Cycling UK Forum

George Riches wrote:Restricting traffic volumes is not the only other alternative. There's slowing down motor traffic and there's allowing motorists to pass cyclists conveniently leaving a sufficient gap as well.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the government policy of 'hierarchy of provision'. It has reached my county council's cycling strategy document as below:

"

When assessing new routes and determining the best measures to encourage cycling, the following ‘hierarchy of provision’ should be followed:

Consider first
* Traffic reduction – to reduce competition for road space
* Speed reduction – to reduce the speed differential between different modes
* Tackle problem sites – junction treatment, hazard site treatment, traffic management
* Redistribution of the carriageway (bus/cycle lanes, widened nearside lanes etc)
* Segregation of cyclists from other traffic – Cycle lanes, cycle tracks constructed by reallocation of carriageway space, cycle tracks away from roads
* Conversion of footways/footpaths to unsegregated shared-use cycle tracks alongside the carriageway
Consider last

The hierarchy of provision needs to be applied rigorously and consistently depending on the route and road involved. The common temptation to apply the hierarchy in reverse order, ignoring the first two solutions (which evidence suggests may also have the most impact on encouraging sustainable travel patterns) must be resisted.

"

Sounds great, doesn't it? A pity it hasn't noticeably affected the roads round here yet!

Pete

orbiter wrote:I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the government policy of 'hierarchy of provision'. It has reached my county council's cycling strategy document as below:

it's nice to see it written down in every local government office

but here, if there's a problem, to remove cyclists seems to be the solution.

whether the alternative massively inconveniences cyclists is irrelevant.
then, the motorists behave worse because they think that you should be off the road

i'll give an example...
instead of using this roundabout, we are now encouraged to nip up onto the path and cycle through the tree. if we wish to take the third exit at any roundabout, it means getting off your bike and crossing 4 separate lanes of traffic, who rarely give way but often keep coming constantly. this can add several minutes to the journey of the cyclist. of course, the pedestrians don't recognise these lanes and walk around aimlessly on them, and i don't blame them, it feels like a foot path and apart from a bit of paint, looks like a foot path. any cyclist who (sensibly, IMHO) carries onto the roundabout as a part of normal traffic will often be honked at aggressively and sometimes cut up

If drivers do not in fact give kids more space than adults then my (hopeful) suggestion that children have an extra margin of safety to match their lack of experience doesn't hold.

I'm fully in agreement that we need a legal system that holds drivers much more responsible for their actions (even if their actions don't result in serious injury- the latest on the "Cyclist killed" thread seems to suggest they are looking at stricter sentences only where someone is killed), and the Continental system of liability would be a vast improvement. A system that didn't assume that a drivers licence is a right would also be an improvement. I think a hit & run driver should lose their licence for life.

The trouble with a lot of laws is that I think many people have very little respect for the law as a concept that allows them to get along with others. They obey it only so far as they must, and will get away with all sorts if they can. Then they whinge if they get caught and, heaven forbid! punished (I mean subjected to a stealth tax...).

But I don't know where that leaves us with regard to action instead of more obesity studies. Infrastructure (road design) could definitely be improved without 'separate' provision in many places. But a lot rests on people's attitudes and they are well engrained, unless you can pry them out of their cars until they know both sides.

hubgearfreak wrote:

orbiter wrote:I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the government policy of 'hierarchy of provision'. It has reached my county council's cycling strategy document as below:

i'll give an example...

Yawn! I don't mean to be rude but we can all produce an example to whinge about.

Have you contacted your local highways dept to point out that it's a) crap b) dangerous and c) doesn't meet national (or possibly local) design standards?

Or sent them a copy of Crap Cycle Lanes offering them an entry in the next edition?

Thought not. [perhaps (a) would be unhelpful, on second thoughts]

Let's all DO something, not just whinge to each other on this forum.

orbiter wrote:Yawn! I don't mean to be rude but we can all produce an example to whinge about.

you do seem it. as i (and others) have stated, we think that the law needs changing to better protect vulnerable road users...not separate us from the traffic

orbiter wrote:Have you contacted your local highways dept to point out that it's a) crap b) dangerous and c) doesn't meet national (or possibly local) design standards?

2. yes - and do you please have a link to the government policy of 'hierarchy of provision'.

orbiter wrote:Or sent them a copy of Crap Cycle Lanes offering them an entry in the next edition?

3. that very picture is in the first book

orbiter wrote:Thought not. [perhaps (a) would be unhelpful, on second thoughts]

Let's all DO something, not just whinge to each other on this forum.

thought doesn't equal know - i am trying to do something, but whilst seemingly intelligent cyclists are calling for further segregated paths, i doubt we'll get anywhere, except banned from the roads.

that is why i have entered this debate. if it seems like whinging, i'm sorry but i thought that we were simply having a frank exchange of views, healthy dabate , whatever. i don't think that calling people whingers is a particularly constructive or helpful addition to it

calling people whingers is a particularly constructive or helpful addition to it

Quite so. It is certainly fair to suggest that people do something (in so far as they can) about the problems that they highlight. However, one should first find out if they are already doing something before claiming that they are not. And furthermore, accusing people of whinging is hardly going to help constructive debate is it? I compliment hubgearfreak on giving a calm and rational response rather than rising to it and replying in kind - such a reaction has often seen an escalation of mud slinging, a deletion of posts and a locking of threads: something that no-one wants to see (least of all the mods as it is more work for us).

I've not (at the time of writing this) changed anything in this thread as I feel that orbitor's post, together with hubgearfreak's answer, reflects more on orbitor than hubgearfreak. But if you should be upset by these posts then please put your case to a mod via PM.

I don't feel that one post reflects more on one than the other.

As regards the roundabout that is pictured I negotiate one very similar on a regular basis by staying on the road and I have never been 'honked at or cut up' as hubgearfreak implies will often happen.

I do not encounter the amount of aggression that others on here allude to and only yesterday a group of us were out on a club run and talking sbout this very same thing and we all concurred that those sorts of drivers are in the minority.

As regards to cyclepaths in the majority of cases where I have used them they are absolutely useless but that is not to say there are not any good ones around.

I

Sares wrote:I think a hit & run driver should lose their licence for life.

After serving a significant gaol sentence.

Ben

Si wrote:a calm and rational response

'tis the only way. i have often written things in forums to find them misunderstood later and a row started where one needn't have.
i doubt orbiter meant to be offensive, he just could be interpreted that way

ianr1950 wrote:we all concurred that those sorts of drivers are in the minority.

As regards to cyclepaths in the majority of cases where I have used them they are absolutely useless but that is not to say there are not any good ones around.

i agree with both these points, but even if only 2% of motorists are aggressive, that's still half a million of the blighters, with the power to easily wreck your bike, injure or kill you and often without any punishment

you only need to go bristol to bath to find a truly delightful path...but my point still stands, that of those motorists that couldn't care less, only the threat of the law bearing down heavily will alter their behaviour.

As someone who live in rural Scotland a visit to England fills me with trepidation, as I have not as yet encountered the extreme aggressive behaviour from motorists that is frequently mentioned across this forum.

But anyway, with regard to Hubgearfreak's point about the full weight of the law, perhaps you could give an example where that has modified the behaviour of motorists as a whole. I can think only of the drink driving laws, which are now falling into disrepute.

That is just the reaction that others have Auchmill but in my experience I do not feel that you have as much to worry you as it appears from some posts.
I don't even believe it is as much as 2% and also I agree with you that I do not think that whatever sanctions are imposed on the few who are so aggressive will have any effect whatsoever but that is not to say that there should not be very severe penalties.

Also as regards cyclepaths or cycle lanes I have also yet to find one that actually goes where I want to go with as little interruption as possible.

ie.without having to stop at every junction and driveway that I come across.

hubgearfreak wrote:i doubt orbiter meant to be offensive, he just could be interpreted that way

I sincerely apologise if offense was taken - and for the unwarranted presumption that he might not have taken action.

Two excuses for the errors
- so many people do complain in these forums and elsewhere without taking action so my remark was meant to be more general than specific.
- and I failed to see the relevance of hubgearfreak's post to mine that he quoted.

The seriously intended point of my previous post is that there are national cycle-friendly policy guidelines for street design - the Dft Manual for Streets (2007) Table 4.1 is the source of the 'hierarchy of provision' (at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/ ), which, with the 'Hierarchy of user' in table 3.2, gives precedence to cycling on-road over separation and to cyclists over cars.

As my local Highway Authority includes this in its cycling strategy (http://tinyurl.com/37sv7e), so I suspect many others do too. This could be a valuable lever to persuade HAs to improve their designs.

For instance, it should be possible under the FOI act to find out how any HA arrived at a particular bad design and how (if!) they took into account the policy in the process. With cycle separation being bottom of the list, they should now need a sound argument to justify it.

Pete

al_yrpal wrote:Its not a cycle lane, its an advisory cycle lane (Dotted Bars)

An advisory cycle lane is still a cycle lane. It's just not a mandatory cycle lane.

I was reading a blog on drivers on the Canary Islands today, and the writer was of the opinion that the driver training in Spain had a lot to do with how well cyclists were treated there. They said that there was very specific guidance on how much space to leave (1.5m), and to slow down a lot before passing, and many examples were given in the course on interaction with cyclists. Perhaps this is something we should pursue. After all, Spain is the not a cycling country- they cycle on average less than people here. Neither are Spanish drivers known for being particularly careful generally. Perhaps it is ignorance rather than malice on the part of most drivers who pass too close and cut up cyclists, and this ignoranace could be changed.

Auchmill- most drivers are not a problem in England (I live near Birmingham). There are a few who have their moments but they are a small minority. I've never been honked for taking a roundabout on the road even if there is a cyclepath there.

orbiter wrote:The seriously intended point of my previous post is that there are national cycle-friendly policy guidelines for street design - the Dft Manual for Streets (2007) Table 4.1 is the source of the 'hierarchy of provision' (at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/ ), which, with the 'Hierarchy of user' in table 3.2, gives precedence to cycling on-road over separation and to cyclists over cars.

For instance, it should be possible under the FOI act to find out how any HA arrived at a particular bad design and how (if!) they took into account the policy in the process. With cycle separation being bottom of the list, they should now need a sound argument to justify it.

thanks for the link