Soldato
This thread should be about is cycle lanes and infrastructure. It has nothing to do with stopping on the road, rude drivers or dodgy cyclists running lights or riding drunk in Cambridge. How difficult is it to stay on topic?
Are we tackling cycle lanes wrong?
- Thread starter ColdAsIce
- Start date
Caporegime
The question then becomes "do you want to try and make it better or accept that its **** and potentially make it even worse".
When it comes to large groups of cyclists there isn't much you can do. Its like a slow moving 18 wheeler or worse. Personally thats one of the things that I think cyclists could be better at. Most of the time I am very much in camp cyclist but 20+ cyclists taking up almost the whole road for 15m or so and not pulling over ever is very annoying and just winds motorists up. They should probably split into smaller groups of 5 or 6 which are much easier to overtake.
Soldato
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,630
i actually agree with this in cities. drive in, park at a park and ride, then walk, cycle, bus or taxi it.
i think things will improve soon actually........ once cars can drive themselves I doubt there will be much need for multi car ownership, some may not need a car at all....... but with no need for drivers calling a johnnycab would plummet in pricewhich would mean far fewer cars on the road parked up clogging everywhere......... and for the rat run i could imagine 1 car making a stop or 2 to have multiple occupancy would be fine for most people (or if not you pay more to be on your own) which would mean fewer cars on the road. it is possible now but the logistics fall on people. if automous it would be done via software (sucks for taxi drivers mind you).
I suspect, partly due to what people are used to, many will refuse to give up their own car completely, wanting something of their own for long distance journeys etc, but the drive too and from work in a city and general everyday short journeys why would you need a car for that.
also autonomous cars will be far safer too of course.
Soldato
Making things better for cyclists typically makes things worse for motorists, and vice versa, you just can't please everyone. And with the majority of road users being motorists, cyclists are unfortunately the minority.
How to make things better for everyone? In every scenario? The answer has to be, to separate everyone from everyone else... How to do that, I've got loads of ideas but they're all mad.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,630
i which case it was asked and answered in the 1st couple of posts.
cycle lanes should be well designed, well maintained with complete coverage and totally separate from the road, allowing fast, safe convenient envornmentally friendly travel for all cyclists and the roads free of slow moving bikes blocking the road.
but in the uk it isnt possible due to space, costs, and existing infrastructure.... as such we step on each others toes figuratively.
The natural progression of that then becomes why we step on each others toes , which leads to the posts you are complaining about
(equally complaining about complaining is not really on topic either
)btw my post about drunk cyclists in cambridge and ignoring the rules of the road was specifically to counter a suggestion - which was on topic - that the answer is to put the entire burden of blame of any accident involving a cyclist onto the motorist thus not needing to alter the cycle lanes... So imo my response was on topic as it tried to explain why it could not work.
Last edited:
Soldato
And proudly proclaiming massive reduction in traffic... During lockdown
Soldato
There's a huge cycle lane development going on by me, to link Cheltenham to Gloucester. Sadly it seems very poorly thought out.. The cycle lane is way too narrow and expected to carry two directions of cyclist, no way you would want to be doing 20MPH+ commuting on your bike (normal speed when I'm commuting) against ongoing cyclists in something less than 1.8M wide. The adjoining pedestrian lane (small concrete bumps separating it from the cycle lane) no doubt would need to be used by cyclists commuting to pass each other safely but then that defeats the pedestrian safety aspect..
Worse, they've obviously massively narrowed the road too, which means if cyclists are on the road they are more at risk..
Maybe there needs to be some better standards.. i.e. minimum 1.8M lane width for a cycle lane, one lane per direction of travel and cycles lanes should be on one side of the road, footpaths the other side of the road.. then make it a legal requirement to use the provided cycle lanes..
As it stands, I use about 50% of cycle lanes myself, usually where I'm doing 25MPH+ I don't go near shared cycle lanes that are in a bad state (tree roots breaking up the lane!)..
The aforementioned Cheltenham/Gloucester one is really not being used that much, for every person on the first phase they've rolled out I see about 20 cyclists on the road.. It's even worse because they've put this weird almost chicane in the road which makes it difficult for two large vehicles to pass at the chicane itself meaning the occasional Mexican stand off between a bus/lorry and the cyclists are then trying to overtake slow moving traffic in a really confined space.
Worse, they've obviously massively narrowed the road too, which means if cyclists are on the road they are more at risk..
Maybe there needs to be some better standards.. i.e. minimum 1.8M lane width for a cycle lane, one lane per direction of travel and cycles lanes should be on one side of the road, footpaths the other side of the road.. then make it a legal requirement to use the provided cycle lanes..
As it stands, I use about 50% of cycle lanes myself, usually where I'm doing 25MPH+ I don't go near shared cycle lanes that are in a bad state (tree roots breaking up the lane!)..
The aforementioned Cheltenham/Gloucester one is really not being used that much, for every person on the first phase they've rolled out I see about 20 cyclists on the road.. It's even worse because they've put this weird almost chicane in the road which makes it difficult for two large vehicles to pass at the chicane itself meaning the occasional Mexican stand off between a bus/lorry and the cyclists are then trying to overtake slow moving traffic in a really confined space.
Soldato
I think it's more willingness to spend rather than actual cost. With such projects they need to be looking 10,15,20 years ahead.
I also don't see space as an issue, it just requires better planning which is a whole other issue. There was an image posted on the first page showing a two way street and signs encouraging cyclists to share the footpath. That size of street in many countries would be one way, and so would leave room for a proper two lane cycle lane if needed. Also look at the street furniture, it's set 1/4 at least of the way into the pavement thus taking up more space than it needs to, there's also more of it than makes sense. The whole thing is just poorly planned/designed.
Soldato
Yup. Its bloody stupid and can't wait to move out of this crap area I am living in atm
Soldato
Caporegime
LTNs would work if done correctly.
But as with most infrastructure projects they're just done at half the effort with a quarter of the budget and none of the foresight needed to make a difference.
yea it's the same where I'm on about but instead of planters it's concrete blocks and a few signs
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 3,512
very little can be done for the current infrastructure, but all new roads should include separate cycle / pedestrian lanes where practical
the Dutch have it nailed
the Dutch have it nailed
Thing is on the continent the rule is that cars have to wait to turn in or out. The whole "feeder" type traffic lights thing where turning vehicles get green but pedestrians or cyclists still have priority going straight.very little can be done for the current infrastructure, but all new roads should include separate cycle / pedestrian lanes where practical
the Dutch have it nailed
Here I simple don't trust motorists to not try to cut me off whether walking or cycling.
I actually think that with the way motorists drive here, the pavements should never be broken (not for junctions on minor roads, not for driveways, entrances etc.) but should have a standard cast concrete curb (with a 30° to 45° angle) which acts like a speed bump and which motorists have to treat like a zebra crossing.
Although looking at that, even in the Netherlands most of the roads is still build for cars.
I was in German in Freiburg for a few weeks recently. Second or first place for bicycling in the country and they've made a few more improvements recently (FR1/FR2 for longer distance cycle routes, some "Fahrradstraßen" (although those are a bit weird - cars are still allowed to use them but they are not allowed to overtake bicycles on them), etc.
However, looked at the traffic journey breakdowns and cars are (were as 2016 is date quoted) only 16% + 5% of journey (drivers + passengers):
(stats are only in the German wikipedia not the English entry: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiburg_im_Breisgau#Übersicht_2)
Yet far more than 21% of the road space is dedicated to cars. In fact, (and ignoring that some public transport can use roads too) I would think more than 21% of the road space is taken up by car parking.
Soldato
I live on an LTN street, it doesn't work for us or any of the neighboring streets, or anyone who might be passing through, or the idiots in noisy cars who scream up the road only to find it closed and scream all the way back at 2am. I've yet to meet anyone who LTNs have touched express what a wonderful idea they were. They turned a lovely one way street into a hazard
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,630
just to play devils advocate here... why should the car give way at that point? i agree the design looks good but i would have the give way on the cycle lane. The car has already given way once potentially to enter the roundabout, they should not have to stop again to leave it... will cause massive congestion in busy places.
People in this thread have already said they would not trust the driver to give way anyway.... and they are right, because since for ever in that instance in the UK the car would clearly have right of way. to change would be really confusing and illogical.
The ONLY way to not have a problem would be to have an underpass for the bikes (expensive) or an over pass for them (ugly and really hard to pedal up). I absolutely disagree that the bike should inherently get right of way.
PS also the new rules which just came out recently also are illogical and confusing. (so much so i cant remember what they are! )
People in this thread have already said they would not trust the driver to give way anyway.... and they are right, because since for ever in that instance in the UK the car would clearly have right of way. to change would be really confusing and illogical.
The ONLY way to not have a problem would be to have an underpass for the bikes (expensive) or an over pass for them (ugly and really hard to pedal up). I absolutely disagree that the bike should inherently get right of way.
PS also the new rules which just came out recently also are illogical and confusing. (so much so i cant remember what they are! )
Last edited:
Actually, I would make the cars go down an underpass 90% of the time.
For pedestrians and cyclists it makes far more sense.
Max down would only be 2.5m though. Any larger cars (and buses, delivery vehicles) would get to go over but would have to treat the whole thing like one big zebra crossing and give way.
Not sure if turning into and out of junctions is an automatic right of way for cars in the UK with the current (older) rules; most motorists just bully their way in and out.
Roundabouts (especially two lanes ones) have no business in towns anyhow as they just encourage bullying. I'm sure we've all seen elderly etc. trying to cross near roundabouts and it's a completely unfair nightmare; even if 1 in 20 twenty cars stops to let them over the car behind starts blowing their horns.
For pedestrians and cyclists it makes far more sense.
Max down would only be 2.5m though. Any larger cars (and buses, delivery vehicles) would get to go over but would have to treat the whole thing like one big zebra crossing and give way.
Not sure if turning into and out of junctions is an automatic right of way for cars in the UK with the current (older) rules; most motorists just bully their way in and out.
Roundabouts (especially two lanes ones) have no business in towns anyhow as they just encourage bullying. I'm sure we've all seen elderly etc. trying to cross near roundabouts and it's a completely unfair nightmare; even if 1 in 20 twenty cars stops to let them over the car behind starts blowing their horns.
Sounds expensive and confusing. And I thought it was already concluded that no one uses cycle lanes anyway? So no one to give way to surely?
Well, I was mostly thinking of city centres. (So "down an underpass 90% of the time [in town centres]".)
Basically places cars shouldn't be anyhow and where you need to make things as pleasant as possible for pedestrians and cyclists.
Certainly the kind of junctions near train station (for they seems to be a favourite place for planners to get everything wrong) or some far too close bypass streets are absolute terrible to cross on foot and makes me wonder if planners never walk anywhere at all.