City centre cycling ban

[Debs]

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.

[mjr]

Slow, down, read my post and think......doubt we'll agree from (what I read as) your tone but:-

I did not assume any lack of training or experience, just lack of reality/logic.

Exactly! You assume a lack of reality and logic, saying it's safe, but that the motorists on it need educating. Both cannot be true. Far from being disconnected, my reply connects the parts of your earlier claims up.

I did not call anyone 'incompetent'.

Not directly, but the implication was there: RF wrote they're "basically unrideable" and the reply was that they're "safe and rideable if you have learned basic safe riding skills". It seemed pretty clear you feel that RF has not "learned basic safe riding skills".

By using safe riding skills you can control AND educate the motorist.

I ask again: if it's safe and rideable, why does "the motorist" (but I doubt there's only one!) need educating?

How does cyclists 'sacrificing' a route benefit motorists?

By educating them, according to you.

So because a forum seems to think one way that is proof nowadays is it?

Not proof - just something that is as yet unanswered in any reasonable way.

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!

[pedals2slowly]

Describing something like this (City Walls Road) - a multi-lane road where motorists hare between a series of roundabouts and traffic lights - as safe for cyclists and rideable, while describing segregated infrastructure like this (the Embankment, London) as "counter productive" is, I guess, a view. But I'm glad it's no longer the majority view.

'Multi-lane' it's a dual carriageway, usually fairly busy with plenty of side turnings so traffic is slow. No length of road for motorists to get speed up.
I can't remeber the last time I had an 'incident' with a motorist, despite Worcester drivers not being at all cyclist aware.
Perhaps you could tell us how many times a week you ride along these roads?

Worcester is very backward in cycling terms, way behind London and with singular lack of continuous dedicated cycle routes.
The hit list of cycle infrastructure projects includes important ones that have been on the table for 30 years plus such is the treacle we wade through to get anything done.
Counter productive because motorists don't expect cyclists to be on the road and think they should be off the road and behave accordingly.
Cycles belong on the road, not being herded along winding, slower, longer segregated paths.

[pedals2slowly]

Exactly! You lack reality and logic, saying it's safe, but that the motorists on it need educating. Both cannot be true. Far from being disconnected, my reply connects the parts of your earlier claims up.

It seemed pretty clear you feel that RF has not "learned basic safe riding skills".

I suggest you (and RF) leave it to those of us in Worcester who know what we are talking about

[Cyril Haearn]

Plus One for local knowledge
Anyone else know Worcester and care to comment?

[mjr]

I suggest you (and RF) leave it to those of us in Worcester who know what we are talking about

ETA: I think I've cycled in Worcester at least once but I think it's so typically English/awful for cycling that I've not rushed back and I may be confusing it with another nearby city. How much have you cycled in places with decent/complete cycleway networks?

[Debs]

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!

It's far too built up with very close pedestrian proximity, the likelihood of bike-ped collision.
Peds on mobile phones, ear pods, walking dogs, children, peds don't always look where they [or anyone else] are going, and would be all too easy for someone to quickly step out of a shop, cafe, pub into the path of cyclist.
Would be totally daft to ride a bicycle down an cute shop-front alley way such as in the picture, even if it don't look busy.

[tatanab]

That photograph must have been taken on an ideal day with people held back while it was taken. I can tell you it is not usually like that. Note that the proposed ban is from 10:30 to 16:30 hence still open during commuting times and evenings.

[Cyril Haearn]

Taken early in the morning or modified, it is a side street, Foregate Street is the main street, leads to an interesting train station of the same name

Shrub Hill is the main station, unless Worcester Parkway has been built , that was planned decades ago too

[tatanab]

Taken early in the morning

When the cycling ban would not apply.

[mjr]

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!

It's far too built up with very close pedestrian proximity, the likelihood of bike-ped collision.
Peds on mobile phones, ear pods, walking dogs, children, peds don't always look where they [or anyone else] are going, and would be all too easy for someone to quickly step out of a shop, cafe, pub into the path of cyclist.
Would be totally daft to ride a bicycle down an cute shop-front alley way such as in the picture, even if it don't look busy.

Alley way? Is Worcester a place where alleyways are bigger or are we seeing different pictures? That shopping street looks wider than this residential one in King's Lynn which is open to 30mph two-way motor traffic:


I also like this one in Bristol and it says something about Bristol drivers that they felt the need to double-yellow it:

Source: https://www.bristolinformation.co.uk/sr ... pl&ref=158 (old pic but it's not changed much).

Going back to Friar Street, I don't see how someone could step out into the path of cyclist on the carriageway. The time it takes for someone to cross the pavement would be sufficient to stop as long as the cyclist is not riding recklessly fast (the onus is on the cyclist to be able to stop within what they can see to be clear IMO) and the person leaving the shop isn't fired from a cannon. Streets just like that are open to cyclists in Norwich, Bristol and Cambridge without much incident. As I wrote earlier, sometimes you're down to walking pace or having to stop a moment while a crowd clears, but it's all rideable at all but the busiest times and far better for most cyclists than joining the dual-carriageway drag races.


Cambridge, but not quite such a nice day as in Worcester. Source: http://cycle.st/p2324

[Si]

I've been down Friar St loads of times...the bit shown in the photo is a bit of a pinch point....the rest is slightly better and is no worse than many shared use pavements for cycling. My approach would be to use it, but to ride slowly and carefully, use the bell and polite 'excuse-me's, and get off and walk if it was too crowded....just like many shared use pavements. I've never had ped-bike issues there, although I have had ped-van issues.

As a major, London style, cyclists' commuter route it would be rubbish (although the Dutch would probably fair a little better on it).

The main issue is that it leads into New St and the King Charles, thus I am normally too full of pie and real ale to ride anywhere afterwards.

[Vorpal]

I trimmed the threads, and removed a couple of (implied) insults.

Please be civil.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Exactly! You lack reality and logic, saying it's safe, but that the motorists on it need educating. Both cannot be true. Far from being disconnected, my reply connects the parts of your earlier claims up.

It seemed pretty clear you feel that RF has not "learned basic safe riding skills".

I suggest you (and RF) leave it to those of us in Worcester who know what we are talking about

I think this is generally known as "gatekeeping", but given that the gates in the city wall were probably swept away by City Walls Road together with much of the rest of the historic city, that might not be the most appropriate term in this case.

I was last in Worcester yesterday, walking with my (decidedly free-range) two-year old along the shared-use riverside path during rush-hour - from Diglis up to Worcester Bridge. Cyclists passing us were, without exception, considerate and respectful. The notion that Worcester cyclists can't be trusted to behave on the High Street or Friar Street, whereas plenty of other city centres manage it without incident, is for the birds.

I live a handful of stops down the Cotswold Line from Worcester; have been visiting regularly for 20 years, with and without bike, and particularly so in the last five since we've moved our boat there; and designed the majority of the Oxford-Worcester National Cycle Route (442). After Oxford, it's the city in Britain I know best. 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.

The main issue is that it leads into New St and the King Charles, thus I am normally too full of pie and real ale to ride anywhere afterwards.

Coincidentally we ended up at the King Charles II on Tuesday. Pie and mash splendid as ever, but the only cider they had on were two adulterated with strawberry or gooseberry or other such nonsense, and one fizzy Thatchers Gold. Fortunately the Camp House at Grimley more than made up for it the next day!

[The utility cyclist]

Such a ban is very disappointing. Worcester's street layout is such that the pedestrianised streets are enclosed by two basically unrideable A roads - Deansway to the west, City Walls Road to the east.

Incorrect, Deansway and City Walls are safe and rideable if you have learned basic safe riding skills.
I use these roads every week.
There are simple techniques which anyone can be taught - contact the Bikeability Team at Worcestershire County Council and request a 'Level 3' course.

Provision of separate cycling routes/paths is counter productive to educating the motorist to drive safely around cyclists and pie in the sky for the majority of the country's roads.

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 motorvehicles) 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.