Safe Road Cycling; Cycling Specific Infastructure; Why Not Advocate for Both?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
I sort of agree. I'd be delighted with dedicated high quality cycling infrastructure, where possible, or with intelligently designed roads shared by cars and cyclists.

What I hate to see is scarce money spent on pointless short stretches of cyclepaths leading to a sign that says cyclepath ends, or narrow, poorly maintained cycling areas in the gutter alongside a road.
I agree with both.

LTN 1/20 gave a good guide (imo) to LAs. Do your highways team follow it? Ours wouldn't take notice of it if it was covered in £50 notes.
Ah, well, there's a tale. I live near a three-county corner, so where I cycle is covered by three county councils (highways teams) and five district-level councils (development and planning teams). One of the counties seems to have taken LTN 1/20 on board in full. Another said it would, but I hear it's backtracked but I've not seen that on the public record yet. One of the districts has been quite amenable to adding following LTN 1/20 as a condition of some planning permissions, but we'll have to see if that works in practice or if the backtracking county undermines it. The third county... well, they weren't allowed any project funding from Active Travel Fund 4, let's put it that way!

There's a chicken and egg situation isn't there?

Until there are lots of cyclists the case for cycling provision is easily challenged, but until our infrastructure is perceived as safe there are unlikely to be a preponderance of cyclists.

IMO we need to get out there and cycle; lobby our local politicians relentlessly and get as much positive local press as possible, together with lots of persistence.
Actually, the situation is a potential virtuous circle, so do whatever you like best: put on rides to encourage others, put out marketing materials, lobby politicians, get things in the press... it all helps build momentum and get the wheels turning!
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
I've recently cycled a chunks of NCN 5, NCN 55 and a 'greenway' that connects two towns. I'm less then impressed, to be honest.
It's worth remembering that the NCN was a Millennium Lottery project, close to 25 years ago now. It's better than what was there before — the National Byway and a postcode lottery of local routes — but it's not really been developed as hoped into a modern cycle network. It took a big step back a few years ago with the deletion of a lot of the worst on-road sections, but awful off-road ones got a reprieve for reasons I could never discover.

But, really, why does the UK leave route numbering to a charity? They don't do that for cars.

I'll be keeping an open mind about the new cycling infrastructure. What I've seen of the most recent developments has been shared pedestrian / cyclist footways with the odd toucan crossing. Roundabouts with very little assistance to help cyclists cross and when drivers ignore the latest revisions to the highway code, which they often do, cyclists having to cross three roads in effect to negotiate their way safely around a roundabout.
Sounds like old cycling infrastructure. Shared foot/cycleways in built-up areas are discouraged by the current design manual and roundabouts should be Dutch-style. Toucans and too much shared use is so 2008.
 

classic33

Leg End Member
But that's not why we say the roads need space for cycling. The safety argument is a contested one and the difference for a cycleway near a carriageway is likely to be small. I argue for them mainly for directness, comfort and attractiveness: it's simply not attractive to ride on any road busy with motor vehicles averaging more than 15mph and we can tell a lot of people agree by the fall in cycling as roads became busier with motor traffic.* It's not comfortable to be among the fumes, dust and abuse spewed out by motorists. And where I live, in an area carved up by waterways and railways, cycle routes can be much more direct because a bike bridge will always be cheaper to build than a full road bridge.

And you also don't accept the evidence that led to the junction designs in chapter 10 of LTN 1/20.

Is the evidence you've seen the 1980s Lund one, some of Jensen's papers, or what?

I am confident that if we ever lost the compulsion argument, then we would win the right to either extinguish or avoid bad facilities. Even the European countries with the most compulsion have various exceptions to it and ways to downgrade substandard cycleways to optional.

But I don't think we will lose the forced-use argument any time soon. Motorists aren't compelled to use motorways instead of nearby roads, and horse-riders aren't compelled to use bridleways instead of nearby roads.
I ride a road vehicle, I therefore expect to ride on a road, not on a footpath that was designed for foot traffic. But for some reason now has a painted line, possibly a different coloured surface on part of it, making it safe for all users.

*Didn't car use increase come about because car ownership, and use became cheaper. Thereby leading to a decline in the number of those cycling. Another argument bandied around for increased car use. Are you using the fact that cycling declined and car use increased are linked for the reason you give. That being the case, a clearer case of confirmation bias couldn't be made.

I was involved in the early days of get Leeds cycling, but gave up having seen what they considered suitable for cyclists.
From this stemmed the Leeds-Bradford cycle superhighway. Not the easiest or the most direct route between the two cities. In parts it narrows to 11", and it frequently uses the rear posts of bus shelters as the outer limit. Getting these two together isn't uncommon on it.
Use the New York Road segregated facilities and you have the expectation that because it's been built for your use you're to use it. Even if it's closed due to being used as a storage area, or signs placed in it.
Given there's one on either side, it's reasonable to expect that all those using them will be going with the flow of traffic. Going up and finding someone flying down leaves very few options. Stop and you run the risk of verbal abuse as they take to the footpath, or sending them headlong into traffic heading up.

We are getting cycle lanes on an indirect route out off town. The plans for the shorter, more direct route have been revised, in part due to the fact that it would have made cycling lethal at a number of points. But they are still pushing ahead with some mandatory parts near the town centre. The worst of it being at an almost 90° turn onto a hill. A hill that's a bottleneck at peak periods, and a designated alternate route should the dual carriageway above it be closed or part closed.
 
OP
OP
PedallingNowhereSlowly

PedallingNowhereSlowly

Well-Known Member
Sounds like old cycling infrastructure. Shared foot/cycleways in built-up areas are discouraged by the current design manual and roundabouts should be Dutch-style. Toucans and too much shared use is so 2008.
This was the culmination of an award winning project that was completed either last year or the year before.

I'll find some details for tomorrow.
 

classic33

Leg End Member
All too often you get councillors who despite promises made at consultations, and when submitting objections, go with their party line or the majority vote, "forget" what they've previously promised for the sake of an easy life, or not wanting to rock the boat by upsetting their fellow councillors.
And all too often an amnesia over what was promised/spoken about is countered by the simple statement of it was never going to happen as planned.
 
OP
OP
PedallingNowhereSlowly

PedallingNowhereSlowly

Well-Known Member
I am confident that if we ever lost the compulsion argument, then we would win the right to either extinguish or avoid bad facilities. Even the European countries with the most compulsion have various exceptions to it and ways to downgrade substandard cycleways to optional.
I'm sorry to say this but I don't think that will be the case in the UK. You only have to see the state of some of our footpaths - particularly from the perspective of a person who relies on some sort of physical/mechanical assistance for their mobility.

And your interpretation of events is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your post prior to that. I don't have the time to disect it just now. I'll see if I have the energy tomorrow.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
I'm sorry to say this but I don't think that will be the case in the UK. You only have to see the state of some of our footpaths - particularly from the perspective of a person who relies on some sort of physical/mechanical assistance for their mobility.
I don't understand this. Walkers are not legally compelled to use footpaths where present.

The state of footpaths/footways is awful. People don't realise until I tell them that minor potholes in footways around here don't get filled until 30% (urban) or 40% (rural) of the surface is pothole. That's an actual council policy decision. And a bloody disgrace.
 
OP
OP
PedallingNowhereSlowly

PedallingNowhereSlowly

Well-Known Member
And yet, he only includes examples of cycleways he disapproves of in that paper! It's not an oddly specific way of trying to make a point: it's the acid test. You can claim he's not anti-cycleway, but it seems he's anti-every-cycleway-he's-ever-seen in person, doesn't it?

I can't say I've yet met a cycleway that I've approved of. Honestly, I think this is a very disingenious comment and I think it's derailling the conversation away from the elephant in the room which really needs to be addressed.

But, really, why does the UK leave route numbering to a charity? They don't do that for cars.

The charity offered a solution. And describing Sustrans as a charity is overly generous. It is much closer to a quango. It's the only cycling organisation that is consulted on local infrastructure. The consultations the general public get are very closed ended and focus on things which I'd call window dressing.

Sounds like old cycling infrastructure. Shared foot/cycleways in built-up areas are discouraged by the current design manual and roundabouts should be Dutch-style. Toucans and too much shared use is so 2008.

https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/staffordshire-relief-road-crowned-west-20539878

It took home the communication and large project (over £10 million) categories before being crowned the overall project of the year at the 2021 Institution of Civil Engineers West Midlands Awards.

I've ridden it this morning - definitely all shared footways and it definitely leaves you crossing more roads than I'd like.

I don't understand this. Walkers are not legally compelled to use footpaths where present.
No. But pedestrians using the road in leiu of a horrendously maintained footpath is not a common sight. I see no compelling reason for a Government to properly fund cycling infrastructure for a group of people that have been marginalised for 8 decades, especially given the lack of investment in public infrastructure and public services as a whole.

And that is the elephant in the room. Cycling infrastructure has to normalise, not marginalise cycling in order for it to be perceived as a normal mode of transport. By default, cars have priority in places where people live and in places where, due to congestion, cyclists are able to proceed much more quickly and much more efficiently.

The irony is that it was the cycling lobby in the 1930s that campaigned for improvements to roads in order to make cycling easier and more practical. This paved the way for mass adoption of motorised vehicles, which from then on began to displace cyclists, pedestrians etc.. There is practically no living memory of what transport was like before the mass adoption of the private motor car.

I'm tired of seeing cycling pushed to the sidelines whilst my town is literally choking. I think I'm even starting to feel angered by toucan crossings. Cyclists (and to a degree even pedestrians) should not have to push a button and wait to be given permission to cross a road?
 

Debade

Über Member
Location
Connecticut, USA
A great post. I have lived in many cities in the States and advocated for better structure in all of them. I have toured a couple times in Europe which included a few days in Copenhagen where my bias for design was crystallized.

In my current city, the level of biking is fairly high for a large USA city. The definition of high is at any given time on a busy 25 MPH street near my house that is a primary connector, I will see 5 or so cyclists using it in the mile I am biking on that street. I am never alone on that street. However, I very rarely am riding with someone directly in front or behind me, between the motor traffic. And most importantly, the design does not encourage a significant number of new bicycle commuters who must not feel comfortable in this traffic calming design. (As an aside, our city has a lot of rail trails that have a high frequency of use. But majority of users, will drive to them and only bike the protected rail trail for recreation and I expect commuting, if starting from the parking lot).

Recently, before moving here, the street mentioned above was redesigned in the traffic calming style (speed bumps, etc) vs protected bike lanes. There was an opportunity to build either design but parking would have been eliminated on the street. Consequently, the traffic calming design that eliminated some parking but keeped most of it, won.

I share this example since it impacted my view of getting design done in the Dutch style vs UK/USA style. My current advocacy thought is to eliminate/compromise Level of Service (LoS) as the key design criteria used by street engineers. Until that is achieved, it will be nearly impossible to impact road design in terms of getting Copenhagen level non-motorized traffic volume.

While this is all strategic since I am still working on the effort, I am placing much greater emphasis on parked motor vehicles vs moving ones. Afterall, at least in the example of my current city, the space parked cars command eliminates most of the opportunity for better non-motorized infrastructure. So not only do motor vehicles retain their high LoS while moving, they also retain it while parked. I believe parking has been compromised in London and Paris but I really am still learning about the impact of that.

Minneapolis recently moved to challenging LoS in their design approach . I have not biked there but it is recognized as one of the best cities for non-motorized users, it will be interesting to see the significance of this change in design approach. I do not know their street parking policy for motorized vehicles.
 

sheddy

Legendary Member
Location
Suffolk
Road cyclists often forget that they were once children. Also that they will never grow old.

Beginners, families, utility cyclists and the elderly will always want to ride on traffic free routes.
It's the default across the channel - why can't the UK have nice things. ?
 
OP
OP
PedallingNowhereSlowly

PedallingNowhereSlowly

Well-Known Member
Road cyclists often forget that they were once children. Also that they will never grow old.

Beginners, families, utility cyclists and the elderly will always want to ride on traffic free routes.
It's the default across the channel - why can't the UK have nice things. ?
You assume too much here. I'm not strictly a road cyclist. Over half my typical morning ride is on traffic free routes using a mountain bike or hybrid. On recovery days nearly all of it is on traffic free routes. My complaint is that they leave a lot to be desired, and the only reason I feel comfortable using them is because I understand the dangers.

How can I advocate for improved traffic free routes if I don't use them and understand their shortcomings?
I'm also tired of the argument that cycling facilities are built but no one uses them. Well, I'm doing my bit by using them on a daily basis.

I attempted one on my road ride alongside a stretch of dual carriageway A34 between Stone and Stafford on Sunday. I think it's a recent addition. It was covered in stones and broken glass. The camber was all over the place and the surface was far from smooth so after 500 meters or so, I reverted to using the road which was in all 5 mph faster.

We also have to recognise, that novice cyclists quickly become skilled, competent and capable if they are incentivised to stick to it and given the right resources. Oh, and also if there bike isn't stolen.
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
Horses for courses. Most of my riding is on quiet B roads that run between towns/villages. No one is ever going to introduce cycle paths parallel to these unless there's some existing infrastructure that can be tarted up (typically old railways canals & waterways too). So I don't ride on cycle paths most of the time, and - with the exception of the repurposed railways/canals - there's no real need for them (IMO)

When it comes to crossing towns I do sometimes switch to cycle provision to avoid big roundabouts and so on. Although the quality varies massively you can get some nice ones. Burgess Hill was a pleasant surprise, for example.

What messes up my riding (this is just my personal perspective) is sodding great dual carriageways with no cycle provision that slice across the landscape and are almost uncrossable, and require a huge detour to get across. I've ranted on here before about the A249 near Maidstone and the A127 near Basildon.
 

classic33

Leg End Member
Road cyclists often forget that they were once children. Also that they will never grow old.

Beginners, families, utility cyclists and the elderly will always want to ride on traffic free routes.
It's the default across the channel - why can't the UK have nice things. ?
As a utility cyclist, using a utility cycle over a metre wide, how am I expected to use aa segregated cycle lane that's three foot wide?
Without damaging the cycle.

Is it safe, for other shared cycle lane(previously footpaths) users. Is it fair to expect them to get out of my way?
 

Alex321

Veteran
Location
South Wales
I can't say I've yet met a cycleway that I've approved of. Honestly, I think this is a very disingenious comment and I think it's derailling the conversation away from the elephant in the room which really needs to be addressed.
There a few decent ones in the Vale of Glamorgan, and some in Cardiff aren't bad, either.

And that is the elephant in the room. Cycling infrastructure has to normalise, not marginalise cycling in order for it to be perceived as a normal mode of transport. By default, cars have priority in places where people live and in places where, due to congestion, cyclists are able to proceed much more quickly and much more efficiently.
According to the highway code, cars have priority precisely nowhere.

They are seen as having priority by many drivers, but those drivers are wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjr
There's a chicken and egg situation isn't there?

Until there are lots of cyclists the case for cycling provision is easily challenged, but until our infrastructure is perceived as safe there are unlikely to be a preponderance of cyclists.
In about 1970 the Dutch realised this was essential to reduce road deaths (the "kindermurder" I think). So they did it - built the infrastructure, people used it, kids stopped being killed by cars. So the precedent is there, noone can dispute it! :smile:
IMO we need to get out there and cycle; lobby our local politicians relentlessly and get as much positive local press as possible, together with lots of persistence.

Yes, no harm in that!
 
Top Bottom