Cycling UK Forum

the suggestion that people might flock to cycle paths because they are safe is mistaken. Cast your mind back to the seventh of July bombings. For three weeks after you could not get into a cycle shop in the centre of London for crowds of people taking to cycling because they were afraid to go on the tube. And what did these fearful newbies do? Reach for their LCN+ maps? Not a bit of it. Toes pointed outward, inappropriate shorts exposing lengths of builders crack, they pounded straight down the main roads, weaving through traffic without, as far as one could judge, a care in the world.

Again, compare the Wandle Way to Garratt Lane. The first is one of our Greenways. It's nice (or rather it was nice till somebody decided to spend £1.3 million on bridges with slippery mesh decks, and dodgy signage) but unused. Garratt Lane is, by any measure, a dull road with turnings every few hundred yards. It's used by cyclists in ever greater numbers. They might or might not be safer on the Wandle Way (although if you had a spill you could be picked to death by crows before anybody came to your aid) but the stark fact is that people who ride bikes think of convenience, and journey times, and they flock together.

Most of the main roads into Central London from the southwest have now reached the point of no return. Barring some terrible change in policy (oh - I forgot, motorbikes in bus lanes!) cyclists will continue to take these roads as their own.

squeaker wrote:

Kirst wrote:I use an off road footpath/cycle path to get to work and I would be very reluctant to go round by the road because the route I use it shorter, more direct, allows me to cycle faster, slightly less hilly, and avoids a couple of road routes that are really quite unpleasant.

I used to use a bridleway (Coastal Link, Steyning to Shoreham - now the southern end of the Downs Link) to get to work, but as it's rough surfaced with a sandy material and regularly puddles at the sight of rain it was not that practical IME - but it did get me back into road cycling
Were it hard surfaced then that would have been a different kettle of herrings.

Yes, the route I'm talking about is tarmaced all the way.

and one small irony. Mrs L and I cycled twelve miles to see my mother-in-law this morning. (St. Peter, please note). We went down the A23, the A235 and the A22, and then up the hill to Caterham, which I mention because it's a long hill (by southern standards, TC), and Mrs L did very well to conquer it.

Mrs L is not quick. Notwithstanding we were considerably inconvenienced by slow car traffic on our return trip up the A23 between Norbury and Streatham. Mrs L was not pleased.

Had it been a weekday, or even a Saturday, we would have been much quicker. The bus lanes would have been ours. And that, dear reader, is the secret of our success. I can reach the office by Brompton in 18 minutes. Public transport takes 35 to 45. Going by car would, I imagine, take longer still during rush hour, and then I'd have to park the thing and walk to the office.

Oh the delights of Norbury
My in-laws live about a mile downhill from Lloyds bank.
Last time we cycled down there was en route to the London - Cambridge in 1990.

Simon L6 wrote:... the stark fact is that people who ride bikes think of convenience, and journey times, and they flock together.

I think that the stark fact is that commuters who cycle think of convenience and journey times, but they are not the entire set of people who ride bikes. For info, I and most of the hundreds I see every time I use an off-road route, ride for pleasure. My wife and I enjoy pootling about taking in the scenery with nary a care in the world, and that's incompatible with the many roads on which you need to concentrate on the traffic etc. Also on those routes I see lots of families having a day out (about 50% of the cycle traffic). In contrast, I've only seen two family groups in the last year on the roads. The young cyclists of today often get their basic skills on the off-road routes, which is why I say that these routes are the spawning grounds for the tourists of tomorrow. Remove these routes and you risk losing the next generation of cyclists.

In the meantime, Mrs GeoffL and I are off to Brittany next year for a week of pootling with nary a care along the Green Ways. It's a pity that we don't appear to have a similar network in this country.

Geoff

Actually, one more thing to say...

Just picked up the latest A to B magazine (probably the only cycling magazine worth reading nowadays - bar none).

This, from the letters page from a Felicity Wright-Hewing, headed:

Conspiracy Theory

"It is very enlightening to see what infrastructure is provided for cyclists in Europe, to see what can be done when there is the will power. I have come to to the conclusion that the bicycle is not an approved method of transport in Britain. In fact it is not regarded as a method of transport at all, merely as a piece of leisure equipment. While the Government has never actually gone so far as to ban bicycles from the roads, it approaches the issue in a more subtle and insidious way, by making 40mph+ roads so dangerous that most sane people who value their lives don't dare venture out with a bicycle.

The result is, of course, that there are few cyclists on the roads nowadays, so the Government can't justify spending lots of money on infrastructure. Getting rid of a problem by scaring it out of existence is a cheap and very effective way. Perhaps one of the cheapest schemes a government has ever come up with."

The editor's note at the end of the letter:
"Interesting theory. We are reminded of a comment by a Dutch lady visiting Presteigne this year (with perhaps a hint of irony at a fairly potty bike show): 'Only the mad people still ride bicycles in Britain'. There are a few pockets of sanity, such as Dorchester, where there are many cyclists, and motorists are generally considerate. But we don't venture out of town on bicycles very often. There's no doubt that the recent reduction in national road caualties is more about cyclists and pedestrians staying at home than any improvement in road safety."

-----------
Cynical, perhaps. But a fairly accurate appraisal of cycling in Britain in 2008, in my view. Doing nothing and hoping that more people will just go out and ride in present day road conditions, thereby improving things just by being there suggests a pretty forlorn hope without improving even the perception of safety - real or otherwise.

Geoff - I could not agree more. My point is that there is a confusion of aims. If you want to promote leisure cycling, then the NCN style route, and, for that matter, the Greenways, are a great thing.

They don't address the transport needs of cities and towns, and they don't make cities and towns more convivial places to live and work in.

Simon - but they are both necessary part of cycling IMO and are not (as some seem to imply) mutually exclusive.

Geoff

nigel_s wrote:

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.

Of course it has.

I don't understand your logic.

If cycling is no more common in Dutch towns with cyclepaths than those without, how do you conclude that it is "obvious" that the popularity of cycling in the Netherlands is due to existence of cyclepaths?

Because of the implementation of a cycle friendly infrastructure there are more people who ride bikes regularly.

Absolutely... but since cyclpaths make cycling less safe, slower, and less convenient they cannot be considered cycle friendly. The Dutch now realise this which is why they are moving away from segregation in order to create an even better environment for vulnerable users.

To implement cycle friendly infrastructure the way the Dutch and Danes do means following the hierarchy of measures. Reducing traffic volumes and speeds, making the junctions cycle friendly, reallocating road space and only at the very end of the list to consider cycle paths. Cycling is popular in those countries despite of rather than because of the cycle paths - and the only reason the cycle paths are workable at all is because of all the far more important measures higher up on the hierarchy.

The biggest obstacle in this country in persuading LAs to implement cycle friendly infrastructure their preference to jump straight to the bottom of the list and install paths as an excuse to avoid making our streets cycle friendly.

Which means that more drivers ride bikes as well. Which means more cycle friendly drivers...

Sorry, but cycle paths lead to aggression from drivers. As soon as the blue signs appear on the pavement there is a small minority who feel that cyclists ought to use them and will try to force us off the road. And often they are supported by the police and the courts.

I don't always agree with Pete, but there are two sentences in his post that need putting up in lights outside Town Halls.

Local Authorities do install paths while making little effort to make our streets more friendly

and

Drivers do drive more aggressively when there is a cycle path beside the road. Mrs L used to get harrassed by cab drivers on Chelsea Bridge because she preferred the bus lane to the nightmarish shared use path beside the roadway, and one of my most treasured recollections of driver stupidity is the memory of a woman who must have been over 25 stone, wedged into a 4x4, bashing her horn with rage when I had the temerity to cycle on the road (at just under the speed limit) in Milton Keynes. I waited for her at the next roundabout (which wasn't long in coming) and suggested that if she were to buy a bike she'd reduce the risk of being stuck inside her tin can.

In opening this thread he said

" I know there are many people who prefer cycling to take place on the road itself and therefore do not support either type of route in principle, but for the purposes of this study we are only considering off-road facilities."

We would not barrage a poster with a question about trikes as to why two wheels are much better than three.

My 2p is that unsegregated paths are the way to go. Pedestrians walk on segregated areas anyway, so I'd rather have a free-for-all where people keep their eyes open, rather than a false assumption that you can whizz along on the 'safe' side.

I'm not keen on this idea of 'tram tracks' to keep cyclists on their side. Has someone missed the fact that tram tracks are lethal to cycle around (when I toured in Europe I bloody hated the things). Although it's hard to visualise these 'facilities' in real life I'd be tempted to rumble on the predictable pedestrian side rather than ping-pong along on the cyclist side!

It's like on the union canal, where they've added cyclist speed bumps and chicanes in an apparent attempt to slow people down. The problem is, it just makes it harder to control your bike which introduces an extra hazard (I had to concentrate so hard on getting the whole bike plus panniers through the gate, that I almost ran over someone's dog...)

My feelings on this are mixed:

In urban areas I cycle on the road and avoid unsegregated paths unless they offer a shortcut or there is no alternative. There is a short expanse of segregated cycle path that I use (but don't like) over Southwark bridge. It's difficult to overtake slow cyclists on this stretch and it's used by pedestrians at will.

Where unsegregated paths run alongside "A" roads and outside of urban areas I use them in preference to the road (if their surface is useable). These paths are mostly pedestrian free and I feel less pressurised by cars passing at 60 mph and greater.

I've not had chance to look at the forum until now - an excellent response! Thanks to all.

I'll review the postings and try to do a catch-all reply over the next few days.

In answer to one very early question - 'we' means Phil Jones Associates, the transport planning/policy firm that I head up. Effectively though, on this one it's me.

Regards

Phil

EdinburghFixed wrote:My 2p is that unsegregated paths are the way to go. Pedestrians walk on segregated areas anyway, so I'd rather have a free-for-all where people keep their eyes open, rather than a false assumption that you can whizz along on the 'safe' side.

Ditto. If there are pedestrians around, better to assume you're sharing with them. There's always the road if you want to crack on and its busy.