Cycling UK Forum

Yup. Totally agree. Give me lower speed limits and "naked streets" over a stupid obstacle course any day.

.

stewartpratt wrote:Yup. Totally agree. Give me lower speed limits and "naked streets" over a stupid obstacle course any day.

While I agree, the effect of lower speed limits and naked streets are minimal where there are few vulnerable users, and the road remains a through road. As long as the road is a means to get from one place through another, the 'through area' is just another obstacle. Naked streets work best when they are destinations and neighborhoods.

Very many residential roads in Norway are former through routes. They have been blocked off by various means:
-the sort of gate as linked in my previous post
-replacing the road with a structure or building and diverting footpaths around it
-ending the road physically, but replacing it with a shared use facility
-putting in a kerb

There are a also a couple of signs that are used generously here, that I really like. One is (translated), 'does not apply to cycles'. It appears frequently with 'no entry', 'road ends' and one-way traffic signs. The other is the sort of red, white, and blue 'dead end' sign, but there is a thinner white line coming off the 'dead end' towards a bicycle symbol. They use speed bumps, but they are much nicer to ride over than the sleeping policeman type used in the UK.

The main point, however, is that in practice many quiet roads, and most residential roads have limited access by motor vehicle. Whole villages have signs at every entrance, indicating it is a 30 kph zone and through-traffic is not permitted. It doesn't create an obstacle course for the cyclist. Quite the contrary, in fact, it creates quiet roads, free of aggressive drivers; and ones that are well used by cyclists and pedestrians.

Echoing Vorpal's thoughts: I reckon the best way to calm traffic on rural roads is to make them no-through routes for motorists. They can have access gates for emergency vehicles, of course.

A new road in Cambridge has adopted a higher-tech solution. The "Addenbrookes link road" has cameras at each end. Motorists who enter at one end and quickly emerge at the other get a ticket through the post. If they can prove they had business at the hospital, the prosecution is withdrawn.

No-through roads don't guarantee calm traffic, of course. Some thug roars past my house at 6:30am on his way to work. But it certainly helps.

snibgo wrote: the best way to calm traffic on rural roads is to make them no-through routes for motorists. They can have access gates for emergency vehicles, of course.

This seems rather impractical, how many gates per mile would you envisage?

If you wanted to go down that route then the best, way is to leave the road physically open but have camera enforcement.

The AWPR is not about traffic. It is about creating a development corridor in an attempt to attract big businesses such as IKEA to out of town developments. Similarly, it is about fueling the portfolios of major builders. When the AWPR was first mooted (in its present guise approx 10 years ago) this was clearly stated as the objective. Since then there had been much protest, much of which was based, not on the road itself, but on the proposed development that went alongside it. This volume of protest resulted in the protagonists dropping the "development corridor" argument in favour of the traffic easing one. Now that the road is defo going to be built, we have already seen two new developments en route with more planned.

My prediction is that the whole of the Aberdeen area inside the AWPR will be developed within the first 10 years of the road being completed. This is what has happened on almost all other towns were a bypass has been built and will happen in Aberdeen also. The road is meant to be a fast route around Aberdeen (the link from Stonehaven to the AWPR is even called "Fast Link") and, as such, is proposed to have a limited number of junctions. However, the proposed developments on the route will, eventually, result in numerous additional junctions, this making this "fast " route, just as slow as the current one through the town and certainly slower than the current rat runs on rural roads. AWPR = 26 miles, route through town + 10 miles max, One of the attractions of Aberdeen is that beautiful countryside is just a 10 minute bike ride away. Not for long.

It doesn't need a particular number per mile, just a single gate (or rising bollard, or whatever) on each lane that is to be closed, anywhere along its length.

It is technically and financially practical. But here in the UK, the poor hard-pressed motorist needs all the freedoms and subsidies we can give them.

I note that the 3p rise in fuel duty, due in August 2012, deferred to January 2013, now postponed indefinitely, would have raised about £1B per year. That could have paid for quite a few gold-plated gates.

Vorpal wrote:...........Very many residential roads in Norway are former through routes. They have been blocked off by various means:
-the sort of gate as linked in my previous post
-replacing the road with a structure or building and diverting footpaths around it
-ending the road physically, but replacing it with a shared use facility
-putting in a kerb

There are a also a couple of signs that are used generously here, that I really like. One is (translated), 'does not apply to cycles'. It appears frequently with 'no entry', 'road ends' and one-way traffic signs. The other is the sort of red, white, and blue 'dead end' sign, but there is a thinner white line coming off the 'dead end' towards a bicycle symbol. They use speed bumps, but they are much nicer to ride over than the sleeping policeman type used in the UK.

The main point, however, is that in practice many quiet roads, and most residential roads have limited access by motor vehicle. Whole villages have signs at every entrance, indicating it is a 30 kph zone and through-traffic is not permitted. It doesn't create an obstacle course for the cyclist. Quite the contrary, in fact, it creates quiet roads, free of aggressive drivers; and ones that are well used by cyclists and pedestrians.

Or put another way,civilised

Getting traffic off the rural rules is a good idea in general, but it can only realistically be achieved by what many here are opposed to, which is road building!

Assuming that you meant rural roads rather than rules. I dont quite understand why our rural roads which are much less congested than urban ones get special attention.

I am all for getting traffic of roads everywhere but on the other hand us rural dwellers do make journeys as well. On the whole we dont seem to be plagued by hordes of city folk in their cars. Well apart from as them being traffic on the roads. But they suffer much more from that than we do.

reohn2 wrote:Or put another way,civilised

It seems to be better than the UK for cycling, anyway. I think the number of near misses and stupid-motorist experiences I have here are about 1/5 or less what they were in the UK. Both driving and cycling.

I think there are lots of reasons for that, but the design of space is a big one.

The only uncivilised part of cycling here is that I get honked at regularly with gestures or yells to use the cycle path. It's easier to ignore than aggressive driving, but not exactly civilised, either.

Vorpal wrote:

reohn2 wrote:Or put another way,civilised

It seems to be better than the UK for cycling, anyway. I think the number of near misses and stupid-motorist experiences I have here are about 1/5 or less what they were in the UK. Both driving and cycling.

I think there are lots of reasons for that, but the design of space is a big one.

The only uncivilised part of cycling here is that I get honked at regularly with gestures or yells to use the cycle path. It's easier to ignore than aggressive driving, but not exactly civilised, either.

Obviously utopia doesn't exist,but Norway seems nearer to it than the UK

snibgo wrote:

Code: Select all

This seems rather impractical, how many gates per mile would you envisage?

It doesn't need a particular number per mile, just a single gate (or rising bollard, or whatever) on each lane that is to be closed, anywhere along its length.

I don't understand your point.

Merely that reducing permeability for motorists along rural routes wouldn't be technically or financially difficult.