Cycle paths adjacent to main roads

[Andy in Germany]

I am quite sure that when I travel through an urban environment I am going to look at the road and if I feel it is adequate for me to make my way through it, I am going for it, regardless of cycleways, cycle signage and paths- shared or otherwise. I cannot imagine I would be alone.
The more we are seen cycling on the road the more we will be accepted.

Experience in places like the NL and more cycle friendly cities in Germany like Tübingen, is that when good infrastructure is built, it results in lots more cyclists, which in turn results in greater driver acceptance.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Whenever I point out the amount of energy wasted by stopping at every side road I'm told that cycle paths can be laid out to give cyclists priority, but if you want to stay out of a wheelchair, the issue isn't about giving the priority to cyclists, it's about having motorists who'll respect it.

Not a major issue here: cycleways continue over side roads and cyclists have priority. It was a bit unnerving when I first came here from the UK, but you get used to it.

 

[Andy in Germany]

placing cycle lanes and the like alongside roads is tantamount to agreeing cyclists are a nuisance and should be told in no uncertain terms: "Get of the road and onto the on the cycle path". Take the lane, we have a right to be there.

That works for me and you, in my case because I have a lot of experience and i'n a stroppy b*gg*r who cut his cycling teeth in the West Midlands. However, if you want families to ride bikes, or, say, kids to cycle to school, older people who are less confident, people with disabilities... et,c then we need to make provision.

The argument you used, seems to be that cycleways are harmful because they will encourage drivers and discourage cyclists. In fact, if we take the argument to its conclusion, motorways give the message cars can't use normal roads, so car use should have decreased as motorways were built. Experience shows the opposite: when we make infrastructure that makes a form of transport easier, people switch to that form of transport. A town which builds decent infrastructure is a town that welcomes cyclists, and tells drivers cars aren't the only form of transport. Also, towns which make good infrastructure generally see an increase in bicycles; often they are able to close roads to cars (as Tübingen has done) which is better for the town.

 

[Andy in Germany]

How do they fit a cycle path into an existing street that doesn't have room for one?

We need policies to deter driving, not policies to encourage cycling:

I think you answered your own question: there is always space to make infrastructure for bicycles on a road, authorities just need to be willing to take it from motor vehicles.

Doing this will in turn deter driving, by making it more difficult, and encourage cycling, so a win/win situation. This is generally the case: you can build for cars, or you can build for everyone else. You can't do both. Every time you make life easier for cyclists, pedestrians and buses, you'll be taking space from cars, and vice versa.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Experience in places like the NL and more cycle friendly cities in Germany like Tübingen, is that when good infrastructure is built, it results in lots more cyclists, which in turn results in greater driver acceptance.

In the early morning round here there are a lot of people going to the local industrial estate on bikes and e-scooters

not sure there would be as many if the cycle paths were not as good as they are from the main areas of the town to the "work areas"

OK e-scooters are illegal and all that
but the ones I have seen clearly "going to work" just ride them like I ride a bike and cause no problems
the nutters on them seem to have disappeared

(no hire bikes/scooter round here - that stops in Liverpool)

 

[mjr]

Where do you get that from?

What I was responding to was your response to the suggestion that increasing numbers on the road might help. And no, inceeasing numbers on the roads hasn't really "been tried for the last hundred".

No, that wasn't what was suggested. The exact statement was "The more we are seen cycling on the road the more we will be accepted." I suggest that the last hundred years shows that there is no correlation between numbers and acceptance, and that numbers on badly-designed roads were not even enough to keep people cycling, let alone to increase it.

Also, it's not been possible to increase numbers on the roads enough to make cycling accepted by motorists without improving the design of the roads (such as cycleways on main roads, modal filters on side roads and so on), but the suggester pretends that we can, which has never worked anywhere, has it? Various bits of UK government have spaffed millions on "promotion", "encouragement" and "enabling" during my lifetime, but they only increase cycling significantly if one or both of two other things are also done: hire bike schemes, or building good stuff.

Because cars were aspirational, and anybody who could afford one bought a car, rather than continuing to cycle. Obviuosly that is very much an over-simplification, but I think it most likely the biggest cause.

OK, that's a problem between you and your thoughts. Many people buy cars because all other options are worse, as most government is designing or optimising for motoring, despite a load of policies where they say they'll do different.

When people are actually asked or studied as to why they don't cycle, the top reasons are the roads being too busy, the weather (and being splashed and battered by passing motorists doesn't help with that), not having a bike and there not being enough routes and parking. The top things people feel would help them cycle are more cycleways and better cycle parking at work. See the various cycling reports from Mintel and others. These reasons have been fairly consistent for the last 20 years.

I'm in the Vale of Glamorgan (as I have mentioned quite often on here). I have no idea what the modal share is, but on all the rural roads round here, major and minor, you will meet cyclists almost every time you go out.

If it's only "almost every time" then that seems lower than West Norfolk. I'd need to head out on the smallest roads into the forest, probably at night, not to see another cyclist within a few miles. The fens wouldn't a fair comparison because you can see mad distances and I suspect you'd always see someone cycling if you spent enough time looking!

Looking at the official statistics for cycling prevalence, I'm unfamiliar with Welsh statistics, so I looked at Census Table TS061 Travel to Work: your area of Vale of Glamorgan was 1% Bicycle, whereas West Norfolk where I am was 3.5%.

Aside: I've also only just noticed an announcement from the English DfT that they've discontinued the Local Cycling and Walking Statistics. I'm not sure what replaces it. The Active Lives Survey seems to have continued and can be viewed at https://activelives.sportengland.org/ but also doesn't cover Wales.

I have always said that I believe the reason motorists are generally so well-behaved towards cyclists here is because they are just so used to our presence.

And yet, local motorists are also mostly well-behaved here, despite us having an above-average cycleway network. Policing probably matters more than road design.

Cardiff and the other South Wales authorities are pretty good for cyce facilities, but still nt up to that level.

Interesting. I've not cycled there recently.

 

[mjr]

He's a registered expert witness, I don't think you'd get far telling a judge to ignore him.

Maybe not, but the expert witness system has several flaws which the Law Commission have suggested changing (remember Gareth Jenkins was an expert witness in the Horizon scandal) and Franklin still offers bad advice on how to use cycleways and has abused statistics to oppose them.

No you don't, they're coming from behind,

If the junction is designed correctly, they're coming from the side, about a car length from a speed-reducing tight turn in from their carriageway lane.

Cycle paths increase the accident rate at junctions where most accident already occur because they increase complexity and multiply the number of hazards.

Are you basing that on the bad old 1980s paper or something current? It sounds like it contradicts the Active Travel England research.

I drew those diagrams from direct experience of riding on the cycle path from Trumpington into Cambridge.

Do you mean the one that's been there over 20 years? That's well below standard and we can agree it's worse than nothing in several places.

Not all 'side roads' are roads either, some are people's driveways. Not all homeowners keep to the law banning garden fences & hedges over 1m high.

Yeah, there's a similar problem with a 100m section of old cycle "path" alongside one of the A roads I sometimes ride, connecting a crossing with a near-standard cycleway, that I only ride if the road is congested because it's only safe going slow and eyeballing the gateways. It needs fixing but the county council responsible keeps bottling out.

But it's not an argument against building cycleways that actually meet the current basic standard.

Most motorists say that cars are better because they're warmer, drier, quicker, less effort, more versatile passenger & load carriers, and higher status.

Citation required and it'd be fun to disentangle which of those other than "load carriers" are true, which are reality distortions due to advertising, and what could overcome them, but that's probably best in a new topic.

Not once have I ever seen a motorist say "we've shown repeatedly that some of us can't be trusted to behave", I've seen hundreds of them saying that cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the road.

So? They say that even where no cycleways exist. They're not told it by whether the road design includes cycleways. Some were saying it before any existed and the ebbs and flows of such idiocy are unrelated to anything much in reality.

If you think motorists know what a good cycle path is you're sadly mistaken. I've seen a cyclist blamed for not using the cycle path after she was knocked off by an articulated lorry. The 'cycle path' was a 12" wide concrete rain gutter. Being blamed for not using cycle paths that aren't even cycle paths is very common. Motorists neither know nor care, because they think that slow vehicles who pay no road tax have no right being on the road holding everyone else up in the first place.

I can't argue with any of that: there is a serious problem with education and policing of motorists now. I'll also add that I've had drivers shout at me for using a cycleway because they didn't know it was (apparently the wide flat surface, gentle bends, blue signs and paint weren't enough of a hint). And I've been shouted at for cycling across a toucan crossing. But the presence or absence of any cycleways or even rubbishy paths is basically irrelevant. Road ragers gonna rage.

Time and time again I see angry motorists posting videos of cyclists using the road instead of the cycle path, and I honestly don't know how to defend it, even though I cycle in the road myself, because [...]

The way to defend it is simple: usually a path is inadequate or substandard in some important way that makes the carriageway more useful for some or many riders, and that's our choice to make, not theirs. Even if it's a good cycleway but simply inconvenient or indirect, we don't have to use it, same as drivers don't have to use an inconvenient motorway instead of the older road alongside.

because I don't support the cycle paths that all the other cyclists keep campaigning for. It'll end in cyclists being forced to use the cycle paths, the CTC already have a fight on to stop it being put in the Highway Code.

That's just the same scaremongering that we've heard for 100 years. The only way it will happen is if a deeply stupid and bigoted transport minister is appointed, and then it probably won't matter whether cycleways or cycle paths even exist, let alone are up to standard. If such a minster is ever appointed, we probably have all sorts of fights on.

Too many cyclists live in an echo chamber, telling each other what they want to hear on cycling forums, whilst bragging about not going onto the likes of Twitter & Facebook where they have to hear what the motorists they share the roads with really think. Come to think of it, retreating into cycle forums and retreating onto cycle paths are both rather similar forms of head-in-the-sandism.

I've no idea who you're aiming that at. I left Twitter when it got to the point of being mostly AI fake Muskophiles and useful exchanges were basically impossible... and I think nobody can be blamed for leaving since the child porn image generator scandal. I don't "retreat" onto cycleways: I use the good ones when they help, a similar attitude to how I use motorways when driving.

 

[Bristolian]

The fact is, In the UK, roads are primarily funded through general taxation—including Income Tax, VAT, and Council Tax—rather than directly by "road tax". Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), commonly called "road tax" or car tax, is paid into the central government's Consolidated Fund, which covers various public services, including road maintenance.

You can repeat this information ad infinitum but it won't change the mindset of drivers because they're not listening.

 

[Alex321]

No, that wasn't what was suggested. The exact statement was "The more we are seen cycling on the road the more we will be accepted." I suggest that the last hundred years shows that there is no correlation between numbers and acceptance, and that numbers on badly-designed roads were not even enough to keep people cycling, let alone to increase it.

It wasn't about wheher the numbers were enough to keep people cycling.

Also, it's not been possible to increase numbers on the roads enough to make cycling accepted by motorists without improving the design of the roads (such as cycleways on main roads, modal filters on side roads and so on), but the suggester pretends that we can, which has never worked anywhere, has it?

Can you point out where they "pretend" that?

Various bits of UK government have spaffed millions on "promotion", "encouragement" and "enabling" during my lifetime, but they only increase cycling significantly if one or both of two other things are also done: hire bike schemes, or building good stuff.

True.

OK, that's a problem between you and your thoughts. Many people buy cars because all other options are worse, as most government is designing or optimising for motoring, despite a load of policies where they say they'll do different.

Thank you so much for not only misunderstanding my response, but also apparently you question which gave rise to it. THe question wasn't about why people buy cars now, but about why it changed from more people on bikes 100+ years ago to more people in cars.

If it's only "almost every time" then that seems lower than West Norfolk. I'd need to head out on the smallest roads into the forest, probably at night, not to see another cyclist within a few miles.

So fairly similar then. I said "almost every time" because of times when I only go a couple of miles, or the weather is atrocious, or am out at night. When I sometimes won't see any others.

I was out on the bike this afternoon, doing a fairly short ride of 17 miles, on a weekday afternoon, mostly on minor rural roads and I saw around 8-9 other cyclists, all individuals, no groups. And that is fairly typical.

The fens wouldn't a fair comparison because you can see mad distances and I suspect you'd always see someone cycling if you spent enough time looking!

Looking at the official statistics for cycling prevalence, I'm unfamiliar with Welsh statistics, so I looked at Census Table TS061 Travel to Work: your area of Vale of Glamorgan was 1% Bicycle, whereas West Norfolk where I am was 3.5%.

That is probably because most of the work is in Cardiff (which is outside the Vale), and while I'm quite happy to cycle 15 miles each way (with hills) for my commute, not many are.

Aside: I've also only just noticed an announcement from the English DfT that they've discontinued the Local Cycling and Walking Statistics. I'm not sure what replaces it. The Active Lives Survey seems to have continued and can be viewed at https://activelives.sportengland.org/ but also doesn't cover Wales.


And yet, local motorists are also mostly well-behaved here, despite us having an above-average cycleway network. Policing probably matters more than road design.

Which, since your area seems to have similar numbers of cyclists (and is also mostly rural) does tend to reinforce the idea that motorists tend to be better behaved when they are expecting cyclists because there are a lot around.

 

[katiewlx]

Which, since your area seems to have similar numbers of cyclists (and is also mostly rural) does tend to reinforce the idea that motorists tend to be better behaved when they are expecting cyclists because there are a lot around.

its more complicated than that imo, the whole inter relationship between motorists, the area, the roads themselves can vary alot over a small area. Ive been to rural parts of Norfolk, even ridden my bikes on some of their roads, and there are areas where it can be all very nice and lovely, and there are areas where you just want to get off the road asap to survive as you just cant believe how people are driving.

and its pretty much the same in my part of Suffolk, some of the rural parts drivers are quite respectful of you, other parts less so. Id challenge anyone to ride along the A1094 from Snape to Aldeburgh on a sunny weekend day, and not be scared witless by the time you reach the coast, Id love a cycle path adjacent to that road.

but I can ride on some routes in the countryside, and Ill be lucky to see another person, let alone in a car or another cyclist, you really can feel not necessarily alone, but by oneself, but Im not a morning person so most weekend riders will already have finished by the time I set out, and even on my commute the morning I might see a couple at most, more on the way home, but theres not great numbers of people cycling that I see.

though I had to babysit my mums house the other morning waiting in for a tradesman to turn up to do some work, and I probably saw more cyclists pass the front window, than Ive ever seen out on a ride for sure.

 

[mjr]

Id challenge anyone to ride along the A1094 from Snape to Aldeburgh on a sunny weekend day, and not be scared witless by the time you reach the coast, Id love a cycle path adjacent to that road.

Yeah, that's the sort of road that probably explains why the North Sea Coast Cycle Route skips the Suffolk coast almost entirely. I've ridden that road, but in the opposite direction, on a sunny weekday. I wasn't particularly scared, possibly because relatively few drivers pick fights with me, but it's not much fun, is it?

That's part of what I don't get: if government builds us decent cycleways alongside that sort of motoring urinary contest, what's the problem? A fear that someone will spend tens of thousands banning the remaining few cyclists from the carriageway there? Not any more likely to happen. If it does, it'll be motorist bleating about being delayed combined with a daft politician in power, whether there's a cycleway or not. And with a cycleway there, we've more chance of someone persuasive having ridden it and helping us.

 

[Dogtrousers]

placing cycle lanes and the like alongside roads is tantamount to agreeing cyclists are a nuisance and should be told in no uncertain terms: "Get of the road and onto the on the cycle path". Take the lane, we have a right to be there.

I have some sympathy with this view. When I take a cycle path beside a road, I do get a sense that ideally this shouldn't be necessary.

What I don't have sympathy with is "Take the lane, we have a right to be there". It smacks of collective action and groups of people holding hands and singling "we shall overcome". If only we all did X then we would all be the better for it. Take the lane as a matter of principle brothers and sisters.

I'm not much of a one for doing things as a matter of principle. I'm far more pragmatic. If I don't fancy getting close passed and there's a cycle path that's OK then I'll use it. I'm not sticking my neck out for the common good. And I'll ignore the cycle path and "take the lane" if the path in question is a lumpy messy waste of space.

Similarly I pull over and let cars pass if I'm riding along a lane with limited passing opportunities. I've seen the view expressed on here that such subservient behaviour adds to drivers' sense of entitlement. Even if it does, I don't care. I just don't want cars driving up my backside.

 

[travellingwest]

@Dogtrousers I also pull over to let cars pass, in the same way that if I am walking a narrow road, I will hoik myself up onto the verge. As a cyclist, driver and horse rider, I can see all points of view and try to consider all whatever transport I am on/in.

 

[Alex321]

Similarly I pull over and let cars pass if I'm riding along a lane with limited passing opportunities. I've seen the view expressed on here that such subservient behaviour adds to drivers' sense of entitlement. Even if it does, I don't care. I just don't want cars driving up my backside.

To me, that is just simple good manners.

If I have a car behind me, on a road too narrow to pass safely (which is most of teh roads I ride on), then I pull in to the first available passing place or gateway.; And usually get an acknowledgment from the driver.