30kmh – making streets liveable

[Richard Mann]

My take on the debate:
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/2013 ... inimalism/

To promote everyday cycling, you do need some form of separation, but it's more realistic (and probably preferable) to go down the paint+speed-reduction route than the full segregation model.

[Mark1978]

I think we need both. Local to me there is a stretch of road which has painted cycle lanes on either side and because they are of a decent width and the route is direct, then they work; unfortunately they give up in the town centre, which is where they are needed most.

No I don't think we *need* off road paths everywhere, but they can serve a very useful purpose in increasing permeability, such as the ability to get across busy road and junctions without having to deal with large amounts of fast moving traffic.

In Mallorca I noticed a lot of roads where the roads were the same width as you'd find in the UK, but the main carriageway had been narrowed to provide a cycle lane alongside, this has the dual effect of providing space for cycling, but also slowing the motor traffic.

As for the article, all due respect to yourself, you're a cycle commuter, you know what you are doing and are confident on the road, we don't need to encourage you, or really anyone else on this forum to take up cycling.

[Richard Mann]

As for the article, all due respect to yourself, you're a cycle commuter, you know what you are doing and are confident on the road, we don't need to encourage you, or really anyone else on this forum to take up cycling.

Assuming that was referring to me, you might want to look at this article, which focuses on the types of cycling/cyclist/potential cyclist: http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/2013 ... from-mars/

[Mark1978]

As for the article, all due respect to yourself, you're a cycle commuter, you know what you are doing and are confident on the road, we don't need to encourage you, or really anyone else on this forum to take up cycling.

Assuming that was referring to me, you might want to look at this article, which focuses on the types of cycling/cyclist/potential cyclist: http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/2013 ... from-mars/

Can't argue with much of that (except the crazy naming). Except for the issue that cyclist have to start somewhere..

[kwackers]

Can't argue with much of that (except the crazy naming). Except for the issue that cyclist have to start somewhere..

Does having segregated facilities create cyclists though? (Utility/commuters as opposed to people who simply cycle to the local park once a month)

I'm guessing there's an argument for saying it doesn't, it simply creates cyclists who'll use their bike to go somewhere providing the route is segregated.
Without segregation most people learn to cycle on their own local (and quiet) roads, on there they'll get used to and learn to deal with small amounts of traffic before feeling brave enough to move onto busier routes.

Does that happen when some segregation is possible or do those cyclists never leave the paths?

[Richard Mann]

What creates everyday cyclists is congestion. Cycle lanes (and other forms of priority) shift the balance slightly. There's a lot of congestion in our cities, so there's a natural demand for cycling in a lot of places, if conditions aren't too hairy.

Some people take up cycling cos it's healthy (and some for cost reasons), but again, they won't generally keep cycling if the roads are hairy.

[patricktaylor]

My take on the debate:
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/2013 ... inimalism/ ...

A lot of that makes sense to me too. I just wish it was called something else than Dutch minimalism (although I can see the reference to Mondrian).

[reohn2]

What creates everyday cyclists is congestion. Cycle lanes (and other forms of priority) shift the balance slightly. There's a lot of congestion in our cities, so there's a natural demand for cycling in a lot of places, if conditions aren't too hairy.

Some people take up cycling cos it's healthy (and some for cost reasons), but again, they won't generally keep cycling if the roads are hairy.

Nail on the head IMO.
The way the government bleat on about CO2 emissions and climate change you'd think they'd be doing everything to make roads less hairy for cyclists and be promoting public transport use by among other things,making it easier to carry bike on trains,and for tickets to be simple to buy,not to mention flat rate costs,etc,etc .
You'd also think they'd be discouraging the use of gas guzzling 2ton 4x4's,etc by loading taxes on the use of such vehicles unless their use is a necessity,limiting the kind of roads HGV's use or restricting their use to certain times of day and reducing the speed limits across the board by 10mph except M/ways where the current 70mph would be rigorously enforced.
And a thousand and one other transport issues that need tackling to get slobs out of huge cars that they transport their children less than a mile to school .
You'd think penalties for breaking road laws would be increased in line with the 21 century and inline with other forward thinking northern European countries,who it so happens operate strict liability laws wherebye if a bigger category vehicle collides with a smaller vehicle or vulnerable road user they are held responsible unless they can prove otherwise.

The fact that they don't,tells me that the government don't give a monkeys about cycling the vulnerable road user of whatever category or CO2 emissions and are more concerned with getting in at the next election by leading people to think that the car is the answer to our transport needs,but then politrickians don't care much for the truth .

[patricktaylor]

... so there's a natural demand for cycling in a lot of places, if conditions aren't too hairy ...

That's the crux of it IMO - whether it's actually true, compared to demand for public transport. I suspect (only a suspicion) that the demand is restricted to certain areas where other conditions are right as well, such as travel distances, type of journey, employment, topography, presence of universities, etc. The advantage public transport has over cycling - if advantage is the right word - is that somebody can make a profit from it, so investment is worthwhile. I doubt if the government really regards cycling as the real mass-transport alternative to motor vehicles.

[Mark1978]

... so there's a natural demand for cycling in a lot of places, if conditions aren't too hairy ...

That's the crux of it IMO - whether it's actually true, compared to demand for public transport. I suspect (only a suspicion) that the demand is restricted to certain areas where other conditions are right as well, such as travel distances, type of journey, employment, topography, presence of universities, etc. The advantage public transport has over cycling - if advantage is the right word - is that somebody can make a profit from it, so investment is worthwhile. I doubt if the government really regards cycling as the real mass-transport alternative to motor vehicles.

No they don't. If anything trains are seen as the public transport of choice - a very London centric view IMO.