Cycling UK Forum

George Riches wrote:There are lots of people, such as wheelchair users, people with small children and touring cyclists, who want to enjoy the countryside but don't want to get covered in mud. Those concerned with the rural environment should, perhaps, be pleased that they don't. As if a lot of people used mud tracks the result wouldn't be pretty. Back in the middle ages, before Macadam surfaces had been developed, road users would avoid the mud and walk or drive their cart or carriage over the grass at the side. This lead the main roads to become one hundred yard wide mud scars full of holes. It's not very good for wildlife to have wild adventurers tramping all over the place either.

In some areas of the county the mud adverse are being excluded from enjoying the countryside as all the tarmac surfaces are dominated by motor traffic.



At lot of CTC members objected when the Department of Transport wanted a route with a tarmac surface to be downgraded to a muddy track atHindhead. Although I think the latest news is that the 'Old Portsmouth Road' running lightly east of the present A3 will be given a firm surface of 3m width plus a horsemargin.

I am all for a small number of tracks being upgraded for the wheelchair bound. Everyone, especially them should be able to enjoy a bit of rural peace. But just recently in the Chilterns 'they' have junked all the nice old cast iron finger signs and planted 'Quiet Lane' signs everywhere accomanied by cheap and tatty plastic fingers. I think I know how these people think. The next thing we will be faced with is that we will be uninsured because we are not cycling on a suitable Quiet Lane or some such nonsense. They are welcome to Prescott's dreary urbanity they are creating around Didcot and Abingdon. I hope they stay there.

Al

Al

I would agree with Jeremy that it is important that cyclists use the roads. The dangers are vastly less than perceived and, from experience as a cyclist and as a motorcyclist, it is quite possible to make one's own luck.

There is a great deal to learn from sources like cyclecraft, which, like the police text roadcraft, makes clear the importance of being visible, particularly by positioning, as well as observation and anticipation. While what is taught by these sources makes good sense, I agree that it is often not intuitive but can make a huge difference to the likelihood of having a near miss.

These sources emphasise that the importance of attitude is also paramount - the roads work by virtue of cooperation - and the attitude of vulnerable road users as well as motorists also has a contribution, IMHO, in keeping things moving smoothly and calmly.

Cycle tracks and other facilities can be great, but for those using cycles for daily transport, the roads are by far the best network, especially in built up areas.

The more cyclists use the roads the more motorists will expect to see cyclists and take them into account. Perhaps the suggested urban speed limits of 20mph would make this a more practical reality.

I have no problem lobbying for better 'facilities' but we have to differentiate between two very different forms of cycling – recreational and utilitarian. It's fine to rough it on a dirt track now and again, but the quickest way from A to B is along a road. Unless the road is dangerously narrow and potholed, I don't need 'facilities'.

My experience of the last few years living in Germany is that drivers (and the authorities) will not tolerate bikes on the roads where there is some sort of bike path available, even if this is a strip of broken concrete shared with pedestrians. Such provision is also more dangerous for cyclists than being on the road, especially where junctions are crossed. If we allow ourselves to be 'separated out', as the AA recommends, we will find it very difficult to assert our right to travel along roads.

I agree entirely Les, for cycles to be used for transport we need to be sharing roads, not segragating vulnerable traffic onto inadequate make do facilities.

Pedestrians will also, hopefully, be less at risk from roads if we make them places where slower, vulnerable, road users are not unexpected - all part of the 'reclaim the streets' movement it would seem to me.

It would also be a great help, IMHO, if the Dutch principle of guilt on the part of the motorist who hits the cyclist whatever the circumstances were used here - much as the rear end collision is the fault of the driver behind - if only to focus minds. I gather it has worked on trial in the States when heavy fines were introduced for motorists hitting cyclists/motorcyclists. (Not sure where I heard that though!)

You are right, SP. And too often, such makeshift provision is cloaked in the guise of encouraging cycling when in fact it has more to do with preventing them being a nuisance to drivers.

Cycle paths are fine for 'safe routes to school' projects, recreational riding and in some cases, to get through particularly dangerous junctions, but there's no substitute for a well-surfaced road when you need to get to work. Of course, if we really could reclaim the streets, we wouldn't need separate routes.