Cycling UK Forum

Phil Jones wrote:I would like to ask members of the forum for their experience as cyclists of using both types of route

IME (and desperately trying to stick to the question) segregation by white line does not work, it merely results in anger and agression for all the reasons that others have already stated.

If I want to go quickly then I stick to the roads unless there is a useful short cut: if I want to bumble along enjoying the sun and sea, then I'll use the mixed use path. And yes peds do wander all over the place: the only reason that they don't do it (much) on the roads is that they tend to come off seriously worse in any collision with motorised transport :~

Here in Worthing we should find out soon.

13 years ago the Promanade had white lines painted on it for cyclists. Was OK to use, but problems with drunk teenagers in the evenings playing chicken with cyclists. Then a visiting pedestrian was knocked over some way beyond the end of the cycle lane, and the lane was removed. While the accident happened beyond the end of the lane, the lane was blamed.

In the meantime cyclists have continued to ride on the Prom, breaking the local byelaws in doing so. As far as I'm aware this has not caused any major problems or injury in 13 years.

Soon we will have legitimate shared use on the most busy stretch of the Prom, as they are changing the byelaws. In practice I don't see much changing: cyclists will continue as before, although now they'll be doing it legally.

I personally think that giving cyclists a dedicated lane gives them a feeling of priority over pedestrians that isn't helpful. Removing markings that give one set of users over another makes all users take more care, and encourages negotiation, eye contact, greetings, etc.

This seems to work for motor traffic too: towns should have 20mph speed limits and no right-of-way markings at junctions. Ideally the distinction between carriageway and footway should also be removed on streets too, I think.

Fonant wrote:This seems to work for motor traffic too: towns should have 20mph speed limits and no right-of-way markings at junctions. Ideally the distinction between carriageway and footway should also be removed on streets too, I think.

I agree.

Hence my stance on doing away with cycle paths. Bikes on the road with cars where they belonged in the first place. Both cyclists and motorists would keep their eyes and ears open.

My major objection to shared use paths, divided or not, is that the surfaces are laid to footpath standards of levelness rather than roadway standards. This means it often becomes unrideable at much over 10mph due to the bumpiness - and I ride a bike with suspension!

moultoneer wrote:My major objection to shared use paths, divided or not, is that the surfaces are laid to footpath standards of levelness rather than roadway standards. This means it often becomes unrideable at much over 10mph due to the bumpiness - and I ride a bike with suspension!

I think if you're riding at over 10mph you probably should consider the roads.

I don't think shared paths are really intended as high speed bicycle transport links.

Fonant wrote:Here in Worthing we should find out soon.

13 years ago the Promanade had white lines painted on it for cyclists. Was OK to use, but problems with drunk teenagers in the evenings playing chicken with cyclists. Then a visiting pedestrian was knocked over some way beyond the end of the cycle lane, and the lane was removed. While the accident happened beyond the end of the lane, the lane was blamed.

In the meantime cyclists have continued to ride on the Prom, breaking the local byelaws in doing so. As far as I'm aware this has not caused any major problems or injury in 13 years.

Soon we will have legitimate shared use on the most busy stretch of the Prom, as they are changing the byelaws. In practice I don't see much changing: cyclists will continue as before, although now they'll be doing it legally.

I personally think that giving cyclists a dedicated lane gives them a feeling of priority over pedestrians that isn't helpful. Removing markings that give one set of users over another makes all users take more care, and encourages negotiation, eye contact, greetings, etc.

This seems to work for motor traffic too: towns should have 20mph speed limits and no right-of-way markings at junctions. Ideally the distinction between carriageway and footway should also be removed on streets too, I think.

And here's the rub - the road that runs parallel to the Prom should itself be shared surface. Take out the parking, take out the white lines, take out the footpaths, and turn the whole thing into a flat plain on which people walk, cycle and drive - at 15mph or less. And that, Anthony, has been said to the planners and the masterplanners for the last year and a half. And they could have the whole thing for free (and a cinema on the beach) if they had the guts to go for it.

Simon L6 wrote: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.

I'm sorry that you regret it. I wasn't living near the Common before cycling was permitted. However I suspect that if cycling wasn't allowed on this path I'd visit the Common perhaps half a dozen times a year. Instead I visit it nearly every day enjoying the calm of the Common before the roar of the road. If cycling wasn't allowed the Common would be much less congenial for me.

Having cycled across the common more or less every day for a year I've been very impressed by the behaviour of cyclists and pedestrians. I don't recall seeing anyone riding at great speed and I have had no abuse from pedestrians.

I'm sure dog owners get as nervous as cyclists about their pets but the cyclists seem to accept that the dogs will wander as they wish, and the owners aren't so concerned as to keep their dogs on a tight leash or to heel.

I would I suspect be quite happy to take the parallel road instead if the council replaced the pavements and parking areas with flower beds and lawns, leaving the roadway as a controlled speed zone for cyclists, drivers of small cars/vans and pedestrians to co-exist on.

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.

Well it's time that it became a majority interest. Almost the entire populations of the Netherlands and Denmark can't be all wrong.

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.

Rubbish. They have towns and cities every bit as old as Britain so that is not valid as an excuse. It never ceases to amaze how insular the British are.

If I want to go quickly then I stick to the roads

There's a movie on Youtube somewhere where a velomobile was clocked at a steady 40mph by a police car on the adjacent road.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ubFk5uve9g

My major objection to shared use paths, divided or not, is that the surfaces are laid to footpath standards of levelness rather than roadway standards.

Doesn't apply in a civilised country.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2007/12/comfort-testing-bike-lanes.html

Given the level of resistance to any kind of change, from BOTH sides of the cycling/motoring advocacy divide, as indicated in many of these posts, it could be suggested that the Brits already have the road conditions they deserve.

Some more background reading for you:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/
http://www.copenhagenize.com/
Either food for thought, if you want to see more people doing everyday things on bikes, or something to sneer at if you are of the leather buttocked road warrior persuasion who kind of enjoys being regarded as a maverick outsider to society, as many CTC hardliners seem to imply.

nigel_s wrote:

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.

Well it's time that it became a majority interest. Almost the entire populations of the Netherlands and Denmark can't be all wrong.

This has absolutely nothing to do with segregation though.
Cycling is just as common in towns in those countries where cycling is permitted on the roads.

The Dutch and Danes do all the things that those of us opposed to segregation would recommend. They slow down and reduce the traffic, they remove parking places, they give priority to the movement of pedestrians and cyclists in their street design. Segregation is seen as last on the list of measures, and cycle path junctions can only operate with any degree of safety due to the rest of the package; the effect of cycle paths there (just as it is here) is to the detriment of cyclist safety. Pedestrians are also very much safer there than here, and this has nothing to do with cycle paths.

They take safety seriously in the Netherlands, which is why they are taking the lead in moving away from segregating vulnerable users, and have started implementing shared space schemes where cycle paths are ripped out, and even the segregation of pedestrians is being blurred. This leads to a dramatic improvement in road safety.

So yes, we do need to learn from the Netherlands and Denmark, but we need to learn the right lesson - which is to make the streets safe for vulnerable road users. Not to adopt the one feature which has the opposite effect and which they themselves are moving away from.

nigel_s wrote:Given the level of resistance to any kind of change, from BOTH sides of the cycling/motoring advocacy divide, as indicated in many of these posts, it could be suggested that the Brits already have the road conditions they deserve.

Motoring advocacy groups are in pretty universal agreement that cyclists should be forced off the road on to seperate paths. Most LAs in this country are in thrall to the motoring lobby so are working to just that end.
The pupose of cycle paths is and always has been to marginalise cyclists for the convenience of drivers.

Cycling advocacy groups are determined to maintain our right to use the road, and make no mistake this is under serious threat, with the ever growing proliferation of cycle paths. Think of the Daniel Cadden case and the attempt to make path use compulsory via the highway code.

nigel_s wrote:Some more background reading for you:

Such as the research showing how much safer it is to ride on the carriageway:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

and since you mention Copenhagen so much, the ECF report showing how cycle tracks reduce safety there:
http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safet ... nhagen.pdf

Or what tthe hierarchy of provision is all about:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/Default.aspx?TabID=4923

Or about how the Dutch are moving away from segregation and adopting shared space:
http://www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/general/mon ... etails.htm

Or how the german town of Hilden achieved a massive modal shift by cutting speed limits:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... Hilden.pdf

Simon L6 wrote:

Fonant wrote:Here in Worthing we should find out soon......

And here's the rub - the road that runs parallel to the Prom should itself be shared surface. Take out the parking, take out the white lines, take out the footpaths, and turn the whole thing into a flat plain on which people walk, cycle and drive - at 15mph or less. And that, Anthony, has been said to the planners and the masterplanners for the last year and a half. And they could have the whole thing for free (and a cinema on the beach) if they had the guts to go for it.

It's the (congested) A259, but (more to the point?) it's several feet below the level of the prom so one wouldn't get the same 'beside the seaside' expereince

Arguments about integration verses segregation and if there's integration should it be cyclists with pedestrians or cyclists with motorists invariably produce more heat than light.

To my mind both segregation and integration have their advantages and disadvantages. The best approach is not to attempt to create a rigid rule by generalizing from a handful experiences, but to start from the particular road situation. Examine which alternatives are at least remotely possible and then evaluate the extent to which the various well known advantages/disadvantages apply.

To those who go to the Netherlands, see the fine segregated paths there and jump to the conclusion that segregation is the way forward here, I would point out that given the low cycling levels in the the UK the segregated facilities which are politically possible in this country are very likely to be of abysmally low quality. So in most cases we have to put up integrated solutions until such a time when the volume of cycle traffic gets high enough to put a quality segregated solution back on the agenda.

In the meantime we should stay clear of the dogma and focus on examining the various schemes which have been implemented and publicising their advantages and defects.

One of the things that has always got on my wick (i seem to be getting very grumpy these days for one still in their 30's) about the theory cyclists need segregating from motor traffic, particularly in urban areas, is i think it's selling people a myth and providing a cycling experience pretty much the same as a motoring experience.

For example, i always though one of the reasons motorists got frustrated with their drive to work was the congestion adding to journey time and the stop-start nature of moving from queue to queue. Personally, i've always found shared use paths do exactly the same - the frequent having to stop to give way at junctions replicates the stop-start nature of most peak time car journeys. The speed at which you travel is frequently dictated by the number of pedestrians you encounter, some days none and others plenty, eroding the advantage of being able to predict journey time if going by bike.

I would also question the health benefits of cycling at the slow speeds necessitated on shared use paths. I know its healthier to be cycling at a slow speed than not cycling at all, but the people i know of who are content to plod along at 7/8mph on the shared use paths do not appear to have undergone the weight loss they had hoped for by getting out on their bikes.

I've never really been seduced by the argument that learner cyclists need to be kept apart from motor traffic if they are to be encouraged to cycle more. I wonder how many people would have perservered with learning to drive if their first few driving lessons had taken place on busy roads at busy times of day? (Maybe that's the way forward-they'll all be so scared witless at the thought of learning to drive the amount of motorised traffic will drop and we can all pedal round in peace!). I think folk are much more likely to cycle to work and stuff if they take the time to learn to cycle and gradually build up their exposure to traffic - i agree it can be daunting but once you've got the hang of it, it's so much easier to start viewing your bike as a proper mode of transport.

Finally, seperate facilities make people stupid - i never cease to be amazed by how many people question how i can possibly have cycled anywhere because there isn't a cycle path on that road.

nigel_s wrote:

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.

Well it's time that it became a majority interest.

well, I wish you well in your attempt to persuade the ever rising number of London cyclists to forsake the wide open spaces of London's arterial routes for wiggly, winding, poorly signed, bumpy, inconvenient cycle 'routes' that nobody feels the need of. In the mean time, Mrs L (no racing snake, she) and I have just been for a gentle perambulation through Clapham, Chelsea, Pimlico, Westminster, Blackfriars, the City, Elephant and Castle, Stockwell using roads which are all classed as A roads, and very pleasant it was too.....

When the number of cycles on the A3 through Stockwell exceeds the number of private cars (as it does in the commuting hours) you have to wonder where the LCC and Sustrans think they have to go*. Some wag has done a Banksy and spraypainted a cycle sign on the tarmac on Kennington Road. Given that this is the kind of road that we are enjoined by Sustrans to forsake, you have to smile. I do, as I cycle up to the Imperial War Museum in the company of more cyclists than you can shake a stick at.

*actually I know fine well that there are those in the LCC who recognise that they have to move on from LCN+ and get to where the heart of the action really is - the planning system, and urban design.