Cycle facilities - lets design one?

[ufkacbln]

Looking at some videos like this one and the wonderful cycle facility of the month shows just how bad the designs are.

Of course there are design standards already, such as these from TfL

However we often see even these simple standards ignored.

Let's imagine we are drawing up a National Standard to which compliance is mandatory and anything that does not comply would be immediately removed and a fine levied.........

What do you think we should include?



PS - This is NOT an argument over whether we should have them or not. The use would NOT be compulsory

 

[dellzeqq]

the trouble is, 'Bellers, it's all about the particular. I might have some grumbles about CS7 but, in the end, somebody's got to sit down with a plan of the particular area and draw it to scale. A little while ago I attempted to do that with a bit of Islington, genuinely giving it my best shot. It's fair to say I failed.

In a general way, the facility should not disadvantage pedestrians, wheelchair users, deliveries to shops and commercial premises, fire access, and left and right turns.

 

[sheddy]

Just ask the Dutch ? or the Danes ?

http://www.bicyclefi...m/groningen.htm http://www.vejdirekt...ent&objno=17291

 

[blockend]

It's fair to say that devising a facility that doesn't compromise cyclists or any other road users is virtually impossible, unless you were building a new town and created a separate bicycle 'motorway' network. The reality in most places is cyclists are already compromised by motor traffic flows and road engineering.

Advocates of road cycling are generally of the opinion that this is best achieved by slowing down traffic as close as possible to bicycle speeds and realistically, this is only viable in city limits. It also has to be recognised that bike speeds are high enough to make bicycles problematic around pedestrians, so mixed use is out. All solutions are based to a greater or lesser degree on shunting private and commercial vehicles 'somewhere else'. I believe that represents a quantum shift in the way people think about the urban environment that comes close to utopianism and has practical implications. As a utopian myself I'd like to turn the transport clock back to 1955 but the shift in work, shopping and lifestyle patterns to achieve such a U-turn should not be underestimated, nor its economic fallout so, with some reluctance I have to concede there are places where cycle lanes are a better compromise than some of the alternatives.

If that is a reasonable response then we have to at least attempt to devise a minimum standard for cycle lanes/paths/tracks.

 

[Richard Mann]

The standards need to be related to the design speed of the road - with the obvious implication that if there isn't enough room then you have to change the design speed.

 

[marinyork]

The standards need to be related to the design speed of the road - with the obvious implication that if there isn't enough room then you have to change the design speed.

Surely there is far too much variation within the UK on that one, to regard it but all but a guide?

 

[Wobblers]

Might I be the first to suggest this facility called a "road"?

We already have the facilities. The problem is not the roads, it is the users. Most especially the (happily small) minority of people who are entirely incapable of using the roads in a considerate, or safe, manner. Remove them from the equation and things will be better for everyone - motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. No "facility" is going to address this, which is the central issue in making our roads safer. In fact, segregation (for that, essentially, is what we're talking about here) is likely to make things worse, by creating the impression and expectation that cyclists do not belong on the road.

 

[dellzeqq]

I think the starting point, if you're going to be serious about it is - what kind of town or city do you want to live in? Forget bikes. They're a means to an end, and sometimes not even that. Take a plan of the area you live in and imagine as you'd like it to be. Think about neighbourliness, nature, conviviality, prosperity. Devising standards is, to be straight about it, infantile. Get to grips with what you think you know and ask yourself what would make it the place it could be.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

Might I be the first to suggest this facility called a "road"?

We already have the facilities. The problem is not the roads, it is the users. Most especially the (happily small) minority of people who are entirely incapable of using the roads in a considerate, or safe, manner. Remove them from the equation and things will be better for everyone - motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. No "facility" is going to address this, which is the central issue in making our roads safer. In fact, segregation (for that, essentially, is what we're talking about here) is likely to make things worse, by creating the impression and expectation that cyclists do not belong on the road.

Are we not forgetting though, that there ARE differences between cycles and motorised transport?

Why not admit and embrace that? After all, cycles don't clog up city centres causing jams and gridlock - cars do it every day, then get annoyed if Critical Mass do it once a month!

There are places that are suitable for bicycles and not cars. There are places that cars are prohibited, for good reason, with no reason to prohibit cycles. There are limited width roads that are one-way but no reason to impede cyclists by preventing cycling 2-ways.

There is no problem with cycling facilities per se - the problem is when cycling facilities are designed for the motorist not the cyclist, or rather to impose a heirarchy on the roads making some motorists and cyclists feel that cycles have no place there.

 

[MontyVeda]

simple... draw a circle around any town or city. At the point where the main roads leading into that town or city cross the circle you've drawn, put a park and ride, with both buses and 'Boris' type bicycles, on which one can get deeper into that town or city. All roads within that circle are cycle only, apart from a few main routes used for buses and deliveries only.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Just ask the Dutch ? or the Danes ?

http://www.bicyclefi...m/groningen.htm http://www.vejdirekt...ent&objno=17291

Or the Germans

 

[Angelfishsolo]

simple... draw a circle around any town or city. At the point where the main roads leading into that town or city cross the circle you've drawn, put a park and ride, with both buses and 'Boris' type bicycles, on which one can get deeper into that town or city. All roads within that circle are cycle only, apart from a few main routes used for buses and deliveries only.

If we had a suitable and affordable public transport system in this country I would agree. However we don't and so I think your idea fails at the first hurdle

 

[blockend]

I recently came across this chap's Flickr photostream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31375337@N00
For anyone interested in architecture and transport it's a superb reference and the debates and observations are never less than compelling. One of the points he makes (though I've been unable to find where as there's so much to go at, dammit) is the removal of vehicles from streets makes them more forbidding. I'll keep looking and edit when I find the ref.

Here's an example of a thwarted rat run from 40 years ago, which makes you realise how long such ideas have been around. http://www.flickr.com/photos/fray_bentos/5500072594/in/set-72157594155559143
I have mixed feelings about the enforced sanitisation of cities but whatever your outlook this site is a visual goldmine. He was a bus driver for many years.

 

[dellzeqq]

If we had a suitable and affordable public transport system in this country I would agree. However we don't and so I think your idea fails at the first hurdle

we have a suitable and affordable public transport system in London. The question is - how many more cities can we have such a system.

The problem with all this is that private cars are a declining part of traffic. We can eliminate them, and still have congestion

 

[srw]

What do you think we should include?

A slight digression, and three thoughts.

First, the inevitable - reduce speed limits on country roads. Many of the roads around here which traffic actually uses are now 40mph, with the occasional 50mph, and 60mph only on real through routes or those lanes which are so twisty that no-one can go above 20mph. It makes a real difference.

Second, there exists a great body of knowledge about which roads are best for getting from A to B. If you wanted to know anything about getting from here to Oxford, or Aylesbury, or Berkhamsted, or even central London I'd be able to tell you. (And the answer, in one case, is "follow the NCN with a little detour"). If there were a way of harnessing those little bits of knowledge it could be incredibly powerful.

Third, the French seem to have got some things right. If you want to go from Bordeaux towards Toulouse I'd point you at a segregated cycle path followed by a canal towpath. Both are reasonably wide, but not so wide that they look like roads, well tarmacked, and have relatively few places where cyclists are instructed to give way.