' runs, no, sure the slower paced rides it would be ok to a point. Would segregated infra work for mass cycle rides for charity, for audax for sportives, maybe some brevet populaire/low distance beginner type rides but the rest would even with current Dutch infra make it totally different, more stop start and unless it were road width extremely difficult with big numbers to travel at many differing speeds, some in excess of 20mph, and on hills 30 and 40mph.
For some people and for some locations segregated is great, what I saw in the video was bang average and I gave valid reasons why I thought that.
Make it 3m wide/and/or 2.5m but no shared use and not being exposed to parked vehicles on narrow stretches make it not as bumpy as it clearly was and I'd use it for a short commute/ride to the shops/ride to see a friend who lived local, anything else I'm on the road because IMO segregated isn't suitable for my needs nor indeed safe for me or others.
I don't believe I'm in the minority either in that thinking amongst UK regular cyclists/commuters, certainly not a 'freak'!

[pjclinch]

My own preference is for no dedicated cycling infrastructure except for a full-width cycle path running parallel to a fast/busy main road where the route would be useful to cyclists that need it (i.e. commuters not leisure cyclists).

The error here is thinking that "cycling infrastructure = special lanes and tracks"

Filtered permeability is "dedicated cycling infrastructure", decent cycle parking is "dedicated cycling infrastructure", and so on.

If such infrastructure is seen as "the solution" to cyclists being in danger on the roads, we'll eventually end up being banned from the roads, with very little replacement cycling infrastructure provided, which will anyway be inadequate because shared with pedestrians and/or not properly designed or maintained. Look about and see what there is now in the way of such infrastructure... 90% poor and/or inadequate. Much of it is lethal (e.g. painted left hand strips in towns inviting us to be doored, kerb-squashed or left-hooked).

The danger to cyclists from road traffic, even now, is not that great. The mass media (including that put out by Cycling UK) amplifies the seeming danger by going on about every incident. It's more risky to do things in your garden with tools or to go up and down stairs every day. The roads, even now, are best kept as a shared resource for all users, including cyclists, horses, tractors and everything else.

The problem with the above is it takes "roads" and "cyclists" as rather singular in nature. You have, to be fair, already made a case for the by-far most dangerous roads (doom/distance is ~ 24/billion km for UK cyclists over all roads, but ~170 on rural A roads), but aside from the roads themselves the people riding on them are very different. I can tackle pretty much anything in Dundee on a bike but the fact is that a typical school child or octogenarian isn't nearly as well equipped to do it as me, and this is why the recent Manchester plans use a 12 year old cyclist as a benchmark. And crucially it's not that a typical 12 year old can use it, it's that they'd choose to use it. Because it's not just about absolute danger, it's about pleasantness (which folds back in to perceived danger) and just having a rubbish time is a good reason not to do something, however safe it may be.

You and I are Enthusiasts and the fact is that how we feel riding along typical roads shared with traffic doesn't match how others do. If you ride in NL it's clear what can be achieved for a more general cross section of people, and while I share your feelings about a lot of current "farcilities", it is possible to do better as the most recent spec of London "Superhighways" have illustrated: they are good and that they are is shown by more riders, including "normal people", using them. Saying we shouldn't bother trying to get life better for folk beyond Enthusiasts is defeatist and perhaps a bit selfish too, though I'd agree we've got to be very careful in benchmarking what goes in. Such care does seem to be built in to the more Clueful processes, and if Manchester can walk the walk like it's talked the talk, that may well prove to be a useful tipping point.

There's a tendency in Western Europe, particularly the UK and the USA (and Oz) to promote motorist "freedoms" at the expense of everyone elses' freedoms. Motorists should not be privileged over everyone else. Rather, they should be forced to be more dutiful and caring by means of proper application of traffic laws that already exist. If money needs to be spent to improve safety, it should be spent on more policemen.

And again we come back to cycling infrastructure being far more than lanes to get cyclists out of cars' way. Filtered permeability specifically restricts cars, and there's more and more of it. And while I'd be delighted to see e.g. parking offences made in to a real issue so we don't get so many streets blocked by motons, I don't see why this effort should not go hand in hand with making it easier and more pleasant for just about anyone to get about by bike.

I've spent 60 years cycling British (and other) roads with no problems.

For some values of "no problems", that is...

Pete.

[Bmblbzzz]

The paths in Ghent look very good. A lot of the more rural paths look rather British; basically you're cycling on the pavement, sharing a fairly narrow section with pedestrians, with access to private drives every ten metres and in some cases having no option but the door zone. On the other hand there are substantial bollards separating you from the main motor traffic.

What is truly impressive about those Belgian paths though is the accessibility; no gates, barriers, slaloms, not even a bollard or a dropped kerb to negotiate. It seems the Belgians have realized that cyclists are not roller skaters or hovercraft!

[pwa]

Part of the problem here is the cyclists themselves, and what they bring to the equation. On this Forum there are extremely experienced cyclists who have good technique and awareness built in. But the spectrum of cyclists goes all the way through to those who are new to riding a bike at all. And some of those are adults. It would be my guess that the less experienced cyclists are at more risk in any given situation. For that reason I have long believed that good training is one of the pillars of cycling safety.

My children are now young adults, but I brought them up with bikes and I think they have a reasonably good feel for how you cycle on the road. What do we do about people whose parents did not provide that bit of mentoring? Giving them a bike and saying "just get on with it" is a bit of a gamble.

I don't see this as an alternative to better infrastructure, but it should be a companion to it.

(Technically OT, but never mind)

[pjclinch]

As ive posted elsewhere.
Once you take into account the massive differential in actual usable segregated cycling for UK v NL which reduces the exposure rate to motorvehicles massively in favour to NL (by at least 10:1) then adjust the cycled miles per person to people who actually cycle (not per population head) plus the supposed safety in numbers factor, the segregated Dutch cyclist system appears to have a relatively high death toll and not as effective as people think/push it to be.

Many more people cycle in NL than in UK, see:
[youtube]Hb0QjASuuqI[/youtube]

Despite the massively reduced exposure rate in a country that supposedly is the leader in cycling safety the death toll is currently 150-180 though many more older deaths bucking the reduction trend due to e-bike use!
Even their iverall road KSI rate per billion miles is higher than the UK, but with segregated cyclists doing a huge share of the miles away from motorvehicles and supposedly better drivers whom are more likely to be cyclists themselves than in the UK how can this possibly be???

That's just plain wrong. Doom/billion km in the UK is about double that of NL and Denmark (see p7 on http://www.spokes.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pall3.pdf). So your premise is looking a bit shaky here.

Even in NL not all roads have segregated infra

This is only a surprise to those who've never looked very hard at cycling in NL. It is entirely normal for e.g. urban residential streets not to have fietsdpads, because there's no need and in older districts no room. But there is far more to "infrastructure" and reducing conflict than fietspads.

In cities like Amsterdamn infra isn't enough, it's failing due to sheer numbers

Again, it is only in people's imaginations that Dutch towns have even attempted to get all journeys by bike on fietspads.

solution, take back the roads completely, this should be the case in all major conurbations, at the least one side of the highway so a 4.8m cycle highway on through roads with priority everywhere over motorists and their conveyance. If we are to have such high numbers using bikes of all speeds and types why are we continually trying to cram them into a small space?

I'd suggest you spend some time in NL (my wife is Dutch so I go over reasonably often to visit the other half of the family) and find out what it's really like. Dutch planners are far, far more inventive and pragmatic than you appear to give them credit for.

Ask many cycle commuters if they would choose a narrow path such as in the video if it had children and their parents tootling along at 7-8mph and/or even worse had peds on it. No chance, not unless the lane was 3m/wide enough to be able to get around them safely with a margin for error on the part of the more vulnerable (which we want right?)

So-so Belgian infrastructure isn't best-of-breed Dutch infrastructure, so you'd be asking a pretty loaded question though.

Other downsides of infra, you'll notice how it meanders in many places - not in this video but just look at many residential areas, yes it's safer but it's indirect, fine if you're on a leisurely amble, fine if your kids primary school is within the residential area itself not so fine if you're wanting to get to work, go for a fitness ride or a fast leisure ride as many UK cyclists do.

Take a look at cycling maps of NL. The routes are direct and functional. That UK routes send you on weird circumnavigations of housing schemes doesn't mean that that is necessary.

Also would the Dutch segregated infra work for most of the CUK/cycle clubs' runs, no, sure the slower paced rides it would be ok to a point. Would segregated infra work for mass cycle rides for charity, for audax for sportives, maybe some brevet populaire/low distance beginner type rides but the rest would even with current Dutch infra make it totally different, more stop start and unless it were road width extremely difficult with big numbers to travel at many differing speeds, some in excess of 20mph, and on hills 30 and 40mph.

Do you really think that the Dutch don't have enthusiastic cycling clubs that go on club runs, and chain gangs for the more sporting? The only problem with Dutch segregated infra for a CUK club run is it's the wrong side of the North Sea. When riding in NL I get overtaken by far more chain-gang riders than I do in the UK.

For some people and for some locations segregated is great, what I saw in the video was bang average and I gave valid reasons why I thought that.

That video shows infra that isn't particularly great by Dutch standards. There's a reason why Belgium's association with cycling isn't so much how easy it is but how it produces hard-as-nails racers.

Pete.

[Vorpal]

I've ridden in both Ghent and Brugge, and used to visit regularly for work. It does tend to be somewhat better in Brugge than Ghent, but not hugely so, except in the centre. The centre of Brugge is a really nice place to ride a bike. Most of that is not due to segregated infrastructure, but because the medieval streets in the centre allow very limited motor traffic; residents and deliveries only in most places. The cobbles can be awkward, but it is otherwise almost ideal cycling conditions.

Segregated paths like in the video are plenty wide for rural areas. The junction designs are still poor, though. I've had a near miss (right hook) and I know someone who has been right hooked there. Also, like in NL, cyclists are required to use cycling facilities when provided, and some are pretty bad; no better than the UK. Newer residential areas do generally have good quality infrastructure, but they haven't invested as much as in the Netherlands, so there are still significant gaps to fill in Belgium. Overall, I do think it's better than in the UK, but I could do without being forced to use crap infrastructure just because it's there.