"Routes should be designed only by those who have experienced the road on a cycle".
Very interesting point. Are they going to fire all the current road design staff, and hire cyclists? If only!
"Routes should be designed only by those who have experienced the road on a cycle".
Very interesting point. Are they going to fire all the current road design staff, and hire cyclists? If only!
This is a double edge sword. They could recruit a road designer who rides around on an bakfiets with 2 kids in the front... or they could get some MAMIL who rides a Pinarello and wears a full matching Sky pro kit.
[cyclists’ should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast
I don't like the "bikes are vehicles" item on that chart. It appeared in the London design standards at the same time as the Embankment and North South superhighways and those are overengineered and still feel intimidating to novice riders, and also encourages the "dump cyclists back into traffic when things get hard" principle. I much prefer the Dutch "bikes are fast pedestrians" principle. There's plenty of good shared ped/bike lanes.
The highway code changes aren't great either once you look at the wording. The proposed new wording of rule 66 is:Quote[cyclists’ should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast
I expect drivers to memorise the first few words and forget the rest. No definition of what's considered safe (and by who) makes it worse than useless.
And is "narrow lanes" talking about vehicle lanes or country lanes? Two abreast simply doesn't work on narrow country lanes if there are non-negligible numbers of oncoming cars. It works far better on two lane roads.
"Bikes are fast pedestrians" leads to 90-degree bends within a 1-metre radius, bollards and step-over barriers, wiggles round trees and lampposts and other shit which is frankly impassable to many cyclists.
This is a double edge sword. They could recruit a road designer who rides around on an bakfiets with 2 kids in the front... or they could get some MAMIL who rides a Pinarello and wears a full matching Sky pro kit.There's some sense in that point. What's needed for busy traffic in London (possibly separation) is probably different from what's needed approaching a town from the country (normal use of the country lanes, with a sneaky 10-metre cut-through into a residential area, while cars go around the local megabout). And arguably the variation in needs of cyclists (speeds from 5 to 25mph i.e. five times variation on average roads, and vastly varying preferences for path vs road proper) is much greater than that of drivers (all somewhat constrained to the same speed because it's the only way traffic can work). So a one-size-fits-all approach written for major cities probably won't work across the country. And coronavirus has shown that a big reduction in traffic levels can increase cycling without any road-provision changes.
I don't like the "bikes are vehicles" item on that chart. It appeared in the London design standards at the same time as the Embankment and North South superhighways and those are overengineered and still feel intimidating to novice riders, and also encourages the "dump cyclists back into traffic when things get hard" principle. I much prefer the Dutch "bikes are fast pedestrians" principle. There's plenty of good shared ped/bike lanes.
And it would be nice if those cyclists who are happy to use the road were able to access the cycle infrastructure without having to dismount to transition between the two.
Acknowledging that BRITISH cycle infrastructure is usually a trap, it's annoying when you come off a roundabout on some busy-but-narrow road and see a vaguely decent cycle path alongside, but the only way to access it is to stop (holding up the cars) and shuffle your bike up a kerb.
Yes, there was probably a dropped kerb for pedestrians crossing at the roundabout, but you were in roundabout mode for that and hadn't noticed the cycle path yet...
One of the biggest deterrents for me to use cycle paths is that they are usually laid to footpath rather than road standards, which are uncomfortable at more than 10mph, even on my Moultons with suspension.
I hope my pessimism in relation to the knowledge and motivation of my local highways engineers is misplaced. Based on their current work, I don't think they meet number 20 of the core principles - "All designers of cycle schemes must experience the roads as a cyclist". Hopefully this will help to change their mindset, the link to funding may provide an incentive even where there is currently very little interest.
I hope my pessimism in relation to the knowledge and motivation of my local highways engineers is misplaced. Based on their current work, I don't think they meet number 20 of the core principles - "All designers of cycle schemes must experience the roads as a cyclist". Hopefully this will help to change their mindset, the link to funding may provide an incentive even where there is currently very little interest.Agreed. At the moment I wouldn't even say that highways engineers even experience the pavements as pedestrians
I see the Forbes article is written by Carlton Reid and his credentials as an advocate for cycling cannot be questioned.
So do we think anything will actually come of this? is this really a rare case of genuine competence?
or will it just be forgotten when the newscycle ends...
J
Why can't we raise the roads rather than drop the pavement, and make all road intersections up to pavement height to facilitated wheeled pedestrian progress.
Are they going to fire all the current road design staff, and hire cyclists?Hopefully.
I've finally finished reading and commenting and the only thing that concerns me is what I read as an acceptance that there will be vehicles on the road with blind spots that hide vulnerable road users.
I'd have thought, but do not know, that there would be sufficient technology available to correct blind spots.