Space for Cycling - What sort of Space and would we want to ride there?

[alexb]

Just come back from a week cycling in France. We mostly used cycle paths and quiet backroads. The cycle paths ranged from crushed grit (perfectly acceptable even in the rain and we could ride in pairs at 25kph no problem) to smooth full lane width tarmac (30 kph two-up no problem). One or two parts of the far flung places had pretty rough paths, but even then on 700x28c it was rideable and did not last for long.
In town we had well signposted paths and at road crossings the traffic happily gave way.

If we had that infrastructure in the UK we would have a level of cycling that we simply wouldn't recognise now. Com,ing back to London reminded me how smelly, crowded and unpleasant it all is.

But was the difference there that you were a leisure cyclist, rather than a utility cyclist or commuter? I can show you reasonable quality crushed grit paths in NE England. The trouble is that they don't tend to actually go anywhere useful (unless you are completing a tour of ex-colliery villages). When my local council talks about cycle paths, they pat themselves on the back and say "look how well we have done". It's interesting that most of these paths seem to come under the remit of the leisure services section of the council, rather than the highways section (well at least in terms of promotion or getting anything done). I'm not saying that France doesn't have good utility routes too - just that in parts of the UK some authorities mainly see cycling as a leisure pursuit, rather than as a means of transport.

These were sensible routes between towns, mainly using an ex railway line route, so flat and direct. We were light weight tourers, riding at speed. If they had been rubbish we would have diverted onto the road. Indeed we found one which had been chewed up by horses and did exactly that - found the road alternative.
Pics here for the curious: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.799330666767485&type=1&l=1f36d2ae52

[mattc]

Just come back from a week cycling in France. We mostly used cycle paths and quiet backroads. The cycle paths ranged from crushed grit (perfectly acceptable even in the rain and we could ride in pairs at 25kph no problem) to smooth full lane width tarmac (30 kph two-up no problem). One or two parts of the far flung places had pretty rough paths, but even then on 700x28c it was rideable and did not last for long.
In town we had well signposted paths and at road crossings the traffic happily gave way.

If we had that infrastructure in the UK we would have a level of cycling that we simply wouldn't recognise now. Com,ing back to London reminded me how smelly, crowded and unpleasant it all is.

How was Paris? I found it pretty hellish in rush-hour last year*. Many UK towns are as dense as Paris (or close to) - they just don't have the space for good separated infra-structure.

(Brussels was fairly similar - although it was pissing down on the cobbles, so all my intention was devoted to staying upright! )

*On the BE-FR audax - route chosen by organiser, who was happy to use cycle-paths e.g. leaving Brussels (along canalside IRC?), and along the Loire valley.

[jsabine]

How was Paris? I found it pretty hellish in rush-hour last year*. Many UK towns are as dense as Paris (or close to) - they just don't have the space for good separated infra-structure.

Hmm. When I cycled in Paris regularly (I was there as a student, so a good few years ago ...) I found it similar to London in terms of the (lack of) infrastructure, but much more relaxed in terms of drivers' lack of hostility to cyclists, and a tolerance of other road users. Pleasantly chaotic, I'd say. But then I quite enjoy riding in London.

[David Martin]

I remember your flat in Paris - I bought you supper in exchange for a bed for the night when attending an interview with a Swiss in Paris for a fellowship from Heidelberg for a postdoc position in Oslo..

[jsabine]

As I say, a good few years ago ...

[sojournermike]

But was the difference there that you were a leisure cyclist, rather than a utility cyclist or commuter? I can show you reasonable quality crushed grit paths in NE England.

Indeed, on the odd occasion that a British cyclepath is of a reasonable quality (good surface, not obstructed by too many anti-cyclist barriers, etc) and happens to accidentally (and it does usually seem to be an accident) go somewhere useful, they do tend to attract commuters and utility cyclists - many of whom are traffic-averse and wouldn't otherwise cycle.

They then get held up as examples of why we should have more cycle routes, without much consideration for either of these factors.


Not that I'm against leisure routes that don't go anywhere.  The High Peak trails, Camel Trail, circumnavigation of Rutland Water and similar are wonderful resources.  But they're not transport infrastructure.

Indeed. Commuting on the shortest route between Harrogate and Leeds means using the A61 at the most unpleasant time of day - 17 to 18 miles. A pleasant, largely quiet, ride can be had by setting off by 6.20 and taking some back roads - total 23 miles. Yet in spite of this, all the cyclepath effort, championed by cyclists, is focused on 'nice routes to the dales and Ripon'. Nice to have, but not going to lead to an material change in utitilty and transport cycling. Perhaps everyone just thinks it's too hard to build something useful. Still, at least we've got the Grand Depart...

[mcshroom]

mcsrrom, how did you find our 1934 cyclepath along the seafront and thenew extension to Carnoustie?

not sure exactly which bits of it I used (I got a bit confused on the way out of Dundee and ended up following the route round the edge of the docks). From what I remember. After the docks was pretty decent all the way to Carnoustie. A couple of roads across and one small bridge, but some stunning scenery. There was a very narrow bridge, and some loose bits that may not have been as much fun on 23s as they were with 35s but all in all pretty good.

[AndyMorris]

Andy,
 I think the tone of your postings on here is often wrong.  You sort of assume that everyone disagrees with you and are spoiling for a fight.  However, this is yacf and we have a lot of sympathy for your point of view.  If you made your points in a slightly different way you might have a more constructive dialogue

Sorry to offend but I can see our roads taken off us. Heres someone who agrees with the space for cycling brigade, he wants his roads free of cyclists and he loves facilities

http://www.montrealgazette.com/travel/story.html?id=9870529&fb_comment_id=fbc_705376319534522_705643646174456_705643646174456#f2a8d49d3c

[Freya]

& he lives in Canada.....

[Ham]

....and it is just apparently a letter to the editor (graced with a photo), doubtless to generate click-fury.

Never let it be said reality stood in the  way of a good argument, eh?

[Speshact]

Andy, what's your view on filtered permeability?

[TimC]

I don't think for a minute that 'our' roads will be taken off us. For a start, to duplicate all routes nationally with cycle routes is just too costly and is never going to happen. It may be conceivable that some duplicate roads could become dedicated cycleways, and the parallel long-distance trunk roads could become non-cycling routes, but we already have plenty of those - but without the concomitant cycleways!

Even in an urban environment, unless you start from scratch, there will never be sufficient cycle-only routes to justify closing large numbers of roads to cyclists. However, if you take some of the space currently allocated to all traffic and reserve an adequate amount of it for cyclists, I see no great harm in the adjacent vehicle road being closed to cyclists.

One of the consequences of greater amounts of vehicular/utility urban cycling will be that there will have to be more give and take between cyclists; it won't be appropriate for people to ride as though they're training for a race amongst people who are bimbling to work in normal clothes at 8-10 mph. I foresee speed limits for cyclists!