Cycling UK Forum

Dean wrote:I use the roads - apart from the comparative ease and the fact that I find bikes and cars interact better than bikes and pedestrians, I dislike the idea that we as cyclists require special facilities

THAT is my view, except I HATE the idea that we as cyclists require* special facilities!

*Require?
Me?

NO WAY do I require!!!

Get rid of cycle paths, shared, segregated or otherwise.
Bicycles are vehicles.
Pedestrians are human beings.
The more we cycle, and walk, the more that motorists will understand that they don't own the road.

If we segregate pedestrians, cyclists, or any other form of transport, the more that the problem will persist.

Reclaim the highways!!

I'm with MickF 100%. If we're going to campaign for anything, it's for decent streets.

Shared use tends to lead to cyclists travelling at walking pace if they're put anywhere populated. From my experience of Tooting Common a white line down a path allows bikes to travel a bit faster - but still needing to go cautiously enough to circumvent/stop for wanderers: dogs, small children, lovestruck teenagers, parents on phones, senile delinquents and saga louts. And, of course, cyclists coming the other way on the narrow strip of pavement allocated who don't understand the principle of keeping to the left. Of course when I have my trailer with me it doesn't matter much if they do keep to the left as there's not enough room to pass then without crossing the white line anyway.

Separated - even by a thin strip of grass - and wide cycle lanes make a big difference allowing the cyclist to travel at greater speed as pedestrians find it harder to wander obliviously across grass.

From my experience of cycling up the Rhine from Rotterdam to Karlsruhe this summer I do support the idea of having routes other than motor vehicle roads. It's quieter, more peaceful, less dangerous and quicker - but this is because the facilities are built properly for serious cycling.

I'm participating for the first time in a cycle route investigation meeting (CRIM) shortly. It's for the Wandle River to Battersea Greenway and I'm intrigued to find out some of the issues and expectations. I'll be taking my trailer along for the ride.

Mick F wrote:...

Get rid of cycle paths, shared, segregated or otherwise.
...
If we segregate pedestrians, cyclists, or any other form of transport, the more that the problem will persist.

Absolutely, old boy. Let's ignore what Johnny Foreigner is up to. Best not to take any notice 'cos it's bad form to find out that he might just have something to teach us, don't you know.
http://hembrow.eu/cycling/#studytour

the trouble with all of this is that £140 million quid has been lavished on LCN+, which remains, to put it very kindly, a minority interest amongst London's cyclists. Ingrates that they are, they're riding down the main roads in ever increasing numbers. Those of us who followed the LCC routes into the Freewheel (in my case out of morbid curiosity) would have been amazed at the doubling of journey times, and the not infrequent traversing of footpaths.

I'm one of the people who campaigned for the path across Tooting Common. I regret it. The Common is a less congenial place as a result.

The survey is for the benefit of Sustrans and a lot of Sustrans tracks are privately owned for the purpose of allowing people who wish to walk or cycle away from the hassle and abuse of the roads to do that.
They are not public highways as governed by road traffic law.
It is a place where young children can ride a bike free from the fear of being mown down by HGVs turning left.

Face it there are a lot of people out there who will not ride bikes on British roads and they are making an alternative network of routes which exclude motor vehicles.

Personally I would agree that in low volume usage areas like my local Sustran's routes it would be a waste of paint. I dont know about the busier routes.
I dont meet many other people on the routes and most of the people on the route treat it as if they were the only people in the world. So you get used to having to wait for them to collect their dogs etc. If I was to meet someone walking in the cyclists zone I would then have to consider requesting them to move to the empty pedestrian bit so I could pass on the cyclists bit, all a bit unnecesary.

nigel_s wrote:

George Riches wrote:I like the solution they often have in the Netherlands. A path for cyclists at least 3m wide and a totally separate path for pedestrians.

I agree. Given the colossal levels of cycling in the Netherlands and Denmark, segregating cyclists and pedestians from each other and from motor traffic seems to be the only way forward. Anyone who has ridden a bike over there must attest to this.

Cycling is safe and attractive in those countries (as is walking) because they do not let car traffic dominate their city designs. Speed limits are low and the roads would be a delight to ride on, if only it was allowed by law. Duch and Danish towns without segregation also see high levels of cycling.
The only reason that segregated facilities can operate remotely safely in those countries is that the general level of road safety for vulnerable road users is so good. Indeed there is now a move away from segregation towards the shared space concepts pioneered by the late Hans Mondeman.

The sick apologys for cycling facilities in Bike-Phobic Britain are, and always will be, the reason most cyclists refuse to use them as they are far too dangerous to use.

Wherever segregated cycle facilities are studied they are found to be less safe than riding on the roads. See:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html
for a compendium of research. This is not just crap UK facilities, but worldwide. The problem of designing junctions that are remotely safe is intractable. I don't know when the idea took hold that these were supposed to be for the benefit of cyclists rather than to prevent us causing any delay to the very important people in cars.

Yes, facility design in the UK is particularly bad, but if you advocate segregated facilities here that IS what you will end up with. Please don't.

It's time Highway Authorities and the Government get real about their plans for increasing cycling and follow the lead of the Netherlands and get on with it. And put the likes of Sustrans out of business.

So long as they genuinely follow the lead of the Netherlands which is to apply the hierarchy of solutions to improve conditions for cyclists.
ie
1. to reduce traffic volumes
2. to reduce traffic speed
3. to improve junction design
4. reallocate space within the carriageway
5. consider cycle lanes or tracks
in that order ie cycle lanes should only be considered as a last resort, after doing everything else possible to improve conditions on the carriageway.

The trouble is, that most local authorities, refuse to contemplate 1-4 and jump straight to the bottom of the hierarchy.

I can't remember where in UK it was, but I did once have the extremely dubious pleasure of riding on a dual use path with a physical division between the pedestrian and cycling parts that took the form of a low but very abrupt kerb! I think it was formed by one of those thin concrete edging strips, making the pedestrian path was some 3 or 4 cm higher.

The whole path wasn't very wide to start with and the cycling channel less than half of it. This made cycling most unpleasant, trapped between two kerbs with barely enough space to steer, and forced to brake sharply by the inevitable thoughtlessly wandering pedestrian. They, of course, could hop to and fro as they pleased, but any attempt to cycle across that low kerb held the threat of a deflected wheel and a nasty fall. At the first opportunity I took to the road. It felt so much safer in spite of the traffic and the behaviour of its drivers, affronted as they were by my rejection of the clearly signposted path, paved for me at their expense!

So: no kerb-like barriers please unless the cycling part of the path can be at least 2m wide and no higher barriers (to catch the ends of handlebars) unless at least 3m between them. Otherwise: please just paint a line that either party can cross if they need to. I think lines do help - provided the paint isn't thick enough to also present a deflection hazard.

Oh, and please paint any bollards in bright colours of white or yellow, like they sensibly do in Holland, Denmark etc. I guess that a dark colour has the advantage of masking bloodstains, but it would be nice if we didn't hit them in the first place!

Better: let us not have any paths at all alongside roads unless they can be at least as good to ride on as the road. They build them like that abroad: I know, I've ridden miles on excellent paths in those countries. Why such rubbish here? When there isn't any road it's another matter, but where there is we shouldn't let ourselves be bullied by the traffic onto anything second-rate.

Dean wrote:I use the roads - apart from the comparative ease and the fact that I find bikes and cars interact better than bikes and pedestrians, I dislike the idea that we as cyclists require special facilities.

I would tend to agree with you, althouh I note that motor vehicle users already have a large number of very expensive special facilities ("motorways", I think they're called) built for them, and would certainly not object on principle if undertakings on a similar scale targeted at and useful to cyclists were to be mooted. It's only fair.

Phil Jones wrote:Dear CTC members

We have been commissioned by Sustrans to carry out a review of the advantages and disadvantages of segregated and non-segregated traffic-free cycle and pedestrian routes.

OK - now to answer your original question.

You will gather from my previous post that I am not a particular fan of pavement cycling (which is what most so called facilities are) but I think there is a distinction between roadside paths and routes away from roads such as converted railways, canal tow paths and the like. The initial concept of the sustrans appeared to be about connecting stretches of the latter type of path with cycle friendly roads, indeed the majority of the NCN was supposed to be on roads.

I have no problem with creating entirely new routes for cyclists and pedestrians. but when these join roads cyclists should use the space allocated for vehicles - particularly in urban areas.

Now for the answer.
Shared use paths should always be undivided for the following reasons.

1. Space. if you are going to provide a shared use path then it has to be wide enough for users to pass each other safely. for a cycle path this means at least 3.5m wide. ie 1m as the moving width of each cyclist plus a safety margin of 0.5m to each side. A footway needs to be at least 2m wide. This means that your path needs to be at least 5.5m wide before you can contemplate subdivision. Any narrower will result in subdividing one useable facility with two substandard ones.

2. Imagine you are strolling down a shared use path without a care in the world and you happen to wander onto the cycle side to admire the view in that direction. A cyclist is approaching. Do you want him to
a) ding his bell,
b) shout at you to keep to your own side of the path,
c) squeeze past you or
d) move to the other side of the path?
If your answer is (d) then it is a bit daft to make that illegal.

3. Two cyclists are approaching each other on a shared use path.
Should they
a) both squeeze past each other on the same side of the path or
b) keep to the left, and use the full width of the path to pass each other safely?

4. Segregating encourages an agressive, Clarkson like, mindset in some cyclists. They expect pedestrians not to step unexpectedly into their path, in the same way that some drivers do on the road. there are often examples in this news group even. on any path it should be clear to cyclists that they are responsible for avoiding pedestrians, not vice versa. this is the same reasoning being applied in shared space street designs.

5. Clutter. You need to use a lot of unattractive paint and signs to achieve a segregated route and constantly remind people which side they are supposed to use.

6. Textured paving. getting your wheel caught in textured paving produces a nasty tram line effect. this is particularly bad when, more often than not, they use the wrong sort of testured tiles.

7. Sociablitiy. people out walking or cycling in a group like to walk side by side rather than in single file. a single wide path gives much more flexibility than two narrow ones.

The one place where shared use paths should be segregated is on the approach to road junctions. Here the junction should be laid out as any other road junction, with the pedestrian side raised to join the pavement
while the cycle path joins the carriageway.

Absolutely, old boy. Let's ignore what Johnny Foreigner is up to. Best not to take any notice 'cos it's bad form to find out that he might just have something to teach us, don't you know.
http://hembrow.eu/cycling/#studytour

Or alternatively we could look in Britain at cities that have cycling rates similar to Johhny foriegners best shots? Why is Cambridge always ignored when others are so keen on glorifying Essen\Copenhage etc?

The Cambridge model is an excellent model for the UK to study (~25% of journeys and risng are by bike). Its far more relevant than 'Johhny foreigners'. As a parent of a small child i think we'd do well to look at the innovations happening there. With their incoming congestion charge and cycling city status money as well , its aiming to beat Holland for cycling rates.

It has many of the features of a UK city narrow streets (like many British ones), congestion, ring roads, nearby motorways etc Cambridge uses a mixture of cycle facilities to achieve what they do . Many of them are pants, many of them are great but it works! Its living proof that a blend of facilities work well. In particular the roads are excellent for experienced cycles but there are many alternative routes that may suit nervous\inexperienced riders these tend to be longer and more complex but are well signposted and well used!

To return to the orginal topic. I really like the idea of seggregated cycle facilities where they are appropriate I always avoid cycle facilties that pedestrains use as they are slow and dangerous.

Some examples of seggregated facilities that work well are:
-Bridges (light and easy to install compared to a car\lorry bridge)
-Cycle 'motorways' that link Cities, towns and satellite villages(see Cambridge or bristol bath cycle path)
-Short cuts out of housing estates (there are some very good and very bad examples of these)
-Links to schools

Many of these are cheap , easy to install compared to other trasnport options.

Mick is unusually myopic on this topic. If he thinks he has the same rights as traffic, i'll race him down the M4! The reality is that the vast road network is suitable for most of us, but that different vehcles can and should be routed away from some places (bikes from motorways, trucks from light bridges, cars from bus lanes, everything from pavements)

Personally I prefer a shared path* with white dashes (like a road) down the middle and then the path being treated like a road, i.e. cyclists keep left and pedestrians facing on-coming traffic.

*I actually prefer a well surfaced road with considerate users, but I'm answering the question asked...

The analogy of this to road use came to mind when exploring some of the very narrow country lanes in Somerset which were probably about the same width as the Bristol / Bath path and I thought to myself here is a right of way for cars, cyclists, horses and pedestrians and how they share that space.

I found keeping right was the best way of heading down the Bristol / Bath path when I was on crutches - an experience that also led me to realise how badly designed our urban areas are for anyone with less than full mobility be that on a bike or foot. The advantage of this route was the lack of road crossings or steep underpasses.

Like Nigel I can't believe that any of our planners have ever set foot abroad. On a recent trip to San Sebastian I saw a city with wide footways, smooth cycle routes used by skaters and all manner of cyclists whilst at the same time seeing plenty of "roadies" on the well maintained roads... Oh and many of the "pedestrian" areas actually allowed vehicles, but at a max of 20 or even just 10 kmph which of course rubbishes all those archaic arguments about access and deliveries that backward thinking British business always come up with then there is a good idea to make the streets people friendly. Sorry that wasn't meant to be a rant...

Edited to clarify what I prefer cycling on!

Mick, Simon, Nigel et al: To get from A to B I require no special cycle facilities. However, cycling on roads (even using road-side cycle paths) requires a lot of concentration and subjects you to traffic pollution. My idea of a relaxing ride is a quiet day out in the fresh air admiring the scenery as it slips by at pootling speed, which is incompatible with many of today's roads.

Even out of season I see more cyclists (or POBs if you prefer) per hour on motor-traffic-free Sustrans routes than I do through even the centre of Plymouth. So, like it or not, "hard-core" cyclists are in the minority. I suspect that tomorrow's tourists are spawned on the motor-traffic-free routes of today, so please don't dismiss these routes just because they're superfluous to your personal needs.

Geoff

It helps that in Holland (I think) cycle paths are nearly always red wherever you are. If you are walking you soon learn not to walk on red paths.

With a proper investment it might work to have segregated paths. For it to work long unbroken stretches of clearly market cycle paths are required. They need to be wide enough for two way cycle traffic and for people to cycle next to each other.

There is no point in having dedicated cycle paths where you have to stop / give way at every opportunity.

Cycling in Holland where segregated paths are the norm is a dream. But they have a country wide network to back it up. Also when paths do meet roads the cyclist generally has priority.

essexman wrote:Mick is unusually myopic on this topic. If he thinks he has the same rights as traffic, i'll race him down the M4! The reality is that the vast road network is suitable for most of us, but that different vehcles can and should be routed away from some places (bikes from motorways, trucks from light bridges, cars from bus lanes, everything from pavements)

I don't disagree that some segregation is required. But that's not what the OP was asking about.

Bicycles are vehicles. They have every right to use the carriageway (unless laws and by-laws forbid a specific road). They should ride on the road. The more that cyclists use the roads, the more they will be accepted.

Also, I really believe that motorways can be safer to cycle down than some A roads! Imagine: wide carriageways, wide hard shoulder - plenty room!
Some DCs are as fast, if not faster than some motorways. They can be even more dangerous for cyclists - narrow carriageways, no hard shoulder.

Either way, a motorway would be very boring to cycle on as are most DCs.

To compare UK to the Continent is not helpful to the argument. Continental roads are very different to UK roads. Even the cities are differently laid out.