Are we tackling cycle lanes wrong?

[Vern1961]

Posted in the fuel price thread that the sad fact is, UK roads are just too busy and unsuited for guaranteed safe cycling. Few roads have decent shoulders that could be used by bikes, nor is there space to provide these even if councils had the right to purchase land either side to facilitate the provision. Cycle paths around Swindon are a joke. Most in town are "shared" with pedestrians which mean you have to dodge people walking with headphones on, dogs on extra long leads or off the lead altogether. Part of the old Midland & South Western Junction Railway has been turned into a dedicated leisure path but there are huge gaps. You cannot cycle all the way from Swindon to Cirencester or Swindon to Marlborough without going on the road for some of the way. There are several gaps and the heritage railway to the north of Swindon has been rebuilt on the old trackbed with no provision alongside for bikes. The path itself fizzles out just north of South Cerney and in addition to the gaps in places it is badly gouged and rutted with severe overhanging foliage. Challenging on foot let alone a bike. Then you still get the issues with dog walkers.

I actually spent an hour in the garage this morning doing up our bikes (only old Raleigh things) including changing out a leaky inner tube on the back wheel of mine. However when I suggested to the wife we take the bikes out for a ride rather than driving to go for a walk she vetoed the idea out of hand - too dangerous on the road and too many obstacles on the paths.

 

[Tefal]

Removing cars but enabling public transport, pedestrians and bicycles would be an advantage to disabled people. They could navigate the streets more safely as there will be fewer cars and better pedestrian infrastructure; and public transport would still allow a disabled person to reach central zones.

Regardless, this sort of shift will take years, even with proper motivation. So much supporting infrastructure would be needed.

Unless you're going to have busses stopping coatantly it's never going to compete with disabled bays for them

 

[Trifid]

Unless you're going to have busses stopping coatantly it's never going to compete with disabled bays for them

Not all disabled people are capable of driving a car, in fact more likely the most disabled are unable to. Prioritising cycle lanes over general car parking would greatly help those on mobility scooters being mobile.

 

[nantucket66]

I just spent the best part of a week working in Munich and the cycle network looked amazing. Separate to roads and to pedestrians, seemed very extensive and it came up in general conversation a few times about good it looked, I'm a non cyclist.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

At around 8:15am I'll be exactly there.

Another thing, yesterday a woman at work asked me "Why are you riding down Hilton Road when there are excellent cycle paths?".
I said "Number one, I can do 33mph down Hilton Road (downbank) but I still have idiots wanting to get past me, number two the 1.5 miles of cycle lanes on Hilton & Harplands Road would destroy my bikes even at 15mph, at every tree the path sticks up making it dangerous and that's why I don't use them".

 

[Mesai]

Unless you're going to have busses stopping coatantly it's never going to compete with disabled bays for them

Obviously with the removal of cars, there would need to be an increase in public transport facilities. They could very easily add services to support the disabled community.

Again, this isn't a case of closing off some roads and adding more bicycle racks; it's a huge undertaking.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Obviously with the removal of cars, there would need to be an increase in public transport facilities. They could very easily add services to support the disabled community.

Again, this isn't a case of closing off some roads and adding more bicycle racks; it's a huge undertaking.

I do agree that if we started from scratch roads and pedestrian areas would be very different than they are now...... I think we can all see that major updates are needed going forward. I dont have much positive to say about this government however I do somewhat see their predicament. As already said, the changes needed are going to cost a lot and take decades.

Problem is because of the system is the way it is, govenments tend to only really look at stuff which will show results over the next 5 years. The changes needed here need cross party support so that government X announcing X billion £ investment with associated tax increases will not instantly be kicked out because a different party oppose it .

also we do not know exactly what form they will take. if vehicle autonomy becomes a thing the design would be different than if it doesn't.

Out of curiosity - and it is an ugly monstrocity and i dont really want all of uk to look like it - but how are modern towns in this regard like say Milton Keynes (soon to be a city)? All i remember of it was it is roundabout hell. in theory it should be better for cyclists etc

 

[fez]

At around 8:15am I'll be exactly there.

Another thing, yesterday a woman at work asked me "Why are you riding down Hilton Road when there are excellent cycle paths?".
I said "Number one, I can do 33mph down Hilton Road (downbank) but I still have idiots wanting to get past me, number two the 1.5 miles of cycle lanes on Hilton & Harplands Road would destroy my bikes even at 15mph, at every tree the path sticks up making it dangerous and that's why I don't use them".

Thats the conundrum with UK cycling. They almost always half ass it so that motorists can whinge about cyclists while the cyclists haven't actually been protected or served any better by the changes. The highway code changes are good but most people don't know them still.

This thread has generally been good but go on twitter on any cycling related topics and you will see the level of thinking and understanding that many people have when it comes to cars.

Lets be honest here, a car sits in a strange place where we trust people to drive multiple tonne objects around at obscene speeds and punish them very little when they do something stupid. A guy recently killed an old man by pulling a dangerous overtake at over 50mph on a blind hump on a B road. Killed the guy and he gets 3.5 years and banned for 3 years 8 months. Not sure if those 2 run consecutively or simultaneously.

When the punishments for dangerous driving are so minimal its not a surprise that people are so blase about cyclists safety.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Lets be honest here, a car sits in a strange place where we trust people to drive multiple tonne objects around at obscene speeds and punish them very little when they do something stupid. A guy recently killed an old man by pulling a dangerous overtake at over 50mph on a blind hump on a B road. Killed the guy and he gets 3.5 years and banned for 3 years 8 months. Not sure if those 2 run consecutively or simultaneously.

When the punishments for dangerous driving are so minimal its not a surprise that people are so blase about cyclists safety.

how much would you give then? bear in mind in real world terms you dont get much more if you "accidentally" kill some one by punching them - and punching someone is a deliberate act to cause harm even if not to kill, where as a person who makes a poor decision whilst driving certainly didnt want hurt anyone.

I am not saying i disagree with you. many sentences are too lenient imo but it needs to be proportional to other crimes. death by dangerous driving surely should not be a worse crime than manslaughter (maybe it should be the same as manslaughter... I am not sure...but where would you draw the line? if a cyclist hits a pedestrian and kills them then that would be the same crime as a car killing them i presume? iirc someone above said they can do 34mph on a bike..... that would cause a lot of damage hitting someone at that speed and I would imagine the stopping distance of a modern car at that speed is less than a bike.

or what if a cyclist pulls out on a car, causing the car to swerve which then hits someone? it isnt as simple as it 1st looks imo when you are looking at something which whilst maybe irresponsible, was never intended to cause harm.
(i am not defending bad driving btw and i am a hypocrite as well as i dont care how tough the law is on drink drivers - but equally the law should be the same for drunk people on all vehicles on a public road - including cyclists)

btw a certain person in this thread will not be happy at all by this seque.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

When the punishments for dangerous driving are so minimal its not a surprise that people are so blase about cyclists safety.

I know I'm a bore on this subject but it is my experience and somebody mentioned this on Monday at work - When drivers believe they pay a special tax to drive on the roads it puts a massive us & them barrier up.
My nephew passed his test a couple of years ago and I was shocked he started to argue with me about I shouldn't be on the roads because I don't pay road tax.
This is something that should be taught at basic levels that EVERYBODY, even pedestrians pay for the roads.
Perhaps when we can get that into peoples thick skulls we might get somewhere.

 

[bigmike20vt]

I know I'm a bore on this subject but it is my experience and somebody mentioned this on Monday at work - When drivers believe they pay a special tax to drive on the roads it puts a massive us & them barrier up.
My nephew passed his test a couple of years ago and I was shocked he started to argue with me about I shouldn't be on the roads because I don't pay road tax.
This is something that should be taught at basic levels that EVERYBODY, even pedestrians pay for the roads.
Perhaps when we can get that into peoples thick skulls we might get somewhere.

it is understandable why people make the jump given that car tax is often called road tax, even tho the money does not go into the roads (maybe it should - and pavements and cycle lanes of course).
btw not a popular view but i also think cyclists who are on the road should have insurance as well....... I dont expect it would cost much but if they are gonna use the road then they have the potential to cause accidents on it.

 

[fez]

I know I'm a bore on this subject but it is my experience and somebody mentioned this on Monday at work - When drivers believe they pay a special tax to drive on the roads it puts a massive us & them barrier up.

The most ridiculous thing about this is that most people who cycle also own a damn car. We have two cars so perhaps we have more right to be on the roads than someone with only one car. I don't drive much as I work from home so perhaps I deserve to be on the roads more than a van driver because I am paying far more per mile for my right to drive on the road than they are.

As you say, its factually wrong but even with their **** logic it doesn't hold up to even basic scrutiny.

 

[fez]

how much would you give then? bear in mind in real world terms you dont get much more if you "accidentally" kill some one by punching them - and punching someone is a deliberate act to cause harm even if not to kill, where as a person who makes a poor decision whilst driving certainly didnt want hurt anyone.

I would base it on what they were doing. Overtaking at over the speed limit on a blind corner or hump in the road is playing Russian roulette. You will eventually cause an accident and potentially kill someone or multiple people. There is a reason people don't do that and there is a reason that someone doing that deserves a long sentence if they kill someone doing it. Its the same when someone drives at 60 in a 30. They aren't trying to kill people but their actions are really likely to result in it. I would have treated it as manslaughter and given him 15+ years. Currently the message to motorists is "kill someone in a car and you will serve a few years in jail". Thats not a good message to be promoting.

I am not saying i disagree with you. many sentences are too lenient imo but it needs to be proportional to other crimes. death by dangerous driving surely should not be a worse crime than manslaughter (maybe it should be the same as manslaughter... I am not sure...but where would you draw the line? if a cyclist hits a pedestrian and kills them then that would be the same crime as a car killing them i presume? iirc someone above said they can do 34mph on a bike..... that would cause a lot of damage hitting someone at that speed and I would imagine the stopping distance of a modern car at that speed is less than a bike.

Yes, if someone blows through a red light and hits a pedestrian crossing and kills them they should be treated in the same way. When your actions are likely to result in someones serious injury or death and then, unsurprisingly they eventually do, you should be severely punished.

or what if a cyclist pulls out on a car, causing the car to swerve which then hits someone? it isnt as simple as it 1st looks imo when you are looking at something which whilst maybe irresponsible, was never intended to cause harm.

Its not always simple but thats not the same as someone doing something that will eventually lead to a crash. People make mistakes driving all the time. They don't see someone or they misjudge speed or distance etc. Thats not remotely the same as engaging in behaviour which will result in a crash eventually. This is why we make distinctions in law based on the severity of the crime and peoples motives.

btw a certain person in this thread will not be happy at all by this segue.

Meh, he'll get over it

 

[Trifid]

The most ridiculous thing about this is that most people who cycle also own a damn car. We have two cars so perhaps we have more right to be on the roads than someone with only one car. I don't drive much as I work from home so perhaps I deserve to be on the roads more than a van driver because I am paying far more per mile for my right to drive on the road than they are.

As you say, its factually wrong but even with their **** logic it doesn't hold up to even basic scrutiny.

I'm divided between that and the fact that council tax pays for the roads cyclists would be using.

 

[Rroff]

The highway code changes are good but most people don't know them still.

Some aspects aside (giving cyclists more space) I can't really agree with that - they tend to result in more vulnerable road users being put into much worse situations in some cases than before and go somewhat against the natural order of things resulting in a bit of an awkward dance at the best of times never mind when most people aren't on the same page with some trying to apply them, others unsure and others either ignorant of the changes or don't care.

I'm seeing a distinct increase in the number of pedestrians and cyclists emerging from behind vehicles with these changes, especially as there seems to be an ever increasing number of larger SUVs, van and so on on the road which can obscure visibility, resulting in them appearing into the path of other vehicles with minimal potential to react - which happened a lot less before.

 

[Trifid]

Another important point that often gets forgotten about in male dominated spaces (like here) is, bar the ultra committed, women will not cycle on the roads with cars. I was surprised by how many women I saw cycling the car free roads of RideLondon 100 (and I'm sure even greater proportions were found on the shorter routes/free event). I wouldn't be surprised if someone said it was 25% women.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

Almost finished my holiday to Poland. I’ve been to 3 major cities so far plus a smaller town where my gf is from.

cycle lanes are part of the pavement network. Bikes are not on the roads. Warsaw and Wrocław the whole city is pretty much a full cycle lane network for bikes/e-scooters etc.

It just works. You don’t have drivers interacting with cyclists and pedestrians are separated also.

I feel the installation of cycle lanes in the UK are disruptive and dangerous to the road network.

Thoughts?

Belgium (Bruges and surrounds) was exactly the same and that was 20+ years ago. Cycle lanes in this country are little more than lip service to the idea and nothing more.

 

[Uhtred]

you cant seriously believe this?

It needs to be seriously considered, yes.

When driving you have to be aware of your surroundings and drive defensively because you're in a machine which has massive destructive power.

In any case you've solved the problem with this statement:

if i [drove] a lot i would use a go pro possibly front and rear to legally cover my back in an accident.

 

[fez]

Another important point that often gets forgotten about in male dominated spaces (like here) is, bar the ultra committed, women will not cycle on the roads with cars. I was surprised by how many women I saw cycling the car free roads of RideLondon 100 (and I'm sure even greater proportions were found on the shorter routes/free event). I wouldn't be surprised if someone said it was 25% women.

I would wager its even less than 25%. I see probably 90% men and 10% women when I am out on leisure rides and quite often those 10% are part of larger groups, perhaps because they feel safer in them.

My partner is absolutely petrified of the road. To the point where even a 200m section between off road trails scares the crap out of her. Its an irrational fear but only insofar as its overblown. Obviously the risk is always there.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I go to weekend trips to major European capitals/countries and we always use hop on/off buses.
I always ask the drivers what they think of the swarms of locust cyclists and I've never heard a bad word said by them.
One even said "Just imagine what the traffic would be like if all those cyclists were in cars?".
I was on a coach in Bruge and the driver was following several cyclists down a road when one British passenger said something like "Just pass the scum, if they get knocked off it's their fault" and the driver went mad with the blokes attitude.
They have a different mentality to us over here.