Police bring undercover cyclist operation to Arbroath

[grams]

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.

[nuttycyclist]

 

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.

[Kim]

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.

[Jaded]

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.

[Cudzoziemiec]

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

[Kim]

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.

[nuttycyclist]

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 

[grams]

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.

[tatanab]

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.

[Kim]

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.

[DuncanM]

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.

[ravenbait]

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

[Jaded]

Sam talks sense.

[grams]

I'm sure motorists will keep up their end of the bargain once we rip out all the cycle lanes.

[nuttycyclist]

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.

[grams]

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.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

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?

[nuttycyclist]

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


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.

[Jaded]

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.

[nuttycyclist]

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.   

[nuttycyclist]

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"

[Cudzoziemiec]

@ Nutty, none of your images are showing (for me, at least).

[LittleWheelsandBig]

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.

[grams]

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.

[nuttycyclist]

@ 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?