-
And one other point:
It was fascinating to observe old street roundabout on tube strike Wednesday this week. At evening rush hour the whole roundabout was taken up by a critical mass of cyclists moving ahead of the drivers as the lights changed. Most of the cycle lanes in the images in http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/ look too narrow to hold such numbers in a densly populated place like London -
not true. it is not more pleasant for all modes to mix, even relatively safely along a 'main primary road'. try cycling down cheapside in heavy (slow) traffic, for example. a separate cycle track would be way more pleasant for everyone on a bike. and faster, too.
(and, honestly, slow-moving hgvs are nearly as dangerous as hgvs at speed, because it's tricky for drivers to be aware of the position of all the bikes filtering around them..)
Good Links tears in rain.
I agree the 1st one is fairly good however the point:
The question, to mix or to separate is not as simple as this. Just like local residential streets should be designed "so people can mix safely", In many cases this should be applied to high streets/shopping streets even it it is along a 'main primary road'. It is more pleasnt for all modes when they are able to mix safely. (Well perhaps not better for drivers since doing so should involve reducing space for driving and lowering speeds) . -
Given that segregated cycling infrastructure invariably cedes priority to motorised traffic causing continuous stop starts, I prefer to be integrated not segregated.
-
Given that segregated cycling infrastructure invariably cedes priority to motorised traffic causing continuous stop starts, I prefer to be integrated not segregated.
why not argue for protected infrastructure that doesn't cede priority? (i think everyone campaigning for this (except sustrans..) agrees now that infrastructure is only acceptable with at least equal priority..)
the problem with integration is it's fine for you - but it's not fine for elderly, children, families, less able. if you argue for integration (on main roads) you're arguing for roads that the majority of people just won't use on a bike..
-
You can argue all you like for it, but show us how it would actually work! Unless you put cycle lanes in the outside lane and completely reverse all current engineering and infrastructure.
The problem at the moment is at every side road the segregated lane becomes the minor road and cedes priority to the left turning vehicle.
As more people take to the roads on bikes it becomes increasingly appealing. There is a perception of risk that does not tally with the reality. People like you continually stress how dangerous cycling is which has a detrimental impact on people taking to bikes.
Funnily a friend just got back from Holland and was complaining about how riding in the cities was constant stop start, slow and very frustrating.
-
'people like me'? who are those?
as it happens i (and most people who are campaigning for protected infrastructure) don't talk about 'how dangerous cycling is'. we do talk about how dangerous/ stressful on-carriageway cycling feels even where it's (statistically) reasonably safe. what stops people cycling isn't talk of danger. it's finding themselves (inevitably) on main roads surrounded by trucks and buses. it's getting close-passed by incompetent or aggressive drivers. it's having to brake sharply when people turn in or out without looking. most of these incidents don't actually result in a collision - but together with the sense of physical vulnerability on a bike, they make trips much more stressful than taking the bus, or tube, or a car, or walking. even where people are convinced to give it a go, many give up again in a couple of weeks. i've seen it happen, several times.
this doesn't end when more people take to the roads. the trucks, buses, and bad drivers are still there. the perception of risk is still there, and that's the problem.
side roads: you give priority to the cycle path. it's easy enough legally. just designers haven't been asked to do it.
my experience of the netherlands has not been that (or at least, not in most places). but what is striking is that young, elderly, less able people are happy to cycle everywhere - because, whatever the real risk, it doesn't feel that cycling is stressful and dangerous...
-
^^^ What about the stress for an on-road cyclist that is generated by ignorant drivers expecting us to be confined to a separate segregated lane, giving them a legitimate (albeit false) stick to beat cyclists with?
The problem, which I'm amazed isn't picked up more often, is nothing to do with infrastructure, or cyclists of any stripe - it is with bad/lazy/ignorant drivers who put peoples live at risk; and are tacitly accepted by society. I would much prefer campaigning to focus on changing this perception, but I doubt it will ever happen
-
Well said.
-
' even where people are convinced to give it a go, many give up again in a couple of weeks. i've seen it happen, several times.
More and more people are trying cycling and sticking with it. Look at the increased share of cycling in London. Many of the people taking cycle training fall into the groups who you claim are too frightened to ride.
-
There's a discussion on STW about the Sustrans guide, similar stances taken there.
The best summary I've read so far is words aling lines of Sustrans Pragmatism vs Others' Idealism.
Think that's kinda also your point J, or would you say otherwise?
^^^ What about the stress for an on-road cyclist that is generated by ignorant drivers expecting us to be confined to a separate segregated lane, giving them a legitimate (albeit false) stick to beat cyclists with?
The problem, which I'm amazed isn't picked up more often, is nothing to do with infrastructure, or cyclists of any stripe - it is with bad/lazy/ignorant drivers who put peoples live at risk; and are tacitly accepted by society. I would much prefer campaigning to focus on changing this perception, but I doubt it will ever happen
@Branwen, yes, but thats just what people *do*arseholes exist everywhere, and we get along with them all day, at work, in offices, on the phone, because we do, we have to.
@RHB the trannies might be pragmatic, but they surf the fine line of approval, being largely funded by the govt, streams, and wont ever campaign hard fro segregation.
youre comment about never seeing a charity with a mission statement that says 'we hope to not have to exist in 5 years' (because everyone cycles and the car culture is broken) has stayed with me-
this is the shit in my view- we share the roads, behaviour breeds behaviour,
deal with it.
gotta go liitle island ride to do in the morning -
More and more people are trying cycling and sticking with it. Look at the increased share of cycling in London. Many of the people taking cycle training fall into the groups who you claim are too frightened to ride.
much of the recent increase in cycling is the same group of people cycling more.
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/faq/what-about-londons-cycling-revolution
i'm not saying cycle training doesn't help. it just doesn't do enough. there's plenty of training available, but:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/mar/26/no-increase-commuters-cycling-data-census
infrastructure on main roads doesn't remove the usefulness of training. both will allow more people to cycle safely than just one or the other.
-
^^^ What about the stress for an on-road cyclist that is generated by ignorant drivers expecting us to be confined to a separate segregated lane, giving them a legitimate (albeit false) stick to beat cyclists with?
The problem, which I'm amazed isn't picked up more often, is nothing to do with infrastructure, or cyclists of any stripe - it is with bad/lazy/ignorant drivers who put peoples live at risk; and are tacitly accepted by society. I would much prefer campaigning to focus on changing this perception, but I doubt it will ever happen
that stress for an on-road cyclist might be better dealt with by a big campaign telling drivers that cyclists have a right to the road (and the lane..), not by refusing to provide routes that feel safe for those who feel they need them. (it's not like drivers act as though we have a right to the road as it is..) and of course by making bike lanes that are better and faster than the road...
there will always be some bad/lazy/ignorant drivers. and the problem will always be that on a bike people feel much more vulnerable among them than in a car..
-
that stress for an on-road cyclist might be better dealt with by a big campaign telling drivers that cyclists have a right to the road (and the lane..),
There's been such a campaign for a while now. You may not have heard of it but all motorists are made aware of it before taking to the road. They call it the Highway Code.
-
There's been such a campaign for a while now. You may not have heard of it but all motorists are made aware of it before taking to the road. They call it the Highway Code.
nah - the highway code is too ambiguous regarding who is responsible to look out for whom. It need to be clearer that peolple using modes that can cause more harm should be responsible to look out for people who use less harmful modes, like in some European countries.
Even HC guidance such as how wide to overtake a cyclist is too vague.
There really does need to be a campaign, some kind of public information broadcast about road sharing. This government seem to object in principle to such nanny-state like ideas. The Government don't even promote its own funded Cycle Training -Bikeability- scheme and the training messages such as riding centrally when necessary so drivers understand this. That would help reduce conflict. (TfL do a better job with this which is why drivers on London -according to many cyclists from out of London- seem more chilled.
-
Bikeability L3 as pre requisite to Provisional Driving Licence then.
FWIW I think a huge problem with the highway code is that it has 307 points that people "need" to be able to recall at different times in different situations. Some are common sense, others perhaps less so.
The cycling specific guudance for drivers is just 3 points, so 1% of the knowledge base. When adhered to though the experience of riders on roads is much more positive.
-
the integration campaign wants 20 mph on all roads in all villages, towns and cities.
hopefully that way everybody can be safe. young and old. pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.
the motorways would stay as they are. so the drivers can go there to go fast.
or if they want to go really fast they go to a speed track at brands hatch etc.
skydancer
_Leon
chameleon
dancing james
somebody
rhb
branwen-
Post a reply
About
Cycle campaigning
Posted by
@Oliver Schick
Good Links tears in rain.
I agree the 1st one is fairly good however the point: