Author Topic: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath  (Read 7985 times)

ravenbait

  • Someone's imaginary friend
  • Pudge controls the weather.
    • Someone's imaginary friend
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #50 on: 09 May, 2021, 05:13:34 pm »
I googled for modal shift studies. The first one I found was this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856416301495

Quote
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This data is from 2012, which is clearly too out of date for our purposes, but the study itself seems a good one.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
https://ravenbait.com
"Created something? Hah! But that would be irresponsible! And unethical! I would never, ever make... more than one."

Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #51 on: 09 May, 2021, 06:13:25 pm »
....
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>

Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #52 on: 09 May, 2021, 06:18:05 pm »
Example:

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!)

Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #53 on: 09 May, 2021, 06:24:08 pm »
....
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).

Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #54 on: 09 May, 2021, 06:43:53 pm »
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?


LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #55 on: 09 May, 2021, 07:24:02 pm »
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.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #56 on: 09 May, 2021, 08:23:04 pm »
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.

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #57 on: 09 May, 2021, 08:42:10 pm »
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
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #58 on: 09 May, 2021, 09:29:19 pm »
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.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Моя планета голубая, я люблю тебя и обнимаю
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #59 on: 09 May, 2021, 09:34:18 pm »
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.
Riding a bike through a city is like navigating the collective neural pathways of a vast global mind.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #60 on: 09 May, 2021, 09:44:09 pm »
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.

Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #61 on: 09 May, 2021, 10:00:33 pm »
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 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

Cudzoziemiec

  • Моя планета голубая, я люблю тебя и обнимаю
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #62 on: 09 May, 2021, 10:07:32 pm »
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 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.
Riding a bike through a city is like navigating the collective neural pathways of a vast global mind.

ian

  • not a woman, not an american, not a vampire
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #63 on: 10 May, 2021, 10:07:41 am »
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).
Authoritarian Thought Leader, the Pol Pot of Powerpoint, the Stalin of Spreadsheets

Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #64 on: 10 May, 2021, 10:56:42 am »
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).

Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #65 on: 10 May, 2021, 11:11:12 am »
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>

Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #66 on: 10 May, 2021, 11:50:46 am »
...
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.   

ian

  • not a woman, not an american, not a vampire
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #67 on: 10 May, 2021, 04:05:45 pm »
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.
Authoritarian Thought Leader, the Pol Pot of Powerpoint, the Stalin of Spreadsheets

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #68 on: 10 May, 2021, 08:30:35 pm »
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.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

ian

  • not a woman, not an american, not a vampire
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #69 on: 10 May, 2021, 08:43:27 pm »
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.
Authoritarian Thought Leader, the Pol Pot of Powerpoint, the Stalin of Spreadsheets

Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #70 on: 10 May, 2021, 09:36:12 pm »
... 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:

Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #71 on: 11 May, 2021, 08:21:45 am »
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

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #72 on: 11 May, 2021, 08:34:11 am »
I think the lockdowns have been worse because the timid and more law abiding drivers are at home.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

ian

  • not a woman, not an american, not a vampire
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #73 on: 11 May, 2021, 09:37:19 am »
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.
Authoritarian Thought Leader, the Pol Pot of Powerpoint, the Stalin of Spreadsheets

Cudzoziemiec

  • Моя планета голубая, я люблю тебя и обнимаю
Re: Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath
« Reply #74 on: 11 May, 2021, 09:52:44 am »
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).
Riding a bike through a city is like navigating the collective neural pathways of a vast global mind.