Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: toontra on 07 May, 2021, 10:43:45 am
-
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/angus-mearns/2196418/police-bring-undercover-cyclist-operation-to-abroath/ (https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/angus-mearns/2196418/police-bring-undercover-cyclist-operation-to-abroath/)
Seems like a good idea. I wonder if it will have any long-term impact?
-
I agree that it looks a good idea, and seen it pushed in the media in different areas, but I have a number of concerns.
Firstly it is the right thing, and it should educate drivers as to how much space to give, but seeing the negativity from drivers towards cyclists already will this just increase the “them and us” culture (bearing in mind we know the majority of cyclists have a driving licence, and we’re all human, I never understand the “them and us” I read so frequently on bookfarce and local newspaper websites). Mrs Nutty showed me a rant the other day re a group of cyclists being out, and the mobile phone footage from the following driver moaning that there was no way past.
I was out at the weekend and Mrs Nutty was waiting patiently to overtake a cyclist. Obviously this was a good thing. However my main concern was that the young lad was riding so closely to the kerb that he was hitting every drain cover and pothole, plus risked striking the kerb with his pedal, and was also inadvertently inviting normal drivers to push past too closely because of his road positioning.
However… riding that closely to the kerb is the behaviour encouraged by painted cycle lanes. One item of advice that CyclingUK gave on BBC breakfast the other week as part of a pothole item was that cyclists should ride an arm’s length out from the kerb for safety. In other words ride outside the cycle lane and on the main carriageway. This made me laugh as their newletters have recently been telling me that they are opposing the removal of a cycle lane and taking a council to court. (I am no longer a paid up member so can’t read the whole newsletter as it’s an advertising thing to get me to sign back up).
My next question is whether the space required for a safe overtake is still required when a painted cycle lane exists. In my mind it does, but in lane painting sense it doesn’t. Driving on a dual carriageway I don’t pull out wider to overtake, I stay in my lane; I also have to make sure it is safe to pull out from the inside lane to another one.
However when I’m cycling in a cycle lane, for a driver approaching from behind they are in their lane and I’m in mine. I can understand why they wouldn’t consider waiting for a safe opportunity to pull out and pass. I experienced this badly during the Southend Cycle Town changes (if you remember that long discussion, which eventually made me give up campaigning). A previously safe road became a nightmare as buses travelling at 30mph passed me with just a couple of inches clearance while I was in a cycle lane that at times was down to about 40cm width (from memory). If there was a blockage of that lane (such as a bus in the bus stop) then it was my responsibility to try to merge out of the cycle lane and into the faster flowing traffic.
So back to the article in point, education of drivers is I think a good thing (actually it’s just a reminder of what they should have learned when undertaking the driving test). Education of cyclists as to how to safely share the roads should also assist in our mutual happiness. But I can’t see how this can co-exist with the continual building of cycling infrastructure which seems to me to undermine efforts such as this.
-
The white line is a solid protective barrier that will keep you safe from all vehicles whizzing past at 70mph, 20" from your bars
-
However… riding that closely to the kerb is the behaviour encouraged by painted cycle lanes. One item of advice that CyclingUK gave on BBC breakfast the other week as part of a pothole item was that cyclists should ride an arm’s length out from the kerb for safety. In other words ride outside the cycle lane and on the main carriageway. This made me laugh as their newletters have recently been telling me that they are opposing the removal of a cycle lane and taking a council to court. (I am no longer a paid up member so can’t read the whole newsletter as it’s an advertising thing to get me to sign back up).
My next question is whether the space required for a safe overtake is still required when a painted cycle lane exists. In my mind it does, but in lane painting sense it doesn’t. Driving on a dual carriageway I don’t pull out wider to overtake, I stay in my lane; I also have to make sure it is safe to pull out from the inside lane to another one.
However when I’m cycling in a cycle lane, for a driver approaching from behind they are in their lane and I’m in mine. I can understand why they wouldn’t consider waiting for a safe opportunity to pull out and pass. I experienced this badly during the Southend Cycle Town changes (if you remember that long discussion, which eventually made me give up campaigning). A previously safe road became a nightmare as buses travelling at 30mph passed me with just a couple of inches clearance while I was in a cycle lane that at times was down to about 40cm width (from memory). If there was a blockage of that lane (such as a bus in the bus stop) then it was my responsibility to try to merge out of the cycle lane and into the faster flowing traffic.
This is all an argument for cycle lanes that are sufficiently wide that a cyclist of non-zero width can ride a sensible distance from the gutter while having enough space from traffic proceeding normally in the adjacent lane. And preferably with some physical measures (bollards, kerbs, etc) to keep the motorists out of them.
A few do exist, and CyclingUK campaigning for them in no way endorses the typical white line denoting the chutney zone cycle lane which do little more than encourage close passes.
-
Once you've made it about cyclists, you have lost.
Of course, they're not going to cycle in the middle of a busy road.
-
I presume it’s this:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/cycling-uk-takes-council-court-irrational-and-unlawful-removal-cycle-lane
Which doesn’t look amazing but the distance twixt cars and cyclists in the video is unimaginable without it.
-
So back to the article in point, education of drivers is I think a good thing (actually it’s just a reminder of what they should have learned when undertaking the driving test). Education of cyclists as to how to safely share the roads should also assist in our mutual happiness. But I can’t see how this can co-exist with the continual building of cycling infrastructure which seems to me to undermine efforts such as this.
I'm with you Nutty. I feel a lot safer on a road that doesn't have a cycle path, because there is no expectation laid down in infrastructure that I should ride in the gutter. I left the Right to Ride network when it stopped being about sharing public space and more about getting paint on that public space, and encouraging the opinion that cycling should happen on special paths rather than on the road. Cycle lanes seem to me to undo all the work of close pass operations and teaching cyclists to ride in primary or secondary position, to avoid the door zone, and to advocate for their own safety by not being bullied into an unsafe space on the road. They also teach drivers that cyclists belong on the left, in the gutter.
Sam
-
I'm sure I remember Kim et al reporting that the original close pass programme in the West Midlands had a pretty good but temporary effect. Or am I mixing it up with something else?
-
encouraging the opinion that cycling should happen on special paths rather than on the road.
No, the point of proper cycle tracks is that *driving* should only happen on special parts of the road.
Cycle lanes seem to me to undo all the work of close pass operations and teaching cyclists to ride in primary or secondary position, to avoid the door zone, and to advocate for their own safety by not being bullied into an unsafe space on the road.
The main effect of decades of Bikeability training is teaching children they should buy SUVs at the earliest opportunity so they can be the ones doing the bullying.
-
The white line is a solid protective barrier that will keep you safe from all vehicles whizzing past at 70mph, 20" from your bars
Exactly: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-57013760
-
Fact is, if you want people to cycle, you have to make cycling both safe and importantly feel safe.
I leave as an exercise to the reader how well they think that gels with riding in primary position down a busy road.
-
encouraging the opinion that cycling should happen on special paths rather than on the road.
No, the point of proper cycle tracks is that *driving* should only happen on special parts of the road.
Generally uninterested in arguing on the internet these days. This statement is evidently flawed, and therefore I am obliged to infer it is aimed merely at getting a rise out of someone.
Sam
-
I think grams's key words are "proper" and "should".
-
I think grams's key words are "proper" and "should".
Sorry, still don't get any genuine sentiment from it. What would that even look like in real life? How would it work? Is it possible to achieve working with and around current infrastructure?
Don't feel like I'm expecting a real answer. I'm not.
Sam
-
OMG - all our bikes will get pregnant and the police will deny responsibility!
-
Sorry, still don't get any genuine sentiment from it. What would that even look like in real life? How would it work? Is it possible to achieve working with and around current infrastructure?
If I'm in a car I can't* drive in a protected cycle track. I may even find myself unable to access certain roads, or unable to use them as through routes.
Whereas if I'm on a bike I can go anywhere I like.
Unless it requires taking primary in traffic, because** fuck that.
(* FSVO can't)
(** donning my normal person hat)
-
Example:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EC26sZqxAbg/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's physically impossible to drive a car in the section of road to the right of the red and white barriers (that whole lane is closed off further back).
This infrastructure, however, no longer exists (it was put in last summer as part of PandemicPanic and ripped out soon after, cos voters and stuff).
-
Fact is, if you want people to cycle, you have to make cycling both safe and importantly feel safe.
I leave as an exercise to the reader how well they think that gels with riding in primary position down a busy road.
Many years ago I rode over to Okehampton to join a group of forummers who were riding Lands End to John O'Groats. I joined them for lunch, then rode a distance with them. I use this as an example as people on here can evidence my tale.
I am happy to ride anywhere, but had a minor moment of "WTF" when I realised we were heading straight onto the A30 dual carriageway. The group took primary, occupied the whole inside lane, and looking in my mirrors I was relieved to see that it worked and all traffic was indicating and pulling out properly to overtake with plenty of space.
Personally, if route planning, I take the roads that run alongside dual carriageways; but have ridden many miles of dual carriageways in the past. If I find myself on one by accident, even if solo I prefer to ride normally in order to give myself a safety bubble instead of trying to ride in the gutter and allow all traffic to just push past me.
-
Example:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EC26sZqxAbg/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's physically impossible to drive a car in the section of road to the right of the red and white barriers (that whole lane is closed off further back).
This infrastructure, however, no longer exists (it was put in last summer as part of PandemicPanic and ripped out soon after, cos voters and stuff).
It's a wonderful example, but does it give every cyclist the ability to go from every start point to every location? Or does it encourage them to take a longer route on busy roads in order to get to that farcility?
In car terms, I need a journey on Monday and so was planning a route (even though it's local).
a) google/twat-nav want me to take a longer route but on main roads. This has roadworks and queues.
b) alternative route is through several high streets and with lots of traffic lights.
c) obvious route wiggles a bit but is the shortest and fastest according to google once I'd plotted it.
In cycling terms we have that opportunity to go anywhere, even more so than drivers as we can use cycle routes and bridleways to link roads together and thus take short cuts (and if we dismount we can even walk through pedestrian alleyways that link roads in residential areas).
Therefore we need to educate cyclists and drivers that roads are for all - instead of telling drivers and cyclists that the only place to cycle is dedicated infrastructure.
(and before anybody starts pulling the "think of the children" on me, my daughter has been riding in the road since at least the age of 5 - and for her safety I avoid some roads that have cycle lanes painted on them.)
-
Example:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EC26sZqxAbg/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's physically impossible to drive a car in the section of road to the right of the red and white barriers (that whole lane is closed off further back).
This infrastructure, however, no longer exists (it was put in last summer as part of PandemicPanic and ripped out soon after, cos voters and stuff).
Note how the cars have swept the carriageway clean, but the cycle path is covered in detritus.
-
It's a wonderful example, but does it give every cyclist the ability to go from every start point to every location? Or does it encourage them to take a longer route on busy roads in order to get to that farcility?
It was a couple of hundred metres on one road, so obviously it can't go from everywhere to everywhere. I doubt if it encouraged many people to change route, as it was a busy route before that was put in, and still is after it's been removed. All in all, I don't think I'd call it wonderful, having used it, but it is an example that cycle facilities, done in certain ways, can restrict driving to a certain part of the road. Mind you, there's another example on the opposite carriageway, which nobody complains about (though used to): it's a bus lane.
-
Here's an example of a dedicated traffic and pedestrian free path - https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8164279,-0.33685,3a,75y,55.32h,83.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOboN1qdQg7csZgEMyG44OA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Here's my experience of using it
Evening folks. On Monday (4th April) I was riding in a group along the front, heading for Brighton. I'd usually have avoided the cycle path by default (I think of facilities as putting people at more risk) but as the group wanted to use it I followed them. My worst nightmare came true while I was at the back of the pack and without warning a bollard "separating" the cycle and foot sides appeared from the riders in front and I had no chance of avoiding it in the split second it took for me to get there.
I went straight over the handlebars, damaging the bike and bruising myself. Luckily I was able to carry on, and even managed the ride the next day up to Canterbury. But it was frustrating, and I can't moan as it was clearly my fault for cycling into an inanimate object.
Two main reasons for this post.
1) What's the local consensus on this path? Is it loved, loathed, or no local word on the street? Am I the first to hit a bollard, or is it a common occurrence?
2) Although everything was on the bike immediately after the crash, once we'd gone over the cycle bridge and got onto the much more pleasant A259 I noticed my computer was missing. It's only an old Cateye Astrale 8 so has no monetary value and can be replaced, but that one has some little sentimental value to me. I know it's a long shot, but if you are out and about and spot it please can you PM me?
-
Example:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EC26sZqxAbg/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's physically impossible to drive a car in the section of road to the right of the red and white barriers (that whole lane is closed off further back).
This infrastructure, however, no longer exists (it was put in last summer as part of PandemicPanic and ripped out soon after, cos voters and stuff).
OK. Now I understand (although I don't consider most segregated cycle paths to be roads, which is where my confusion arose). But would anyone seriously try to argue that cyclists would be able to ride in the part of the road currently open to cars with that infrastructure there without being subject to intense harassment? And what happens when the infrastructure ends? What do you do then? Dedicated infrastructure encourages the mindset that cyclists belong on a special path, usually shared with pedestrians, and when drivers then encounter cyclists in the wild (so to speak), they think they should continue behaving as if they were using infrastructure -- in other words, getting out of the way of the motorists wot pay road tax innit.
The problem with infrastructure is that it will never go everywhere, it's not suitable for all cycling purposes, it's not as well maintained or designed, and the very existence of it makes it harder for those who would rather stick to the road. I have plenty of experience of new infrastructure being rubbish to use and making drivers on the road more aggressive to cyclists. None of these things should be true. It should be possible to have infrastructure that is well designed and maintained, and for cyclists who would rather stick to being traffic to do so safely. All of this requires a culture change, and that culture change is the same thing that will make sharing space with drivers safer.
I may be in the minority, but I'd rather focus on getting drivers to stop having a shitty attitude to cyclists. If we use infrastructure to encourage more cyclists, we're encouraging more cyclists who assume they belong on infrastructure rather than wherever they please. Also, given the increase in popularity of cycling during lockdown without any significant increase in the reach of good quality dedicated infrastructure, I'm not convinced that lack of infrastructure is what puts people off.
To bring us back to the original point of this topic, the existence of cycle paths along the gutter line (or lanes segregated by bollards) really does not contribute to reducing close passes. I suppose it's a bit like cats sitting in a square of tape on the floor as if it were a box. Something about a defined boundary makes (not all) drivers think they're doing just fine as long as they stay on the side of the boundary that hasn't got the cyclist in it.
Sam
-
It's a wonderful example, but does it give every cyclist the ability to go from every start point to every location? Or does it encourage them to take a longer route on busy roads in order to get to that farcility?
It was a couple of hundred metres on one road, so obviously it can't go from everywhere to everywhere. I doubt if it encouraged many people to change route, as it was a busy route before that was put in, and still is after it's been removed. All in all, I don't think I'd call it wonderful, having used it, but it is an example that cycle facilities, done in certain ways, can restrict driving to a certain part of the road. Mind you, there's another example on the opposite carriageway, which nobody complains about (though used to): it's a bus lane.
It's strange that not only I thought I recognised the road, the path has been captured on streetview. I've flicked along it.
I see that as usual the path is obstructed by anti-traffic bollards, and as you say there's a perfectly good bus lane there too.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4572336,-2.5953388,3a,75y,58.55h,77.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s322DcZiPOOQSdSstJ2eGQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I love this one too, a temporary sign telling drivers to use both lanes for the M32, even though clearly one lane has been bollarded off for cycle use only!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4579847,-2.5927125,3a,75y,73.28h,78.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqvZkS16l11L0alMMhlMAQA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Where were cyclists supposed to go when it ended? Outside lane and signs say the M32!!!!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4589768,-2.5913728,3a,75y,57.35h,81.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shLYyQngjR6SoTceTlj9dhg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Without experience of the whole path, I'd question the usual thing of how a "novice" cyclist is expected to get through the traffic to a path on the offside. (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4563925,-2.5960489,3a,75y,8.54h,55.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTpBN5Ovpgn-WTG_C-pB5Gw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 or here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4567574,-2.5950801,3a,75y,9.47h,65.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smng2PhXUTugxLQUrcBTdBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 or this junction https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.456936,-2.5957438,3a,75y,54.2h,72.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st8AYgvfCxZsQkR9kOpjLQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 )
Bearing in mind how little traffic we had during the pandemic (I know September 2020 when they were taken was "busier", but still light, it's also very interesting to see the gridlock when the path was there... and how little traffic is shown on any previous streetview capture ::-) ::-) :-\ :-\
Based on what I can see when google drove along there, and without any personal experience of it, I'm not surprised you say it's been taken out. It looks a classic example of everything that could be done wrongly being done so.
-
...
I may be in the minority, but I'd rather focus on getting drivers to stop having a shitty attitude to cyclists. If we use infrastructure to encourage more cyclists, we're encouraging more cyclists who assume they belong on infrastructure rather than wherever they please. Also, given the increase in popularity of cycling during lockdown without any significant increase in the reach of good quality dedicated infrastructure, I'm not convinced that lack of infrastructure is what puts people off.
To bring us back to the original point of this topic, the existence of cycle paths along the gutter line (or lanes segregated by bollards) really does not contribute to reducing close passes. I suppose it's a bit like cats sitting in a square of tape on the floor as if it were a box. Something about a defined boundary makes (not all) drivers think they're doing just fine as long as they stay on the side of the boundary that hasn't got the cyclist in it.
...
You've got my vote, so it's clearly now a case of minority=minority+1
-
There's a lot of people who try cycling and give up because riding in traffic is shit. If you make it less shit by reducing the need to ride in traffic fewer people give up.
You lot seem to be very keenly in favour of it continuing to be shit forever.
-
There's a lot of people who try cycling and give up because riding in traffic is shit. If you make it less shit by reducing the need to ride in traffic fewer people give up.
You lot seem to be very keenly in favour of it continuing to be shit forever.
The operation listed in the original post of this thread was to encourage drivers to give cyclists space, thus making riding in traffic "less shit".
If cyclists and drivers can recognise we are all humans and can exist together then the road conditions will become less shit.
If people are told that cyclists require dedicated routes to keep them out of traffic then it will continue to be shit forever.
-
For the most part it's cars that make cycling shit.
Gutter cycle lanes do nothing to improve this, and in many circumstances make the drivers behaviour tangibly worse. (There's one I avoid locally that's basically a white line around the leaf chutney, that's caused drivers to start bullying you in a way that just didn't happen before, as it's a two lane road with plenty of room to overtake.)
Proper cycle infra means you can do some routes without having to deal with cars for a bit. That includes sweeping the skog out of them at regular intervals. We have some locally that are - if not an actual pleasure - then perfectly fine to use. As someone who's happy to mix with traffic, their main advantage to me is more consistent journey times. It's slightly slower than the road when it's quiet, and much faster when it's congested. Their advantage to people who aren't happy to mix with traffic is there is now a direct route into town that doesn't involve weaving between dog-emptiers at walking speed, getting mugged or slippery towpath roulette.
You can't educate drivers into giving a shit. Fear of prosecution helps, but to change their behaviour long-term you need to manipulate the road environment. Segregate cyclists on major routes, and block through motor traffic and lower speed limits on minor roads. It's proven to work in places that actually do it properly.
-
For the most part it's cars that make cycling shit.
Gutter cycle lanes do nothing to improve this, and in many circumstances make the drivers behaviour tangibly worse. (There's one I avoid locally that's basically a white line around the leaf chutney, that's caused drivers to start bullying you in a way that just didn't happen before, as it's a two lane road with plenty of room to overtake.)
Proper cycle infra means you can do some routes without having to deal with cars for a bit. That includes sweeping the skog out of them at regular intervals. We have some locally that are - if not an actual pleasure - then perfectly fine to use. As someone who's happy to mix with traffic, their main advantage to me is more consistent journey times. It's slightly slower than the road when it's quiet, and much faster when it's congested. Their advantage to people who aren't happy to mix with traffic is there is now a direct route into town that doesn't involve weaving between dog-emptiers at walking speed, getting mugged or slippery towpath roulette.
You can't educate drivers into giving a shit. To change their behaviour you need to manipulate the road environment. Segregate cyclists on major routes, and block through motor traffic and lower speed limits on minor roads.
Of course you can, you just need the law and its enforcement to be better for cyclists.
-
I'm surprised it was captured on streetview. I wonder if that was just chance or if they have a fleet of rapid-reaction camera cars waiting for the latest changes?
Nutty, cyclists weren't expected to get to the r/h lane, the idea was that it connected with toucan crossing in the centre, in one of your bottom three links there.
More interesting, in my experience, was the other end of it, which is a roundabout. I'll see if Google got that too.
https://goo.gl/maps/jYerufM5WDL57ACC6
You can see a yellow sign with a bicycle icon. That's instructing cyclists to use the crossing and the pavement round the inner circle of the sunken roundabout. The pavement was put in there several years ago for completely different reasons, not related to any sort of traffic flow. The good thing about this is that it allows the less confident and less fast to get across the junction. The bad thing about it is that it means waiting at at least one crossing and the pavement can get a bit crowded if there are cyclists and walkers heading in both directions.
The alternative, which became my preferred method but could be slightly dodgy at times, was to wait for a gap in the traffic and "merge" then go round the roundabout. By the way, the M32 signs are just "to the M32", there's about a mile of non-motorway with a couple of junctions before you get to the motorway; it doesn't start at this roundabout.
Note for ian: this is the Bearpit roundabout. And here's the Bear, Ursa (never get between a bear and her cubs! – but she has no cubs): https://goo.gl/maps/tuUaFHXUasL1qVnY6
-
You can't educate drivers into giving a shit. To change their behaviour you need to manipulate the road environment. Segregate cyclists on major routes, and block through motor traffic and lower speed limits on minor roads.
Of course you can, you just need the law and its enforcement to be better for cyclists.
Yes, I re-read it and was adding a bit about that while you quoted me.
-
You can't educate drivers into giving a shit. Fear of prosecution helps, but to change their behaviour long-term you need to manipulate the road environment. Segregate cyclists on major routes, and block through motor traffic and lower speed limits on minor roads.
All of which, if you
a) have cycled in areas which have done things such as this
b) read forums other than pro-cycling ones
c) looked at local newspaper websites and comments sections (any area of country)
show that the "driver education" is that cyclists are the scum of the earth and need to get off the roads and onto the segregated routes they asked for.
Back when the Southend Cycle Town project was "a thing" and heavily discussed in here, my cycle commute went from 7 miles to 11 just to avoid the crap being built, and even when I was a long distance away from a route I had several instances of drivers cutting me off and then getting out of the car to yell abuse at me for being on the road and not on the frikken cycle path.
For the most part it's cars that make cycling shit.
Gutter cycle lanes do nothing to improve this, and in many circumstances make the drivers behaviour tangibly worse. (There's one I avoid locally that's basically a white line around the leaf chutney, that's caused drivers to start bullying you in a way that just didn't happen before, as it's a two lane road with plenty of room to overtake.)
Proper cycle infra means you can do some routes without having to deal with cars for a bit. That includes sweeping the skog out of them at regular intervals. We have some locally that are - if not an actual pleasure - then perfectly fine to use. As someone who's happy to mix with traffic, their main advantage to me is more consistent journey times. It's slightly slower than the road when it's quiet, and much faster when it's congested. Their advantage to people who aren't happy to mix with traffic is there is now a direct route into town that doesn't involve weaving between dog-emptiers at walking speed, getting mugged or slippery towpath roulette.
You can't educate drivers into giving a shit. To change their behaviour you need to manipulate the road environment. Segregate cyclists on major routes, and block through motor traffic and lower speed limits on minor roads.
Of course you can, you just need the law and its enforcement to be better for cyclists.
Precisely :thumbsup:
-
The operation listed in the original post of this thread was to encourage drivers to give cyclists space, thus making riding in traffic "less shit".
There's no evidence that these campaigns have any lasting effect, or lead to any increased level of cycling.
I actually don't disagree that the first steps toward proper infrastructure can make things worse for people who already cycle. But you have to go backwards to get out of a dead end.
-
If cyclists and drivers can recognise we are all humans and can exist together then the road conditions will become less shit.
If people are told that cyclists require dedicated routes to keep them out of traffic then it will continue to be shit forever.
Exactly. Safety through integration not segregation. A line I've been spouting for several decades.
-
You can't educate drivers into giving a shit. Fear of prosecution helps, but to change their behaviour long-term you need to manipulate the road environment. Segregate cyclists on major routes, and block through motor traffic and lower speed limits on minor roads.
All of which, if you
a) have cycled in areas which have done things such as this
b) read forums other than pro-cycling ones
c) looked at local newspaper websites and comments sections (any area of country)
show that the "driver education" is that cyclists are the scum of the earth and need to get off the roads and onto the segregated routes they asked for.
I live in one. The drivers are just as entitled, but most of them are going a bit slower.
-
If cyclists and drivers can recognise we are all humans and can exist together then the road conditions will become less shit.
If people are told that cyclists require dedicated routes to keep them out of traffic then it will continue to be shit forever.
Exactly. Safety through integration not segregation. A line I've been spouting for several decades.
While I fully agree that you can't build new cycling infra that goes where you might possibly want to go (unless you are building a new town, in which case you can), there is a problem with the alternative - humans in cars. If you can't get people to drive at 20 in a 20 zone, or 30 in a 30 zone, how do you expect to get the same people to slow down and give more space to cyclists?
My wife won't cycle on roads "because it's too dangerous". We moved house, the bike path doesn't go where she wants to go - she stopped cycling. Thus my daughter won't cycle for transport (she enjoyed CX practise when it was happening).
There's great infrastructure, and terrible infrastructure around here.
Great: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.7755928,-1.2551208,3a,75y,113.64h,104.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spmoRZhazv7Fm-3NqVXWg3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Terrible: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.7521019,-1.222145,3a,75y,253.86h,89.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sE8616JBLsMS7Il85C7Lrrg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The first is a segregated path that is completely away from the road (at one stage there is a earth barrier a few feet high between the 2) and parallel to it. There's plenty of space - probably enough for 4 bikes side-by-side. At each end it joins into back roads and main roads with bus lanes.
The second is some green paint in the door zone, with a kerb in the middle of the road protecting the trees and ensuring anyone who tries to drive past a cyclist in that lane can't possibly give enough room. Loads of drivers just pass anyway. At each end, the bike lane just ends.
Both roads are main routes to schools and used by loads of children every day.
-
There's a lot of people who try cycling and give up because riding in traffic is shit. If you make it less shit by reducing the need to ride in traffic fewer people give up.
You lot seem to be very keenly in favour of it continuing to be shit forever.
No. I just don't want it to be even more shit everywhere there isn't a cycle path.
We don't all live in towns or cities. Nobody is going to pay for segregated infrastructure for cyclists across the whole road network. So you will always have to share space with traffic unless all you do is the 3 miles from your door to some other place in town and back again. I'd rather share that space with people who treat cyclists as soft, squishy human beings, and that's not going to happen if we teach drivers that they shouldn't have to share space with cyclists.
Because that's what campaigning for infrastructure does. "Cyclists don't even want to share space with us. They want to spend money that could go to road maintenance and fixing potholes on building their own special path. They've taken money away from where it would benefit us, so why should we have to share space with them?" I have had that literal conversation on more than one occasion.
I expect I'll be dead by the time we get reliable self-driving cars that don't get frustrated in traffic and treat cyclists as mobile street furniture, and reach the point where the most dangerous part of a road is no longer the idiot behind the wheel. Shame. I think it will be quite pleasant.
Sam
-
Sam talks sense.
-
I'm sure motorists will keep up their end of the bargain once we rip out all the cycle lanes.
-
I'm sure motorists will keep up their end of the bargain once we rip out all the cycle lanes.
It's ok, they're being asked to enter them anyway.
A perfectly safe road, but space has been assigned to lock cyclists into the gutter and motorists asked to take care when entering the lane due to oncoming traffic. Had there been no lane, there would be no need for signage as it's the overtaking vehicle's operator's responsibility to avoid the milkfloat/horse/fallen tree/cyclist/pedestrian/pothole/bouncy ball/dog.
(http://nuttycyclist.co.uk/cycling/photos/Enter-cycle-lane.png)
-
Yes. Agreed. Literally no one but box-ticking politicians thinks painted gutter cycle lanes are in any way good.
Now let's talk about cycle infrastructure.
-
The whole ‘vehicular cyclist’ thing and ‘modify driver behaviour without physical infrastructure’ thing have been tried for decades in English-speaking countries and they have comprehensively failed to make cycling a significant modal percentage. Physical infrastructure has been shown to work astoundingly well in other countries. How about going that way in the UK for a while?
-
Yes. Agreed. Literally no one but box-ticking politicians thinks painted gutter cycle lanes are in any way good.
Now let's talk about cycle infrastructure.
Indeed. Cycle infrastructure is called roads, we can use them, and we need to educate drivers to provide space and share them with cyclists/pedestrians/equestrians/old Uncle Tom cobbly and all.
In all my years of cycling, the majority of accidents I've had, or been engaged with, have been on dedicated paths. From cyclists slipping on dirt and gravel on a bend, to collisions due to the narrow width, or drivers having to cross the dedicated lane (and that one was in Copenhagen where I went for research and the law is on the side of cyclists, and I could see the panic on the drivers face before she tried the manoeuvre).
If cyclists and drivers can recognise we are all humans and can exist together then the road conditions will become less shit.
If people are told that cyclists require dedicated routes to keep them out of traffic then it will continue to be shit forever.
Exactly. Safety through integration not segregation. A line I've been spouting for several decades.
Thanks for the agreement, it seems that I am not alone. minority=minority+1
I was just riding down that previous image on streetview (I know the road but can't get there now for an up to date image) and this one made me chuckle
(http://nuttycyclist.co.uk/cycling/photos/cycle-lane-width.png)
A van driving in the cycle lane, a cyclist overhanging the carriageway, a car driving in the cycle lane and also a legally parked car in the cycle lane. Legally parked car plus cycle lane means that the cyclist has to give way to the motorists.
Without infrastructure, cyclist has priority - and can also take ANY road or route that they prefer.
-
There are approximately 262,300 miles of roads in the UK.
I am 100% sure that there will never be 262,300 miles of cycle infrastructure.
By all means shove money at urban cyclists, but in the process remember that cycling occurs everywhere. Drivers need to be educated, however much infrastructure there is.
-
The whole ‘vehicular cyclist’ thing and ‘modify driver behaviour without physical infrastructure’ thing have been tried for decades in English-speaking countries and they have comprehensively failed to make cycling a significant modal percentage. Physical infrastructure has been shown to work astoundingly well in other countries. How about going that way in the UK for a while?
As per my previous post, I've been to countries with physical infrastructure and that have been touted as the future, and have found them more dangerous than riding at home.
I've witnessed cyclists pulling U-Turns through traffic just to get into a dedicated path. I've witnessed drivers trying to turn to their nearside but not being able to see the faster moving cyclist undertaking them - and the panic on the driver's face as they knew that if they caused a collision with a cyclist it'd automatically be their fault.
In the UK I've been on dedicated paths and been lucky not to have been wiped out by drivers crossing them - drivers who hadn't seen me and I'd not seen them due to the traffic conditions. I have a local cycle route where every time I approach it I pull out into the centre of the road and ride past the traffic as though I was on the motorbike as that's much safer than using the cycle infrastructure. Without the infrastructure it'd be even safer as motorists wouldn't have lost their road space and so there'd be more room down the middle of the road.
In the UK I have been on a dedicated cycle route (ok, it was a bus lane) and have been knocked off by a driver who crossed from the live lane into the layby. I have seen the exact same layout elsewhere in the world where it is even more clearly marked as a dedicated cycle lane, with kerbs and all, but with the expectation that motorists cross the cycle path in order to park.
For many years there was in Southend a "dedicated infrastructure".
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5304971,0.7309445,3a,75y,136.97h,82.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAGtOQm6LWbiyjJkpA_x8gA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I have never managed to cycle it end to end without encountering a vehicle, usually a Southend Council operated bin lorry or similar trying not to block the traffic - only option was for one of us to get over the kerb onto the pavement and the cyclist always lost. There have been drivers passing queues (a snowy gridlock and a large 4x4), there was a report on the Southend Cycle Town thread as I recall of a traffic warden being run over by a quad bike. I no longer know what it looks like as I swore I'd never cycle in that area again due to how it was ruined by the addition of infrastructure such as that.
And let's not forget the elephant in the room, in that there is not the room to build dedicated infrastructure in many UK towns.
-
There are approximately 262,300 miles of roads in the UK.
I am 100% sure that there will never be 262,300 miles of cycle infrastructure.
By all means shove money at urban cyclists, but in the process remember that cycling occurs everywhere. Drivers need to be educated, however much infrastructure there is.
Thanks Jaded. I agree with you.
There can be significantly more than 262,300 miles of cycle infrastructure IF cyclists use all roads as infrastructure AND in urban areas those little cut throughs between roads, currently for pedestrians, can be added to cyclists' use.
Funnily enough, one pedestrian path I use regularly as it's a short cut has multiple signs. They don't say "cycling prevented", nor do they say "cycling allowed". They just say "cyclists give way to pedestrians" :thumbsup:
-
@ Nutty, none of your images are showing (for me, at least).
-
Bullshit. Look at modal share, infrastructure works at getting people cycling, pure and simple.
I used to agree 100% with your position but evidence trumps everything. Good infrastructure gets non-cyclists on bikes and that is absolutely what is needed. If there is the political will, there is space for physical infrastructure.
But it is a waste of time arguing with religious convictions. I will leave you to preach the vehicular cyclist gospel and to be satisfied with 2% modal share.
-
In the UK I have been on a dedicated cycle route (ok, it was a bus lane)
I'm going to get C3PO'ed if I even begin to reply to any of this.
-
@ Nutty, none of your images are showing (for me, at least).
Possibly as they are http and not https ? I know there were some forum changes, and the internet is changing, but all showing ok at this end at the moment. Your browser?
-
I googled for modal shift studies. The first one I found was this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856416301495
Two types of exposure measures were tested: distance from the infrastructure (a measure of potential usage), and actual usage of the infrastructure. Only the latter measure was statistically significantly associated with modal shift. This in turn suggested that infrastructure provision was not a sufficient condition for modal shift, but may have been a necessary condition. Along with the use of new infrastructure, the loss of employment, higher education, being male and being part of the ethnic majority were consistently found to be significantly and positively associated with modal shift towards walking and cycling. The findings of this study support the construction of walking and cycling routes, but also suggest that such infrastructure alone may not be enough to promote active travel.
Basically, if you are urban, male, ethnic majority, and have lost your job, infrastructure will get you travelling by bike.
This data is from 2012, which is clearly too out of date for our purposes, but the study itself seems a good one. I'd really like to see some work done on what convinced people to get out on their bikes more this past year, and whether it has made any difference to how they interact with cyclists on the road when driving. It's an opportunity to learn what tipped the balance for them. For a number of people I've talked to, it was nothing to do with infrastructure -- it was being able to buy an e-bike.
Upthread is a comment that driver training hasn't worked and infrastructure has -- what about places where there is infrastructure here? Have any studies been done on driver attitudes there? Milton Keynes, maybe? Or is all the data from other countries?
I feel like the "more infrastructure" argument is just as ingrained as the vehicular cycling one. The difference is that one is aimed at urban and suburban areas where urban planning can be altered to require such provisions, whereas the other has ambitions to work everywhere.
Presumed liability would go some way to helping adjust driver behaviour on rural roads.
My issue isn't with the concept of segregated infrastructure, it's what is meant by it. It's almost always a facility alongside or instead of a road that involves weird diversions, crossing points, conflict points, and things drivers can point at and fume over because money was spent. I'd like to see lines drawn around whole areas and drivers told they can't bring their vehicles in. Delivery only, and only at certain times of day along prescribed routes (with the exception of disabled vehicles). That's no longer them-and-us. That then becomes places for people not cars, and if I want to live in this delightful suburb where my children can play safely, I have to accept I can't drive in there.
Places for people as a concept is embedded into National Planning Framework 4 in Scotland. I'm not sure it's yet as extreme as "no cars here", but we can hope? Decarbonisation is going to require an entirely different approach to personal transport. Those conversations are already being had at government level. Turning to electric or even self-driving cars isn't enough. We need to move away from the concept of motorised transport being something that people can own and keep for themselves as a general expectation. Build places where people can live without needing or feeling the need to have a car. That solves your urban traffic issue. Exclude motorised vehicles from existing infrastructure, but not just a lane for a short distance -- entire areas.
I am not arguing that all segregated infrastructure is always bad or counter-productive or doesn't serve a purpose. I'm just trying to point out there are flaws, and those flaws need to be addressed lest we shoot ourselves in the SPD. It has been nearly 20 years since I pointed out to someone in the CTC (as it was) campaigning arm that segregation causes problems for existing cyclists and met with agreement. How long do we pursue retro-fitted segregation as the ideal without addressing how it makes things worse for people already out there acting as role models?
I'm not here for a fight. Gods. I left all cycling fora for years because I am getting too old for arguing about shit on the internet. It just stresses me out and makes the rest of my day unenjoyable. But is dedicated cycling infrastructure alongside the existing road network (other than the likes of Sustrans leisure routes) the only answer? Or can we do better than that? If that was the right answer 40 or 60 years ago, is it the right answer now? Does the acknowledged climate crisis mean we can be more radical?
How do we get to the point where even people who do not regularly cycle feel like it's perfectly reasonable to jump on a bike, whether it's for a mile pootle to the shop for a pint of milk, a 20km commute, or 300km or more audax? Is there anything we are doing right now that is hampering that progress?
Sam
-
....
It's an opportunity to learn what tipped the balance for them. For a number of people I've talked to, it was nothing to do with infrastructure -- it was being able to buy an e-bike.
....
.....
How do we get to the point where even people who do not regularly cycle feel like it's perfectly reasonable to jump on a bike, whether it's for a mile pootle to the shop for a pint of milk, a 20km commute, or 300km or more audax? Is there anything we are doing right now that is hampering that progress?
....
I may have edited that to just two phrases wrongly, and if it's out of context I apologise. However I have been amazed in the last two years just how many e-bikes I see riding on the road in traffic, by people I wouldn't have categorised as "cyclist".
Whenever I park one of the bikes with a dynohub, I get asked if it's an e-bike.
I have relatives who are keen cyclists and caravanners. Apparently every time they turn up at a site (pre-covid) they get asked if their bikes are e-bikes (which they are not) and then get told about how great the e-bikes are. Apparently "you can go for a 5 mile ride".
If these people can switch to cycling just because their bicycle has an engine, and are happy therefore to mix with traffic..... <stops posting>
-
Example:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EC26sZqxAbg/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's physically impossible to drive a car in the section of road to the right of the red and white barriers (that whole lane is closed off further back).
This infrastructure, however, no longer exists (it was put in last summer as part of PandemicPanic and ripped out soon after, cos voters and stuff).
OK. Now I understand (although I don't consider most segregated cycle paths to be roads, which is where my confusion arose). But would anyone seriously try to argue that cyclists would be able to ride in the part of the road currently open to cars with that infrastructure there without being subject to intense harassment? And what happens when the infrastructure ends? What do you do then? Dedicated infrastructure encourages the mindset that cyclists belong on a special path, usually shared with pedestrians, and when drivers then encounter cyclists in the wild (so to speak), they think they should continue behaving as if they were using infrastructure -- in other words, getting out of the way of the motorists wot pay road tax innit.
The problem with infrastructure is that it will never go everywhere, it's not suitable for all cycling purposes, it's not as well maintained or designed, and the very existence of it makes it harder for those who would rather stick to the road. I have plenty of experience of new infrastructure being rubbish to use and making drivers on the road more aggressive to cyclists. None of these things should be true. It should be possible to have infrastructure that is well designed and maintained, and for cyclists who would rather stick to being traffic to do so safely. All of this requires a culture change, and that culture change is the same thing that will make sharing space with drivers safer.
I may be in the minority, but I'd rather focus on getting drivers to stop having a shitty attitude to cyclists. If we use infrastructure to encourage more cyclists, we're encouraging more cyclists who assume they belong on infrastructure rather than wherever they please. Also, given the increase in popularity of cycling during lockdown without any significant increase in the reach of good quality dedicated infrastructure, I'm not convinced that lack of infrastructure is what puts people off.
To bring us back to the original point of this topic, the existence of cycle paths along the gutter line (or lanes segregated by bollards) really does not contribute to reducing close passes. I suppose it's a bit like cats sitting in a square of tape on the floor as if it were a box. Something about a defined boundary makes (not all) drivers think they're doing just fine as long as they stay on the side of the boundary that hasn't got the cyclist in it.
Sam
I note that there are just a couple of cars in this photo obviously not being held up at all. They don't need the space of two lanes. BUT in a different land in a different (small) town we have just this situation along with a pattern that requires cyclists to start in a bus lane on the left (and Limoges bus drivers can be pretty unsympathetic at times), cross two lanes (a bus lane that is encroached by cars trying to get into their single lane on the right, and the proper car lane) all to enter a narrow bollarded cycle lane on the right. Result the cars have lost a lane in a bottleneck, the traffic tails back even more and further than before (about 200m and about 10mins added to a passage that was always a bottleneck but not that bad) and the cycle lane goes unused by any cyclists (in 12 months I have seen one cyclist, I have used it once just for the experience and I have seen one Harley-Davidson scoot through it to dodge the congestion). It has achieved two things; it has enraged drivers and it has probably discouraged cyclists from riding there (I am sure I used to see some, now there simply aren't any). If the objective was to encourage car drivers to cycle it has failed (to the extent that a lot of drivers seem to be taking the attitude " damn them, I'll drive my car and just let them try to stop me!" Our local urban cyclists lobby is determined that the way forward is to make life shit for cars. The pop-up lanes are doing that but the result appears to be negative. (Most of the pop-ups seem to be underused if not unused, I can't think of an exception but there must be one). On the other hand I do see more cyclists using the roads without cycle infrastructure. The mayor says it is all because of Europe but even if you are obliged to do something that isn't an excuse for doing it badly. As a cyclist I feel things were better as they were before. We still haven't found a way to make cycling attractive to non-cyclists; encouraging road rage is unlikely to be the solution.
Funny thing; we have a certain number of shared pavements, particularly around the ring road. As a result a certain number of car drivers think that all cyclists are meant to be riding on the pavements! (There are parts where we would be safer if we could - our overtaking distance in town is 80cms, I have been brushed by cars during rush hours!)
-
....
It's an opportunity to learn what tipped the balance for them. For a number of people I've talked to, it was nothing to do with infrastructure -- it was being able to buy an e-bike.
....
.....
How do we get to the point where even people who do not regularly cycle feel like it's perfectly reasonable to jump on a bike, whether it's for a mile pootle to the shop for a pint of milk, a 20km commute, or 300km or more audax? Is there anything we are doing right now that is hampering that progress?
....
I may have edited that to just two phrases wrongly, and if it's out of context I apologise. However I have been amazed in the last two years just how many e-bikes I see riding on the road in traffic, by people I wouldn't have categorised as "cyclist".
Whenever I park one of the bikes with a dynohub, I get asked if it's an e-bike.
I have relatives who are keen cyclists and caravanners. Apparently every time they turn up at a site (pre-covid) they get asked if their bikes are e-bikes (which they are not) and then get told about how great the e-bikes are. Apparently "you can go for a 5 mile ride".
If these people can switch to cycling just because their bicycle has an engine, and are happy therefore to mix with traffic..... <stops posting>
Limoges is hilly. The municipal bike hire scheme is (very) predominantly e-bike. My LBS has been breaking all his targets on e-bike sales of all sorts (including mtb). E-bikes work! Even the grannies ride them (on the pavements, ignoring the red traffic lights).
-
Hang on, are we not worried that E-Bikes will give motorists the impression that people on bikes ought to be able to go uphill at 15 mph?
-
Stevenage and Milton Keynes are designed for cars and the bikeways aren’t maintained, so they aren’t very successful in encouraging cycling. If somebody built a motorway and let it degrade to enormous potholes, that doesn’t count as good motoring infrastructure. Look to where cycling infrastructure is matched with motoring restrictions.
Cycling infrastructure needs to discourage motoring and to encourage cycling and to be sufficiently comprehensive and be properly maintained. Isolated, ill-maintained, badly-designed cycling infrastructure is a waste of money and effort and provides excuses for doing nothing for cycling next time.
-
The Stevenage cycle ways do get resurfaced , just not that often. There’s been a fair bit in last year. The cycleways also cover about 30 miles and get you most places. The surface of the cycleways is generally pretty good.
There are a few problems.
Where cycleways cross side roads, like Grace Way, the side roads get priority and you also bump down then back up.
When it comes to the town centre the cycleways terminate round out side without secure parking. It’s not door to door to the shops other than Tesco.
The signage isn’t the best, which is fine if local but not if passing through.
They’ve made it too convenient to use cars for local journeys round town.
When Great Ashby was built in the 1990s they didn’t extend the cycleways into it. So all residents of those places usually drive into Stevenage along roads that are too narrow if sharing with bikes.
The cycleways actually see more runners than cyclists. Quite a few also use them to walk into town and back.
-
In the UK I have been on a dedicated cycle route (ok, it was a bus lane)
I'm going to get C3PO'ed if I even begin to reply to any of this.
I had a similar thought...
J
-
Hang on, are we not worried that E-Bikes will give motorists the impression that people on bikes ought to be able to go uphill at 15 mph?
No. Most motorists are incapable of judging if a bike is at 10mph, 15mph or 20mph or if that is in mph or kmph!Stevenage and Milton Keynes are designed for cars and the bikeways aren’t maintained, so they aren’t very successful in encouraging cycling. If somebody built a motorway and let it degrade to enormous potholes, that doesn’t count as good motoring infrastructure. Look to where cycling infrastructure is matched with motoring restrictions.
Cycling infrastructure needs to discourage motoring and to encourage cycling and to be sufficiently comprehensive and be properly maintained. Isolated, ill-maintained, badly-designed cycling infrastructure is a waste of money and effort and provides excuses for doing nothing for cycling next time.
That reminds me of an incident on an MZ club tour to East Germany (RDA as it was then) One of the participants was stopped by the Vopos for riding in the lh lane on an autobahn when the rh lane was empty. When said participant remarked that he had to ride in the lh lane because the surface on the rh lane was too rough to do 90km/h the Vopo replied "Don't ride at 90km/h then" and fined him all the same!
I disagree with you on discouraging motorists. Cycling infrastructure needs to properly and adequately encourage non-cyclists to become cyclists. Municipalities are very strong on measures to discourage motorists, it's easy and it's completely negative. What's more it encourages road rage and negative or antagonistic feelings towards cyclists which is not only counter-productive but also dangerous! Measures to encourage non-cyclists will, if they are successful, reduce the number of motorists. The problem is how to respond to the problems and anxieties of non-cyclists and to accept that sometimes at least active cyclists are not the best people to advise on those problems and anxieties (or even to understand them) because they (we) are not non-cyclists.
-
What do you mean by "measures to discourage motorists" though? I'd say strategic street and area closures can work very well in producing a more pleasant environment, and also a more profitable one for local businesses.
-
What do you mean by "measures to discourage motorists" though?
Charging them and taking away the parking are the only ones that really count.
Speed limits, one-way systems, traffic 'calming', LTNs, etc, etc. control motorists, but don't really discourage them.
-
Speed limits, one-way systems, traffic 'calming', LTNs, etc, etc. control motorists, but don't really discourage them.
I disagree about LTNs. Closing rat runs reduces overall capacity for motor vehicles* and after a period of adjustment demand will drop to match capacity.
(* assuming Braess's paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox) doesn't apply)
Municipalities are very strong on measures to discourage motorists, it's easy and it's completely negative. What's more it encourages road rage and negative or antagonistic feelings towards cyclists which is not only counter-productive but also dangerous! Measures to encourage non-cyclists will, if they are successful, reduce the number of motorists.
They're complimentary. Closing a road to through traffic makes driving harder and cycling more pleasant. Pedestrianising a street makes driving hard and walking (and maybe cycling) more pleasant. Removing parking to install a cycle track makes driving harder and cycling more pleasant.
etc etc
-
Speed limits, one-way systems, traffic 'calming', LTNs, etc, etc. control motorists, but don't really discourage them.
I disagree about LTNs. Closing rat runs reduces overall capacity for motor vehicles* and after a period of adjustment demand will drop to match capacity.
(* assuming Braess's paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox) doesn't apply)
Municipalities are very strong on measures to discourage motorists, it's easy and it's completely negative. What's more it encourages road rage and negative or antagonistic feelings towards cyclists which is not only counter-productive but also dangerous! Measures to encourage non-cyclists will, if they are successful, reduce the number of motorists.
They're complimentary. Closing a road to through traffic makes driving harder and cycling more pleasant. Pedestrianising a street makes driving hard and walking (and maybe cycling) more pleasant. Removing parking to install a cycle track makes driving harder and cycling more pleasant.
etc etc
I agree with at least 95% of this. And removing or reducing motor traffic isn't just about encouraging 'modal shift', in fact I'd say that's way down the list of goals, it's about making a more pleasant place to live, shop, eat, go to school.
Plus, something doesn't have to be called an LTN or similar to have that effect. It might even be more effective if it's not called anything at all.
-
This sort of silly argument comes up periodically. You can't have cycle infrastructure everywhere, they say, answering a question that no one asked. Or look it this cycle lane, it's awful. And so on. There's a special clock on them, it's called the Milton Keynes timer, the number of posts that need to pass before someone mentions The Milton Keynes Cycleway.
Other than a few islands of special circumstance, like London and Cambridge, people in the UK don't cycle and won't start. As to the why, you usually end up with vehicles.
You do get that there aren't singular solutions, there are no magic buttons to be pressed. Yes, we need to enforce the laws, but even in a utopia, perfectly law-abiding vehicles zooming by, even a metre away, isn't pleasant. So there's always a place for infrastructure. But there's more than just physical practicality, it's a statement of intent: you can cycle. A billion or so years back, I had a meeting in Central London on Sunday afternoon, the trains weren't running, but I had a bike in the shed, and there was the Waterlink Way nearby. As cycling infrastructure goes, it's imperfect and not exactly direct, but it offered a car-free and modestly enticing route into London. Had that option not existed, I'd have spent an hour or two on the bus and the bike would have stayed in the shed. It's these sort of gateway events that get people cycling.
Ask yourself now, if you've got kids, would you let them go cycle on a local road. Around here, not in a million years. Cycling to school? Fuck no.
So yes, we need decent infrastructure, we need proper law enforcement, and we need to simply remove the primacy of motor traffic and parking along all roads. There's a need to be cultural change, and that comes about through changing the environment. You know, when a child can say 'mom, I'm cycling to the shops' and it be the sort of normal thing. When an adult can choose to commute to work a mile or two away by bike and it be a reasonable option, rather than sit in traffic for thirty minutes. The improvement isn't about cycles (and it shouldn't be the way to introduce it, everyone hates cyclists), it's about creating neighbourhoods were it's not all about cars.
I'm sorry, but the tired old 'vehicular cycling' doesn't deliver that, it delivers a small minority of mostly rufty-tufty blokes whose main hobby seems to be yelling at cars and a significant sports segment (which is good, but they're back in their cars come Monday morning).
-
Also, one (of many) answer to the "how do we get drivers to respect cyclists" is to make more "people who drive cars" also "people that ride bikes" (and yes, I know that people get cut up by bad driving where there are bike racks on the back of the car).
When the pandemic has abated more, my daughter will get the bus to school. Many of her friends cycle, but they live in a different direction that has much better infrastructure. She enjoys riding her bike, but the chances of her becoming a utility cyclist approach zero. :( And this is in Oxford, "a cycling city" (as the sign puts it).
-
This sort of silly argument comes up periodically. You can't have cycle infrastructure everywhere, they say, answering a question that no one asked. Or look it this cycle lane, it's awful. And so on. There's a special clock on them, it's called the Milton Keynes timer, the number of posts that need to pass before someone mentions The Milton Keynes Cycleway.
Other than a few islands of special circumstance, like London and Cambridge, people in the UK don't cycle and won't start. As to the why, you usually end up with vehicles.
You do get that there aren't singular solutions, there are no magic buttons to be pressed. Yes, we need to enforce the laws, but even in a utopia, perfectly law-abiding vehicles zooming by, even a metre away, isn't pleasant. So there's always a place for infrastructure. But there's more than just physical practicality, it's a statement of intent: you can cycle. A billion or so years back, I had a meeting in Central London on Sunday afternoon, the trains weren't running, but I had a bike in the shed, and there was the Waterlink Way nearby. As cycling infrastructure goes, it's imperfect and not exactly direct, but it offered a car-free and modestly enticing route into London. Had that option not existed, I'd have spent an hour or two on the bus and the bike would have stayed in the shed. It's these sort of gateway events that get people cycling.
Ask yourself now, if you've got kids, would you let them go cycle on a local road. Around here, not in a million years. Cycling to school? Fuck no.
So yes, we need decent infrastructure, we need proper law enforcement, and we need to simply remove the primacy of motor traffic and parking along all roads. There's a need to be cultural change, and that comes about through changing the environment. You know, when a child can say 'mom, I'm cycling to the shops' and it be the sort of normal thing. When an adult can choose to commute to work a mile or two away by bike and it be a reasonable option, rather than sit in traffic for thirty minutes. The improvement isn't about cycles (and it shouldn't be the way to introduce it, everyone hates cyclists), it's about creating neighbourhoods were it's not all about cars.
I'm sorry, but the tired old 'vehicular cycling' doesn't deliver that, it delivers a small minority of mostly rufty-tufty blokes whose main hobby seems to be yelling at cars and a significant sports segment (which is good, but they're back in their cars come Monday morning).
I mean, I cycle vehicularly, time trial on 70 mph dual carriageways, etc... I'm not against infrastructure though! But I do treat any infrastructure present with deep suspicion, particularly shared use - for example, yesterday, I was starting a century ride by crossing the New Forest on the A35. There ended up being a shared use path alongside - whereupon a roadie came barrelling past me on the path! I figured that if it was good enough for him, I'd use it, and it worked until Ashurst, where it deteriorated and I hopped back onto the carriageway.
I just have a very low threshold for putting up with cr*p. What I don't appreciate is when there's an atrocious pavement cycle path and inevitably you get motorists shouting "GeT oN tHe CyClE pAtH" (looking at you, Woodstock Road, Oxford). No infrastructure is better than bad infrastructure! </theresaMay>
-
...
Ask yourself now, if you've got kids, would you let them go cycle on a local road. Around here, not in a million years. Cycling to school? Fuck no.
...
...
(and before anybody starts pulling the "think of the children" on me, my daughter has been riding in the road since at least the age of 5 - and for her safety I avoid some roads that have cycle lanes painted on them.)
She's now 8 and last weekend she wanted to go for a ride (which she cancelled at the last minute as she changed her mind). To get to the cafe it would have involved an ex-railway line that has been converted into a 40mph road where motorists frequently exceed that limit as it's so straight and flat that visibility is good. I had no concerns with the plan of using this route.
I frequently see cyclists on that road, and in fact I see many cyclists on all the local roads which have no infrastructure. The majority of these roads have a 40mph limit. Since the first lockdown the cyclist numbers have increased, and if I take the car out I know I will be held up behind a cyclist on more than one occasion, If I cycle then I know I will also be treated with respect (in the main) and I put this down to the fact that motorists are used to cyclists in the road. There is a theme of anti-cyclist keyboard warriors on facebook and local forums, but it doesn't really overflow into real life.
This happiness on the roads is a stark difference to how cycling in Southend became after all the infrastructure was put in. Cycling in the "cycle town" became so stressful and full of anti-cycling "get on the pavement" abuse that I hung the bicycle up and switched back to car/motorbike, before eventually selling the house and moving away.
-
Despite the fact we have roads everywhere, 1.2% of journeys were made by bike in 2019 (and that's falling) – a number that is heavily skewed by London, so if you live somewhere else, effectively no one cycles.
It's not really about what you think, as a regular road cyclist. That's precisely what it is not about. People do not want to cycle on 40 mph roads. That's cycling for people who cycle.
I have no idea about Southend and whether it improved or made things worse, but poor infrastructure is a different issue to no infrastructure.
-
Fundamentally we will have to resolve the 40mph roads. One way or another. Climate Change, legislation, the cost of energy...
What we have now is unsustainable.
Whether people feel comfortable cycling on a road is deckchairs on Titanic stuff.
-
Well, cycling should just become an organic thing that people can do, as a product of wider changes. Basing change around cycling is unlikely to work, we're an outgroup that's easy to hate, and there's huge entrenched and entitled majority who are deeply unwilling to give up anything. But there's a part that infrastructure and activities to increase cycling play in that. It's not unifactoral, but expecting drivers to behave better is a highway to nothing, why should they? And as a cyclist, why would I want to share a road with them.
-
... And as a cyclist, why would I want to share a road with them.
For me, if I have a five mile ride to go see friends I want to see and enjoy the countryside, choosing whichever route takes my fancy. There's a hill I don't like, so I take the alternative route (a national speed limit road at 60mph). This not only gives me the benefit of a flatter route, but also avoids a busy main A road which is also 40mph but caters for the majority of traffic in that area.
I don't want the countryside ripped up to put dedicated lanes in on every road, just to try to "encourage people to start cycling" but also having the opposite effect of educating drivers that cyclists have no right on the road.
Pre-lifestyle change I cycled everywhere. I explored. When my wife stayed away for work it wasn't unusual for me to turn my evening commute into a 100+ mile bike ride. The majority of my rides ventured north into Essex where the southern built up area unpleasantness turned into beautiful country lanes. I learned some of the quiet routes through riding out with the CTC local group, but made up many more of my own by just looking at maps and building up local knowledge. I've lost count of how many beautiful days/nights out I've had, riding along on my own or with drivers waiting patiently behind me until I found a safe place to pull over.
I've taken cycling holidays, cycled silly mileages in one hit "just because". In all that time I've had very little run-ins with "traffic", with the exception of locations where cycle infrastructure has been created. Mainly I've been on quiet country roads, which means 60mph limit. When not on quiet roads I've crossed that there London and other major cities, again without issue, and usually plan my route to be on the road and avoid the infrastructure due to a number of close calls I've had where the infrastructure was crossed by a road but the traffic couldn't see me or their "give way" signs.
I went out at Easter to take the family to an Easter egg trail. A ten mile drive on mostly 40mph roads and quiet scenery. I wasn't counting as an official survey, but we passed many cyclists (from memory the number would be in the hundreds if not more). All out and riding quite happily on the road. These weren't just "club runs" but also family groups having fun. We also had to stop for a herd of cows and three deer, not sure what infrastructure they were supposed to be using.
{edit to add}
On reading this I realise it seems that I have mainly focussed on the "countryside" and long distance aspect. I had mentioned London and other urban areas. When I go out cycling with the family to go to a location, I use the main roads/quiet roads despite child #1 being a novice and child#2 being in a trailer. I don't hunt out cycle routes to try to avoid traffic.
In my opinion people who try cycling because a route has been built, soon give up when they realise they cannot cycle everywhere. The main thing I saw in Southend when they built their dedicated seafront route, was cars turning up with bikes on the roof so that people could ride the length of the seafront then turn around and cycle back to the car and get back in the queues to drive home again :facepalm:
-
Nutty a lot of what you say makes sense especially your edit. Does sound like your lucky with the conduct of drivers I seem to attract bad passes and it has definitely changed in the last year. In lock down MKI I certainly found drivers more courteous where as now everyone seems angry and in a rush
I think separating urban and out of town is important. Only super keen nutters like you'd find here are likely to cycle several of miles between towns
However I think people can be convinced to cycle a few miles to shops etc and these are the sort who are much happier away from traffic.
I've probably banged on about it before but I have friends in Germany on a new build town. Cars are the lowest class there. You can walk or cycle to the shops or the station. However it also means kids play out on their own. My two who were probably 5 and 7 last time we went loved the extra freedom as would go to the park with the kids we stayed with. It meant people sat outside houses and chatted and meant not every bit of grass was covered in cars. This is how new houses should be built
We also need a culture change. My colleagues daughter who is in her 30s was complaining as free parking was withdrawn from her work and were told to use park and ride which involves driving past the work. I pointed out its a 12 minute cycle on half decent infrastructure. You'd have thought I suggested drinking sewage. Shes since moved and likes the new place as there isn't the traffic completely missing the factbshe contributes to said traffic
-
I think the lockdowns have been worse because the timid and more law abiding drivers are at home.
-
Avid cyclists need to remember they're that sub-1% and their experience is coloured by that. Reiterating that experience will keep cycling a niche activity practised by men in lycra at weekends (and nothing wrong with that, but it's a minority sport). Infrastructure in the country is a straw man, absolutely no one is suggesting that every country lane has a segregated cycle path, but really shouldn't busy city streets offer a safe alternative. It ought to be possible to cycle safely everything, whether that's via filters, priorities, selected road closures etc. should be a factor of urban design. I ought to be able to cycle the mile into town without wondering if a speeding car is going to roar up behind me and sit there aggressively revving its engine. I also ought to be able to walk there, without having to squeeze around parked car and along dirty pavements. This requires we treat our surroundings differently.
It is sad that I don't anyone who lets their kids simply 'play out' as we did. Everything now is structured activities, supervised, driven there and back by car.
-
I think the lockdowns have been worse because the timid and more law abiding drivers are at home.
Really? The first lockdowns created an atmosphere almost like Family Cyclist's German new town; people sitting on doorsteps chatting while kids played in the streets. Or even as ian's rosy remembered childhood of unstructured play. Again, there's quite likely an urban-rural thing (or just location).
-
Look at any new-build estate in the UK, outdoor space is the occasional straggly tree between car parking spaces. By the time half the houses have sold, there will be even more cars parked on the pavement. There might be a bit of pavement with a painted bike on it. No one will cycle in these places. Every activity will be mediated by car.
-
Everything begins with small steps. If we want to take away the traffic from our urban environments (and that's where a huge chunk of easily replaceable traffic is), we need people who currently drive to want to cycle the 2 miles to the shops, the 1 mile to school, the 5 miles to work. And to be happy with kids doing that too. Riding for fun doesn't replace many car journeys (and as you said may increase them due to people driving to "places to cycle").
What is stopping people doing this? I'm guessing the biggest contributors are perception of weather, effort, and safety. The latter can be changed with good infrastructure. If every driver in the land suddenly became an angel, I don't reckon it would make many of them say "you know what - cycling is so much safer these days, I'll give it a try".
-
I live in a busy built up town, the most urban area locally (when we moved here we were looking at a more rural setting but then got sensible). I live on a bus route, less than ten minutes walk to a main line railway station or high street, multiple supermarkets within walking distance; it was that choice that made us move to an area we'd been avoiding in our searches (a very large area over many months) as we realised that we didn't want to live where we needed to get the car out every time we needed a pint of milk.
My wife's main objection to me taking the non-pub bike shopping, or allowing us to cycle to a place where we need to lock up our bikes to undertake another activity, is that according to bookfarce there are many stolen bicycles every day. If my daughter cycles to school I carry the bike home for the day instead of "risking" leaving it padlocked in the bike rack.
If I need that pint of milk now, I blast down the main road into town (overtaking the traffic in rush hour instead of undertaking it using the cycle lane due to the risk of a left hook). I can be back home in under 15 minutes even if the queue is long. If I want to take my daughter to an activity a bit further down the high street, I have no issues with riding behind her in primary to protect her - or taking the longer route through quiet residential roads.
Look at any new-build estate in the UK, outdoor space is the occasional straggly tree between car parking spaces. By the time half the houses have sold, there will be even more cars parked on the pavement. There might be a bit of pavement with a painted bike on it. No one will cycle in these places. Every activity will be mediated by car.
Not just new build, but older areas too (my house was built in the 1930's). There is no space available to build dedicated infrastructure. And before you suggest closing the road to traffic, I've had bus drivers knocking at the door before when people were double parked outside and they couldn't get through (luckily the offenders were nothing to do with me). We also have articulated lorries passing daily, mainly supplying the local corner shop. Close the road to provide decent on-carriageway cycle route and the impact to the local area will be more negative than it will be on cycling. It's a shame I no longer work from the front room as otherwise I might dedicate a day to a traffic count - I see cyclists going past the driveway on a significant number of times per day.
I know the pros/cons argument for infrastructure will never end. I'm not "anti" myself, and have pushed many times in the past for some routes that will enable cyclists to take one side of a square instead of the other three.
This topic was started with the report of encouraging drivers and cyclists to be safe and give each other space.
-
If I need that pint of milk now, I blast down the main road into town (overtaking the traffic in rush hour instead of undertaking it using the cycle lane due to the risk of a left hook). I can be back home in under 15 minutes even if the queue is long. If I want to take my daughter to an activity a bit further down the high street, I have no issues with riding behind her in primary to protect her
As long as you have a man to protect you, cycling on the roads is great!!!!!
-
For me to cycle to town involves a narrow, overparked rat-run, with a significant likelihood of encountering an aggressive driver. I might do it, I'm a cyclist. The average person, no, they're not going to be enticed into doing it bike (or walking along grubby blocked pavements). They're going to drive that singular mile, which is exactly what they do.
You keep superimposing your experience as a cyclist. That's almost no one else's experience.
You keep inventing made-up infrastructure to knock it down. No is going to put a cycle lane down every street. No one is going to close every street. That's not being proposed by anyone.
But yes, take my example, they could close that road to through traffic and implement some residents' parking restrictions. It's doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how reducing the prioritization for cars could be broadly beneficial (for everyone, even the drivers). Of course, that involves a fight with a small minority of drivers that our council doesn't have the appetite for.
So, no one will cycle. End of. Asking drivers to be nice doesn't work, the evidence it pretty obvious.
-
If I need that pint of milk now, I blast down the main road into town (overtaking the traffic in rush hour instead of undertaking it using the cycle lane due to the risk of a left hook). I can be back home in under 15 minutes even if the queue is long. If I want to take my daughter to an activity a bit further down the high street, I have no issues with riding behind her in primary to protect her
As long as you have a man to protect you, cycling on the roads is great!!!!!
She's eight (well seven and one week). I wouldn't let her out on her own.
I just ride where I normally ride, and let her ride in front so that I can keep an eye on her and shout any instructions/guidance as required (mind that pot hole, pull out away from the kerb, we'll be turning right soon so don't forget to look behind you).
Once she's older, and I am happy she can look after herself, then I know I can let her go out alone and I won't be branded an irresponsible adult. She'll get her ability to look after herself much sooner than those cyclists who have only ever ridden in a sterile false sense of security.
-
I live in the middle of nowhere, and cycling is generally a pleasure around here. However, my house is fairly close to an A road which is busy at commuting times (FCVO busy - this is Suffolk, not London!), and isn't an inviting prospect to cycle on at those times. I don't imagine that cycling routing will ever be off-carriageway on any roads within several miles of where I live, so persuading people to adopt cycling instead of driving needs to demonstrate that there are alternative, perceptionally 'safer', but perfectly convenient routes that don't involve the A road. That isn't easy, as almost any journey to shopping or work using the local lanes will be significantly further than using the A road.
For my sins, I'm involved in the formal efforts to improve and increase utility cycling in my local town (a few miles away from where I live). New developments around the town display all the uselessness that Ian describes; even walking is made difficult by the fact that households get parking for one car but often own several. What parking there is is often a walk away from their homes - a walk made difficult by people attempting to park outside their houses. The now-frequent deliveries by courier vans further congests the limited space available. At the moment, I have no idea how we're going to sort that mess out but we are beginning to make progress with the planners over new developments. The majority of the older part of town is very pleasant to cycle round (though hills are an issue), so our efforts have been concentrated on providing secure bike parking near shops, and publicising their existence. This may be helped by the fact that free car parks are about to become charged for...
-
...
You keep superimposing your experience as a cyclist. That's almost no one else's experience.
...
Where did I get that experience? By cycling.
I grew up in the utpoia of a short cul-de-sac {edit - in a major town} where we used the hammerhead as a roller skating rink/tennis court/etc. I was allowed to cycle to a friend's house (halfway down the road) and then grounded as when I left I rode straight out of the driveway into the path of a neighbour's car - luckily he was looking, unlucky he complained to my parents.
If I got to the end of the road, it was a 40mph main A road taking a lot of traffic. I learned to ride it. a mile or so along there was a large roundabout. It scared me. I learned to ride it - I realised that walking around it on the pavement took too much out of my day.
Had I been brought up to be a "pavement cyclist" I'd have never got that experience. One dedicated path did exist way back then, the A127 was built with a dedicated path between London and Southend. I never used it as it didn't take me to my friend's houses. {edit: My experience took me from just playing on a single speed tiny bike with rod brakes, to short rides to friends, to bigger bikes with gears, to longer distances. As I grew up and was allowed out more from home my distances grew - I still recall the first time I exceeded 30 miles in one ride, and that was when I was at 6th form college. The longer rides came later in life, but all based on the experience I learned growing up and cycling in town on busy roads.}
If we want to increase cycling, we need to remove "the fear". Building infrastructure and telling people to get off of the road doesn't do that. Reminding drivers to give space and courtesy can do that. (As per earlier in the thread, e-bikes have greatly increased the number of people cycling - I believe as it has removed "the fear" of hard work.)
-
Everything begins with small steps. If we want to take away the traffic from our urban environments (and that's where a huge chunk of easily replaceable traffic is), we need people who currently drive to want to cycle the 2 miles to the shops, the 1 mile to school, the 5 miles to work. And to be happy with kids doing that too. Riding for fun doesn't replace many car journeys (and as you said may increase them due to people driving to "places to cycle").
What is stopping people doing this? I'm guessing the biggest contributors are perception of weather, effort, and safety. The latter can be changed with good infrastructure. If every driver in the land suddenly became an angel, I don't reckon it would make many of them say "you know what - cycling is so much safer these days, I'll give it a try".
We don't need those people to want to cycle for that. They could, and are probably more likely to, walk or take the bus (or tram, metro or local train, where these exist). Or, as we see thanks to Covid, to stay at home.
-
I think the lockdowns have been worse because the timid and more law abiding drivers are at home.
Really? The first lockdowns created an atmosphere almost like Family Cyclist's German new town; people sitting on doorsteps chatting while kids played in the streets. Or even as ian's rosy remembered childhood of unstructured play. Again, there's quite likely an urban-rural thing (or just location).
OK, not the first lockdown, so much. However there were so few cars about and there was general bad behaviour. It's been much more noticeable in the 2nd and 3dr lock downs.
-
My parents used to live a couple of miles from the nearest town with shops but both roads in that direction where narrow and busy. I can't imagine anyone in their village cycling there without dedicated paths.
I've seen such stuff in rural bits of Germany (brand new EU funded alongside minor roads) and a few odd bits in the UK. Huge potential if done right, especially with e-bikes and scooters.
I'm not saying it will work, but expecting people to decide to just not to be scared of thundering produce trucks, or to expect motorists to be happy slowing to a fraction of the speed limit on a straight road because mum's popped out for a loaf of bread.
Once she's older, and I am happy she can look after herself, then I know I can let her go out alone and I won't be branded an irresponsible adult. She'll get her ability to look after herself much sooner than those cyclists who have only ever ridden in a sterile false sense of security.
I expect she'll be much more confident on the roads come her 17th birthday.
-
My parents used to live a couple of miles from the nearest town with shops but both roads in that direction where narrow and busy. I can't imagine anyone in their village cycling there without dedicated paths.
I've seen such stuff in rural bits of Germany (brand new EU funded alongside minor roads) and a few odd bits in the UK. Huge potential if done right, especially with e-bikes and scooters.
Dedicated paths, hmmm.
How are they kept clear and safe?
Deiced?
What happens at side roads?
Or when the rider needs to get to the other side, (e.g. is there a Pelican Crossing?)
We can barely keep roads clear of debris and ice and potholes.
-
Everything begins with small steps. If we want to take away the traffic from our urban environments (and that's where a huge chunk of easily replaceable traffic is), we need people who currently drive to want to cycle the 2 miles to the shops, the 1 mile to school, the 5 miles to work. And to be happy with kids doing that too. Riding for fun doesn't replace many car journeys (and as you said may increase them due to people driving to "places to cycle").
What is stopping people doing this? I'm guessing the biggest contributors are perception of weather, effort, and safety. The latter can be changed with good infrastructure. If every driver in the land suddenly became an angel, I don't reckon it would make many of them say "you know what - cycling is so much safer these days, I'll give it a try".
We don't need those people to want to cycle for that. They could, and are probably more likely to, walk or take the bus (or tram, metro or local train, where these exist). Or, as we see thanks to Covid, to stay at home.
But they don't right now, they drive. You've seen the congestion around each school. You've seen how much less traffic there is when it's the school holidays. Sure, they could take the bus, but it doesn't go where they want to go. Sure, they could walk, but heavy shopping or kids or lack of time means they don't. I have to admit - Wednesday afternoon, I'm one of them (she'd be on the bus if it weren't for covid).
Once she's older, and I am happy she can look after herself, then I know I can let her go out alone and I won't be branded an irresponsible adult. She'll get her ability to look after herself much sooner than those cyclists who have only ever ridden in a sterile false sense of security.
Congratulations.
My daughter is 11 - if she was happy riding these roads, she'd be allowed. She isn't. She went to her friends house after school a few weeks ago and they had to walk because while her friend rides (from a direction with decent infra), she doesn't because of traffic. It makes me sad, there's an islabike gathering dust in our garage because you can't get anywhere she wants to go without braving busy roads.
-
...
You keep superimposing your experience as a cyclist. That's almost no one else's experience.
...
Where did I get that experience? By cycling.
I grew up in the utpoia of a short cul-de-sac {edit - in a major town} where we used the hammerhead as a roller skating rink/tennis court/etc. I was allowed to cycle to a friend's house (halfway down the road) and then grounded as when I left I rode straight out of the driveway into the path of a neighbour's car - luckily he was looking, unlucky he complained to my parents.
If I got to the end of the road, it was a 40mph main A road taking a lot of traffic. I learned to ride it. a mile or so along there was a large roundabout. It scared me. I learned to ride it - I realised that walking around it on the pavement took too much out of my day.
Had I been brought up to be a "pavement cyclist" I'd have never got that experience. One dedicated path did exist way back then, the A127 was built with a dedicated path between London and Southend. I never used it as it didn't take me to my friend's houses. {edit: My experience took me from just playing on a single speed tiny bike with rod brakes, to short rides to friends, to bigger bikes with gears, to longer distances. As I grew up and was allowed out more from home my distances grew - I still recall the first time I exceeded 30 miles in one ride, and that was when I was at 6th form college. The longer rides came later in life, but all based on the experience I learned growing up and cycling in town on busy roads.}
If we want to increase cycling, we need to remove "the fear". Building infrastructure and telling people to get off of the road doesn't do that. Reminding drivers to give space and courtesy can do that. (As per earlier in the thread, e-bikes have greatly increased the number of people cycling - I believe as it has removed "the fear" of hard work.)
An how do you remove this fear? Your advice seems to be MTFU, which isn't helpful or inclusive. In practice, you reduce the fear by providing safe alternatives to busy roads that make cycling an actual possibility. Not by pushing people into an A road and say 'see, you're not dead yet.' And you ignore the fact that even if you're not actually scared and you abstract driving behaviour, it's just not pleasant being passed by lorries and fast-moving people and breathing their fumes.
You don't seem to get that in practical terms no one is cycling. There aren't kids out on bikes, there aren't many people popping to the shops by bike, these are things that aren't happening. If something scares someone, the majority of them won't do it. And quite frankly, they're entitled not to feel scared.
-
Everything begins with small steps. If we want to take away the traffic from our urban environments (and that's where a huge chunk of easily replaceable traffic is), we need people who currently drive to want to cycle the 2 miles to the shops, the 1 mile to school, the 5 miles to work. And to be happy with kids doing that too. Riding for fun doesn't replace many car journeys (and as you said may increase them due to people driving to "places to cycle").
What is stopping people doing this? I'm guessing the biggest contributors are perception of weather, effort, and safety. The latter can be changed with good infrastructure. If every driver in the land suddenly became an angel, I don't reckon it would make many of them say "you know what - cycling is so much safer these days, I'll give it a try".
We don't need those people to want to cycle for that. They could, and are probably more likely to, walk or take the bus (or tram, metro or local train, where these exist). Or, as we see thanks to Covid, to stay at home.
But they don't right now, they drive. You've seen the congestion around each school. You've seen how much less traffic there is when it's the school holidays. Sure, they could take the bus, but it doesn't go where they want to go. Sure, they could walk, but heavy shopping or kids or lack of time means they don't. I have to admit - Wednesday afternoon, I'm one of them (she'd be on the bus if it weren't for covid).
Well exactly. Cycling is dangerous and inconvenient and for weirdoes. Walking is not weird but it is dangerous and inconvenient. Buses are safe, apart from late at night, but they're inconvenient and expensive. Walking (in which I'd like to include wheelchairs and the slower sorts of mobility scooters, but maybe that's being a bit hopeful initially) is probably the easiest to de-inconvenience and the one which which encounters the least resistance generally. And making somewhere easily walkable tends to make it easily livable in all sorts of ways, which has bonuses like people spending money locally. If it turns out that people prefer cycling or that it's easier to make certain places or situations cycleable than walkable, that's great.
-
An how do you remove this fear? Your advice seems to be MTFU, which isn't helpful or inclusive. In practice, you reduce the fear by providing safe alternatives to busy roads that make cycling an actual possibility. Not by pushing people into an A road and say 'see, you're not dead yet.' And you ignore the fact that even if you're not actually scared and you abstract driving behaviour, it's just not pleasant being passed by lorries and fast-moving people and breathing their fumes.
You don't seem to get that in practical terms no one is cycling. There aren't kids out on bikes, there aren't many people popping to the shops by bike, these are things that aren't happening. If something scares someone, the majority of them won't do it. And quite frankly, they're entitled not to feel scared.
When I go out I can guarantee I'll see other cyclists. If I'm taking the kids to the park, other children have their bikes there. If I'm nipping to the shops I'll see other utility cyclists and can guarantee that there will always be more than one bike in the rack when I get there. If I'm working in the front garden I will frequently see a cyclist passing - it might be somebody on a utility trip, it might be schoolchildren coming home from school, it might be a group of friends out together. If I go further afield out of town then I know I'll start to see the lycra roadies who've forgotten to turn their lights off in the mid day sun, Maybe if I get time one day this week I'll go do a random survey.
How would I suggest removing this fear?
1) advertising. Cycling is fun and safe.
2) cyclist education. - How to cycle safely
- How to plan a quiet cycle ride
3) driver education - How to interact with fellow humans who are riding bikes
- schemes such as the one at the start of this topic
4) integration. Remind cyclists that drivers are human, but faster so allow them past to be polite when it is safe to do so
Remind drivers that cyclists are human and allowed on the road.
re point 2 - Some years ago I went on a two day ride with friends. Day one the leader mainly took us on cycle routes and paths alongside main busy roads. Day two I'd been asked to plan, we hardly saw a car the whole day and everybody congratulated me on what a quiet and scenic ride they'd had.
On a forum some time ago a cyclist was asking for advice after having had an issue riding the A13 dual carriageway. I was confused that he'd been on there since every time I rode towards London I used the quiet roads that the A13 had bypassed. I am not criticising his choice or route planning, but the route I always chose back then is one that (from memory and I haven't been there in some time) I'd quite happily take the family cycling along.
This planning a quiet route is easy - even in gridlocked Southend, when I was cycling, if I fancied a slower and meandering route instead of overtaking the traffic, I could ride the 8 mile commute on almost empty residential roads which were perfectly safe for novices. They were too meandering for rat running, hence being suitable for cycling. I did propose this route to the Council several times, but they objected and said that they expected cyclists to use the main A13 as that was going to be their strategic route.
It's not a case of MTFU, it's a case of looking at it sensibly and realising that you can just go out on a bike and have fun without a need for dedicated facilities.
-
Ian and Nutty are both right! Ian is no doubt relaying accurately what he observes, and so is Nutty. And both have their own strategies for getting by on a bike.
It's a fact that, by any metric and outside of London, Cambridge and one or two other places, the numbers of utility cyclists are very small and not increasing significantly. The last DfT report shows that, on average, those who do get on a bike complete 16 trips and 54 miles a year (2019). Only 11% of adults ever get on a bike for any reason at all, and most of those do it for leisure or fitness, not for transport. Only 2% of journeys are achieved by bike, or 1% of distance travelled. These are tiny numbers, and if you take the cycling hotspots out of the equation, it's easy to see why Ian (and many others) feel that no-one is cycling - except for the lycra brigade.
The biggest encouragement to get people on their bikes is seeing other people do it. People won't go shopping on a bike having seen the local chain-gang go past at 25mph. They need to see other people going shopping.In my local town, that is beginning to happen. Through little steps (no grand infrastructure projects) we are hoping to encourage more to do it. Each cyclist is one more driver out of their car, and one more ally in the battle to achieve more respect on the road (something which too many cycling club riders are as guilty of ignoring as any driver). It's about ordinary people doing ordinary things on bikes, and being seen as part of the normal overall picture.
It has been achieved in Cambridge, Oxford and a very small number of other places. My experience of London is that no respect is expected or given by anyone to anyone else, so it's total anarchy and not an example I'd want to follow.
-
Thanks TimC for such a diplomatic answer. It has reminded me that I must say that this is not an argument of Nutty versus ian or others, and that this forum is a most excellent place. This is a discussion.
One thing that I will add to your post is that I worry about "metrics" and reports. Back in the Southend days they proved that the scheme was a success as cyclist numbers on the new path increased; but the audit report post project highlighted that no numbers had been taken prior to the scheme and thus they had gone from zero to something. No monitoring had taken place on the road or promenade before, but counters had been installed on the new path. The location of the automated counting machines gives a different result from reality in my personal opinion.
From a personal experience and noting the cyclists, there was a change in behaviour and all the regular commuters disappeared from the seafront and cyclists went to other roads. I do not have figures to prove it as I only had personal observation, but my impression was that cycling numbers overall in the town decreased with the exception of weekends when cars with bicycles on the roof sat in gridlock.
My informal observations here are that daily I see many cyclists, the majority of whom have panniers and are not touring. The implication from this is that people are using bicycles as daily transport. I cycle to the supermarket for small top-ups, but drive to do a larger shop or when I know what I need won't fit on the bike, and I believe that many others have the same choices of transport.
-
Really, people don't cycle. You may live in a blip of cycling utopia, but they don't. Cycling is a significant minority leisure pursuit, and it's nice to see lots of people out at the weekend, but I suspect that few of them consider cycling to the shops as practical. That certainly reflected in the dire number of journeys made by bike, and its year-on-year decline. I'm not yet super-old as a 70s/80s child, but I grew up being able to cycle anywhere, and having a bike was a normal bit of growing up. Nowadays, most kids, if they want to ride a bike, have to be ferried to the park. I don't really blame the parents for doing this. My experiences on the roads inform me that it's no place or situation in which I'd want to place a child.
Assuming we feel that empowering people to cycle is a good thing – and it ought to be, it's a cheap way to travel, and has indubitable health benefits in a society that faces an epic health crisis (the costs of obesity will dwarf COVID) – then we have to think how.
No advocate of cycling infrastructure is claiming that country lanes need a segregated cycle path, or that every street needs a 'facility' down to the tiniest village. It should really be about cycling per se, it should be about how we create urban environments that we want to live in, that encourage active travel. It is key to have good infrastructure, both for cyclists and pedestrians. If you expect people to cycle down busy fast roads, it just won't happen, they won't do it. The evidence is there in the fact that they are not doing it. They won't tackle aggressive rat runs. No one wants conflict or the risk of serious injury.
Yes, drivers should behave better. I'm all for strict enforcement but asking them to be nice doesn't work. Cars embolden people to be bullies. Every cyclist and pedestrian has seen this, and most drivers too. It gets worse as cars become bigger and more powerful, which year-on-year, they do.
Training for cyclists is a bit of a no-go too. Part of the joy of cycling is that you can just get on and go. Once you've learned to balance that's it, you are liberated. It doesn't matter if you're five or fifty-five. Saddling it with training and courses, it's another reason for people not to bother. They might as well get in the car.
Normalizing cycling is the key, but that means you have to get people cycling. They won't do it until it's convenient and safe.
-
...
You keep superimposing your experience as a cyclist. That's almost no one else's experience.
...
Where did I get that experience? By cycling.
[...]
If we want to increase cycling, we need to remove "the fear". Building infrastructure and telling people to get off of the road doesn't do that. Reminding drivers to give space and courtesy can do that. (As per earlier in the thread, e-bikes have greatly increased the number of people cycling - I believe as it has removed "the fear" of hard work.)
There's a lot of truth in this, though I disagree with the conclusion.
To pick a less controversial example: Flags on recumbents. Every experienced recumbent rider knows they're the most noticeable thing on the road by dint of the WTF-factor. Everyone who's not an experienced recumbent rider knows that recumbents are invisible and going to get splatted utterly to DETH by the first driver to come up behind them.
It's readily apparent that a little bit of flappy cloth, viewed end-on due to the prevailing airflow, is going to make a negligible difference to visibility in most circumstances where it would be any use. But for many new riders it removes the fear.
See also: Helmets, hi-vis jackets, FRIKKIN LAZERS, any infrastructure that isn't a painted cycle lane, canal path cycling, ebikes, those lollipop things, maintenance courses, showers at work, riding in a group, restricting motor traffic, free bikes etc, etc. Most are neutral, some actually increase risk, but they all remove a perceived barrier.
But it's not a zero-sum game: It's entirely possible for the highways people to build infrastructure that's actually decent (or at least not actually a trap) while the police get on with re-educating drivers, and for various organisations to help people get on bikes at a grass-roots level. There is no one solution, because there's no one barrier. We need more of all of them.
-
I hope this isn't too far off-topic.
I came across this:- https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0 (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0)
TLRD; It's an article in Nature about how people will add stuff to solve a problem rather than remove stuff.
Examples in my experience are barriers on bike lanes (https://goo.gl/maps/k2N1vUvTkSR8Lcr2A (https://goo.gl/maps/k2N1vUvTkSR8Lcr2A)) and beg buttons with pedestrian detection radar, with a suitable delay as punishment for being a pedestrian, when the green man could perfectly well be lit every time the lights go red for the cars, saving the cost of the beg button box, the radars, and the posts they are fitted to, each time a car doesn't stick to the rules.
(The bike barrier that I linked to is the replacement because, well I'm sure you can guess. The original will have damaged the car further, "had" to be be replaced, all at significant cost, when the solution would have been to rip it, and probably the bollards)
-
See also: Helmets, hi-vis jackets, FRIKKIN LAZERS, any infrastructure that isn't a painted cycle lane, canal path cycling, ebikes, those lollipop things, maintenance courses, showers at work, riding in a group, restricting motor traffic, free bikes etc, etc. Most are neutral, some actually increase risk, but they all remove a perceived barrier.
That would be the showers; risk of slipping and scalding, not to mention picking up athlete's foot. :D
-
In terms of infrastructure, and relating particularly to TimC's shopping post, IMO some of the most effective infrastructure is decent cycle parking. Sheffield stands or similar, which a variety of bikes (and trikes) in various sizes can be locked to securely, put in places where people want to go and where the parking is obvious, such as supermarkets, schools, centres of emplyment, train stations, bus stations, areas of restaurants, bars, cinemas and nightlife, and so on. Train stations seem to be getting reasonably good at this, bus stations less so, schools vary a lot, in terms of supermarkets the Teutonic discounters are good, the other areas less so.
-
In terms of infrastructure, and relating particularly to TimC's shopping post, IMO some of the most effective infrastructure is decent cycle parking. Sheffield stands or similar, which a variety of bikes (and trikes) in various sizes can be locked to securely, put in places where people want to go and where the parking is obvious, such as supermarkets, schools, centres of emplyment, train stations, bus stations, areas of restaurants, bars, cinemas and nightlife, and so on.
I agree, but that's my perspective as a Cyclist. I suspect they're the sort of thing that helps people keep cycling once they start, rather than encouraging them to cycle in the first place.
On a related note, can we just have some more quality cycle parking somewhere else, rather than those roadside tool station things?
Train stations seem to be getting reasonably good at this
The cynic in me says because it's much easier than providing decent cycle space on trains, but it's all good.
-
Yes, good bike parking was our conclusion as being the most cost-effective way to increase cycling locally. All we're trying to achieve is to increase the number of people who choose a bike instead of a car for the very short journeys people do in a small market town. We're actually over-served with car parking, but the council want to wean people off parking in the high street so it can eventually be pedestrianised, at least part-time. They built a relief road to allow this about 50 years ago, but never completed the job! Persuading just 20 people a day to use bikes would mean that there is sufficient car parking off the High Street to absorb the rest of the traffic.
As well as providing the parking, you have to tell people it's there and give them clues about how to get from where they live to where they shop via existing quiet lanes or the very small amount of infra that doe exist. To that end, I've produced a town and local area cycling map which will be distributed via the local free community news magazine. That's been paid for from the Active Travel fund of the county council. It will be interesting to see if we get the hoped-for response!
-
I think in an urban situation, "where can I leave my bike?" is a big question for many people. Obviously, it doesn't address traffic fear, hills, weather, silly clothes, but I'd note that the racks in locations where people go anyway are usually fairly busy and usually used by People In Normal Clothes Who Don't Display Visible Signs of Excessive Fitness Or Nerdiness.
I'd also note that "where can I park my car?" is a major anxiety for many drivers. When most of central Bristol, including the streets around Cudzo Towers, became residents parking zones a few years ago, the inevitable squeals of protest were accompanied by some genuine change in commuting patterns: some people just stumped up for commercial parking, but others started busing, training, walking or, yes, cycling, and some brave souls even gave up their jobs.
-
Train stations seem to be getting reasonably good at this
The cynic in me says because it's much easier than providing decent cycle space on trains, but it's all good.
True, and sadly I don't see any improvement on that front. But station cycle parking (probably car parking too) isn't only used by passengers.
-
Promising to e.g. double cycle parking is an easy and cheap way to puff up a franchise bid.
And so is car parking. Basically anything that doesn't involve (shudder) improving trains.
-
There's little more discouraging to the urban cyclist than a rack that looks like it was made out of coathanger stuffed into a piss-smelling secluded gap around a corner with the dismembered rusting corpses of the last couple of bikes to be parked and abandoned there and a couple of sawn-off or otherwise cut locks littering the ground.
-
There's little more discouraging to the urban cyclist than a rack that looks like it was made out of coathanger stuffed into a piss-smelling secluded gap around a corner with the dismembered rusting corpses of the last couple of bikes to be parked and abandoned there and a couple of sawn-off or otherwise cut locks littering the ground.
The only thing worse is the retail park where the cycle parking opportunities are limited to a lamp post of a diameter larger that your D-lock between 4 parked cars, a few anorexic saplings and the ankle-height anti-trolley-bash railing around the shop entrance.
-
Or supermarkets that consider the lovely bike racks by the front door the perfect place to display their gardening and flowers range.
-
Or supermarkets that consider the lovely bike racks by the front door the perfect place to display their gardening and flowers range.
Or to put the covid queue.
-
Or place racks right up against a wall.
-
The little Tesco I used to live near put the cycle racks in the disabled parking space (well, in such a position you couldn't use them without having half your bike in the parking space).
Moot anyway, as there would always be Zepplinic wankertanker already parked in it.
-
Yeah, it takes the Germans to get it right!
-
Or place racks right up against a wall.
Yes, we've got that problem with the racks the council has just installed. Fortunately, they've seen the sense in our protests and will move them.
(https://i.imgur.com/kvwEJsd.jpg)
-
Well seems to be true. The lidl we use has a good row right outside the windows by the tills
Yeah, it takes the Germans to get it right!
-
Or place racks right up against a wall.
Yes, we've got that problem with the racks the council has just installed. Fortunately, they've seen the sense in our protests and will move them.
(https://i.imgur.com/kvwEJsd.jpg)
Those racks are ok. The sign on the wall clearly says it is for children's bikes only.
-
Haha! That's the sign for the LBS next door (The Pedal House).
-
Or place racks right up against a wall.
Yes, we've got that problem with the racks the council has just installed. Fortunately, they've seen the sense in our protests and will move them.
(https://i.imgur.com/kvwEJsd.jpg)
Hopefully, they'll also mount them in their new location more securely than shown in the picture - looking at the full-size picture in another tab, they appear to be merely screwed to the wooden planters. :-\
-
Still slightly more screwed down than some of Tesco's offerings:
(https://www.ductilebiscuit.net/gallery_albums/yorkride2013/Photo0682.sized.jpg)
-
I think in an urban situation, "where can I leave my bike?" is a big question for many people.
....
I'd also note that "where can I park my car?" is a major anxiety for many drivers.
Clipped for brevity
I think the drivers (no pun intended) for cycle parking and car parking are different.
For car drivers it's "can I find a parking space"
For cyclists it's "is it safe to leave my bike here"
Sadly the negative solutions are:
I will park further away/not go because I don't feel safe walking a longer distance/via a different situation; or
I won't travel by bike, 'caus it might get nicked. Hence I will travel by car, (or public transport if convenient)
Sometimes the concern "Is it safe to leave my bike here" might coincide with "Is it safe to leave my car here" but I suspect this doesn't appear in most people's transport risk profile.
-
Yeah, it takes the Germans to get it right!
Well seems to be true. The lidl we use has a good row right outside the windows by the tills
That's where they are in my nearest Lidl too, as well as the Aldi that's just a minute off the cycle path (the old railway line).
-
I think the drivers (no pun intended) for cycle parking and car parking are different.
For car drivers it's "can I find a parking space"
For cyclists it's "is it safe to leave my bike here"
By and large a good summary.
Hence wheelbenders left empty while sheffield stands are full, and the sheffields in an obvious location being full while those round the corner in a dark spot are avoided.
(As for motorists not going cos they don't feel safe walking a longer distance, in the specific example of the commuters to bristol city centre offices the nearest you could now get free on-street parking is sufficiently far away that virtually no one is going to walk regardless of how safe they feel; they'd park and get the bus onwards.)
-
I don't think the supermarkets in our town have any dedicated cycle parking (there's three Sheffield stands hidden down a side street, and another couple semi-close to Morrisons, though outside their car parking). There's a few Sheffield stands on the platform inside the station. To be fair though, it's a valley bottom, with a (very) steep and immediately rise either side, so cycling is always going to be a minority pursuit unless you live along the valley bottom corridor. There's usually a number of bikes in the train station, so I guess some people do use a bike, but you still wouldn't run out of fingers and toes counting them.
-
Or place racks right up against a wall.
Yes, we've got that problem with the racks the council has just installed. Fortunately, they've seen the sense in our protests and will move them.
Hopefully, they'll also mount them in their new location more securely than shown in the picture - looking at the full-size picture in another tab, they appear to be merely screwed to the wooden planters. :-\
Those planters weigh a ton! But the rails will be bolted to the ground when the position is finalised.
-
Those planters weigh a ton! But the rails will be bolted to the ground when the position is finalised.
TBH, I don't think security is particularly compromised by the 'toast rack' not being bolted down. A thief is unlikely to pick up the whole rack and put it in the back of a van with the bikes still attached. Theft/vandalism of the rack during the hours of darkness, OTOH... :-\
It probably varies with the layout of where you're shopping, but for me cycle parking on the High Street should be little-and-often, not big bike racks. If I'm in town, I'm likely to be visiting several shops, and want to be able to pop my shopping in the pannier outside each one, then push the bike to the next shop, re-lock it and go in. That both makes it more convenient and addresses some security concerns since the bike will be more visible and not left unattended for so long. A Cyclehoop (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/mar/26/cyclehoops-bike-locks) or similar on each and every lamp post is much better than a set of Sheffield Stands in those circumstances.
-
Yes, good point. But will the cyclehoop cope with different sizes and shapes of bike? And it does depend on having pavements wide enough to accommodate lamp posts and bikes and people, which certainly isn't the case in our high street.
-
I'm the same in little and often, but I don't need a cycle hoop on a lamp post as I use the lamp post itself.
-
Those planters weigh a ton! But the rails will be bolted to the ground when the position is finalised.
TBH, I don't think security is particularly compromised by the 'toast rack' not being bolted down. A thief is unlikely to pick up the whole rack and put it in the back of a van with the bikes still attached. Theft/vandalism of the rack during the hours of darkness, OTOH... :-\
It probably varies with the layout of where you're shopping, but for me cycle parking on the High Street should be little-and-often, not big bike racks. If I'm in town, I'm likely to be visiting several shops, and want to be able to pop my shopping in the pannier outside each one, then push the bike to the next shop, re-lock it and go in. That both makes it more convenient and addresses some security concerns since the bike will be more visible and not left unattended for so long. A Cyclehoop (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/mar/26/cyclehoops-bike-locks) or similar on each and every lamp post is much better than a set of Sheffield Stands in those circumstances.
I'm not sure why Suffolk decided to procure these 'toast racks', but they have used them in a few places now so I guess they got a bulk deal. When we were consulted about the positioning of parking, we were assuming a couple of Sheffield stands in each location; we didn't anticipate getting enough capacity to park the entire TdF! As you can imagine, that's caused some comments... But in general, they've gone down ok.
-
I'm not sure why Suffolk decided to procure these 'toast racks', but they have used them in a few places now so I guess they got a bulk deal. When we were consulted about the positioning of parking, we were assuming a couple of Sheffield stands in each location; we didn't anticipate getting enough capacity to park the entire TdF! As you can imagine, that's caused some comments... But in general, they've gone down ok.
They will be cheaper than an equivalent number of individual stands and be less work to anchor; 4 bolts for five stands as opposed to 2 or 4 bolts for each individual stand or having to set them in concrete.
-
While that's largely true, I think it's more likely that they were thinking mainly of Ipswich when they did the buy, and didn't really consider the actual needs of small towns. However, it would be churlish to complain about an excess of bike parking - and the planters have been taken on by the local 'In Bloom' team, so should look spectacular before long. So it's all good.