'Space for cycling' protest ride 2nd September

Since we are using Amsterdam and Copenhagen as examples where segregation works, what places
can you name where integration works?

Since we are using Amsterdam and Copenhagen as examples where segregation works, what places
can you name where integration works?

Integration has to work wherever there does not exist a segregated cycle path. As it happens that includes most of Copenhagen and Amsterdam.

James: We are just going round in circles....You keep finding faults and issues i have(through the computer screen) ...i am sexist, ageist, live in fear, need cycle training.... I live in fear that you may make some more assumptions about me.....

You seem to be missing the point. Cycling should be for everyone.

Though at times we can weave through traffic faster than cars, they still kill.
Lots of people, not just fit young white males should be able to ride a bike in London(not sexist, ageist or racist, just fact).... This demographic is changing, attitudes towards cyclists are changing and conditions are getting better. I think we should do more to encourage this, not less.
I feel, as many other people, cycle paths will make it safer for cyclists and encourage cycle use.

We can agree to disagree..... You can continue riding in-between traffic faster than cars, as i don't see this changing any time soon.....and will take even longer with attitudes that oppose change.

what places
can you name where integration works?

Portland, Oregon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Portland,_Oregon

A mix of dedicated cycleways and "bicycle boulevards".

The participation rates are hardly aspirational, but in an american context they're astounding.

London, a while ago?

And here's a couple of videos i think are relevant to the discussion, though i'm sure both sides will find confirmation in them:
In a hurry - YouTube

Meanwhile in The Netherlands... Cycling traffic jam! | Cyclecam - YouTube

There shouldn't even be an argument here. The mistake is to think one approach should work everywhere. A mixed strategy is needed.

On busy roads with heavy bus/ hgv traffic, there should be high-quality separated cycle lanes. Lanes that even fast cyclists should be able to use.

Elsewhere, rat-runs should be cut off, through motor traffic eliminated, and speed limits should be reduced - so there's no need for cycle lanes.

Examples:

Vauxhall Bridge - wide (2.5m) protected cycle lane needed. There's no way to make cycling in traffic here comfortable.

Wardour St: Use permeability measures to stop it being a taxi rat-run. Make it 2-way for cycling. Add a 20mph limit. No cycle lanes needed.

Easy. Let's make it happen.

There will never be a dutch style system here, it would cost too much and the road lobby would never let it get off the ground.
Who observes speed limits
Unfortunately there are twat car drivers and twat cyclists and the rest of us get caught in the cross fire
Personally I would like to see money going into education for road use. A student isn't going to forget in a hurry a mangled accident scene because the driver forgot to look in his o/s mirror for a bike or his n/s for a cycle
And might remind them as a cyclist to steer clear of vehicles especially heavies at junctions
All said hope to be at the ride

There shouldn't even be an argument here. The mistake is to think one approach should work everywhere. A mixed strategy is needed.

On busy roads with heavy bus/ hgv traffic, there should be high-quality separated cycle lanes. Lanes that even fast cyclists should be able to use.

Elsewhere, rat-runs should be cut off, through motor traffic eliminated, and speed limits should be reduced - so there's no need for cycle lanes.

Examples:

Vauxhall Bridge - wide (2.5m) protected cycle lane needed. There's no way to make cycling in traffic here comfortable.

Wardour St: Use permeability measures to stop it being a taxi rat-run. Make it 2-way for cycling. Add a 20mph limit. No cycle lanes needed.

Easy. Let's make it happen.

^this. I don't know why there's really a debate about this. For all people's wishful thinking that we can somehow fundamentally change everyone's road behaviour through punitive measures or appeals to play nicely, it just doesn't work. There's too large a percentage of the population who have no interest in cycling alongside traffic on anything but the very slowest, calmest roads.

I strongly get the impression that loads of people on here, like other bike forums, are basically afraid that they will be banished to the cyclepaths and won't be able to enjoy their car-dodging, whip-skidding antics on the road any more. I don't think this will happen, for example, cycling for sport on road is still perfectly possible in the Netherlands. More importantly, the point of cycling infrastructure is to create a much nicer environment all round, not to cater for the athletic ambitions of those who we currently think of as "cyclists".

I also gather that people think that building lots cycle lanes would represent a defeat for cyclists as motorists would have somehow won the battle for the roads. But how could having loads of cycle-specific infrastructure built possibly represent a defeat, especially if bikes were given proper priority where the (broadly) motor-based and cycle networks cross and in non-segregated areas?

Note that I'm not advocating total segregation, bikes and cars should mix where their speeds are broadly similar and motor-traffic density is low. Motor traffic densities should be engineered to achieve these low densities and speeds, not just because it allows integration of cycling but because it creates a much more pleasant environment for everyone. I'd also suggest that as cycling becomes more ubiquitous attitudes will shift to being much more cycle friendly and so the beneficial effect of greater numbers of cyclists in segregated areas will spread into the non-segregated areas.

I think the issue is that the majority of cycle lanes are shit- so if we "win" and get loads of funding for them, that's actually something of a disaster.

That disaster is hugely magnified if legislation is enacted that says we have to use them.

[QUOTE=FrancisSedgemore;3771443]Quite.

. We are talking about major roads in central London and borough town centres.

QUOTE]

I prefer major roads in central London and borough town centres to the side streets/estates and Dicksville country lanes.

but you are right

I think the issue is that the majority of cycle lanes are shit-...

That's a statement which could surely do with some qualification and quantification. :-)

I spend much of my time whilst cycling along London streets whinging to myself about the quality of the cycle lanes. At the same time, however, I have to acknowledge that the situation is improving in some ways, most often in response to constructive criticism and lobbying from cycling organisations such as LCC.

For example, we are seeing the gradual widening of cycle paths to a minimum of two metres. That is a good thing, but we have much work to do on dealing with such silliness as sharp right angles, and sections of path that extend for only a few tens of metres before terminating in a "Cyclists dismount" sign.

La lotta continua...

or better education of cyclists and motorists, clarifying where cyclists can and ought to travel

abolish cycle lanes that teach people to filter up the left hand side on the approach to lights etc etc. every single one of those cycle lanes are betting to be destroyed.

There shouldn't even be an argument here. The mistake is to think one approach should work everywhere. A mixed strategy is needed.

On busy roads with heavy bus/ hgv traffic, there should be high-quality separated cycle lanes. Lanes that even fast cyclists should be able to use.

Elsewhere, rat-runs should be cut off, through motor traffic eliminated, and speed limits should be reduced - so there's no need for cycle lanes.

Examples:

Vauxhall Bridge - wide (2.5m) protected cycle lane needed. There's no way to make cycling in traffic here comfortable.

Wardour St: Use permeability measures to stop it being a taxi rat-run. Make it 2-way for cycling. Add a 20mph limit. No cycle lanes needed.

Easy. Let's make it happen.
This. chameleon for Mayor!

Or perhaps we already have one...:/

Or perhaps we already have one...:/

Ha, repped!

Don't forget the lizard royal family.

Since we are using Amsterdam and Copenhagen as examples where segregation works, what places
can you name where integration works?

America? quite a handful of American city such as Sacramento work very well with great driving.

Even thought they have shitty cycle lane, the drivers were a lots better than London in general.

On busy roads with heavy bus/ hgv traffic, there should be high-quality separated cycle lanes. Lanes that even fast cyclists should be able to use.

The question should be why is there is cycle lane on busy truck route, or more specifically, why are truck are allowed during rush hour where the danger to peds/cycle are much higher?

The chameleon talks sense

+1 chameleon.

He/she/ encapsulated all i wanted to say.

or better education of cyclists and motorists, clarifying where cyclists can and ought to travel

abolish cycle lanes that teach people to filter up the left hand side on the approach to lights etc etc. every single one of those cycle lanes are betting to be destroyed.

What should be there instead? A cycle lane is going to get people blindly following it wherever it goes, so you can hardly have it swinging across to the right-hand side, surely?

err, no cycle lane, just normal road markings for vehicles?

Part of me feels strongly that with more bikes on the road and drivers more used to them (and maybe more 20 limits), normal road markings will work better than fiddly cycle lane schemes. That it won't take much more of an increase in London cycling before we're seriously breaking the car's monopoly on defining what roads are for.

Mode specific infrastructure fixes each mode's share of space in concrete. Sharing general infrastructure is much more dynamic. Obviously it's worth separating cars from pedestrians in most cases, but we don't need the complexity and the division of capacity that come with further splits. So cyclists, who move much more like cars than pedestrians, belong on the roads. As bike numbers increase we can just take more space.

But i'm in two minds about this. The kerb nerd's 'think of the children' argument is hard to argue against (that we need cycling infrastructure parents will let their kids use). And although personally i prefer roads with generous lane widths but no cycle-specific paint (i prefer the A4 to Kensington high st.), i'm not sure how optimal that is: There are differences between bikes and cars. Cars are slow because they take up lots of space, and they're fast because they go fast. Bikes are slow because they generally are, and they're fast because they're narrow and can jump queues of cars. Force them to use the road identically and you might get a system with the worst properties of both.

Or maybe general vehicle infrastructure can be flexible enough to get the best from both? (And jamming bikes onto narrow lanes where we loose our queue jumping ability stirs up some visceral opposition in me.)

We all get stuck behind slow inexperienced bike users or mopeds who think they can fit through a small gap as they just saw a cyclist in-front do it..... i have found European cycle tracks and infrastructure designed with the cyclist in mind to be a fast, safe and pleasant experience..... and as you pointed out, think of the children.

We all get stuck behind slow inexperienced bike users or mopeds who think they can fit through a small gap as they just saw a cyclist in-front do it.....

But soon the lights will change and once traffic is flowing it will be easy to overtake them on a full-sized road.

And real roads get the smoothest sweetest tarmac, constantly swept clean by the passage of car tyres.

ha ha! really?!! love your rose tinted view ....... i love riding my bike in London, but conditions could improve a great deal.....

We all get stuck behind slow inexperienced bike users or mopeds who think they can fit through a small gap as they just saw a cyclist in-front do it....

The biggest irony is that you do get stuck behind moped in the cycle path in Amsterdam.

Pretty much like the motorcycles on bus lane in London, but in close proximity.