Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Flying_Monkey

Recyclist
Location
Odawa
Where has anyone suggested it should?

Well, there had certainly been some rather unnecessary polarization, not to mention personalization on this thread, from the OP itself onwards. It's not hard to see. It's now showing signs of becoming more nuanced, with the acknowledgment that opponents may have points too. I hope we can keep it that way...
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
Yeah, but as a sociologist (I hate doing this!), I can tell you that changing culture by policy is pretty damn hard and can be counterproductive, and the results counterintuitive. It can end up being far more expensive and difficult than infrastructural changes. In any case, as in most of these kinds of arguments, I can't see that it is an either / or. Britain has terribly-designed roads: dell has already mentioned roundabouts, which are one of the curses of contemporary Britain; and, the British style of government is obsessed with posts, poles, signing, instructions, orders, and petty rules which turn our cities into cluttered unfriendly, Orwellian spaces. So we need infrastructural change, even if you aren't a segregationalist or any stripe. In the end, there are places where it is entirely appropriate to ban motorized vehicles (almost) completely, places where mixed traffic works and places where segregation works. I think this is part of what Blockend is trying to say, and I can't see anything wrong with that aspect of his argument at least. Sometimes we are too close to the subject, too passionate, and we don't step back in the way that we would on just about any other subject.

It depends what you regard as a cultural change. Travel plans which are now on their second generation are starting to deal with all sorts of the things we're talking about on this thread and others. It is just that the original ones weren't in that many organisations/companies and were pretty primitive. You can certainly question the amount of money they cost v 'infrastructure', that is a legitimate point, although it won't please a lot of people. Roundabouts are an absolute classic in cycle campaigning, we have one locally that is pretty brutal for cyclists where they want to promote a cycling corridor (that already exists), the small snag is the roundabout, which the planners won't even discuss.

The irony about banning motorised vehicles in UK city centres is there are many places that have half heartedly done it and completely bodged it up.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
I've absolutely no objection to segregated seperate off carriageway cycle tracks alongside big roads outside urban areas, especially on the sort of roads that have slip roads, if (for whatever reason) people on bikes are likely to use them.

But my priority is the right of potterers to ride in and between towns cities.


tweaked to reflect my personal point of view. Segregation implies a transportation apartheid. NO CYCLISTS HERE. where as I think they should be free and safe to cycle on the big roads if they want to.
 
In case anyone's still in doubt, I don't think the idea of cycle safety in such places has been thought through further than Franklin's primary line and robust hand signals. And if that gets the general public on bikes I'm a Dutchman.

I thought you were a quasi-Dutchman having lived there at one time (or am I mixing you up with someone else?) ;)

But you do not have any solution of your own to offer for getting people on bikes other than some infeasible future utopia that will take years to plan and build. So I come back to the question I've asked before. What are you going to do now to get more people to cycle now. Not 20 years or more in the future, now?
 

blockend

New Member
I thought you were a quasi-Dutchman having lived there at one time (or am I mixing you up with someone else?) ;)

But you do not have any solution of your own to offer for getting people on bikes other than some infeasible future utopia that will take years to plan and build. So I come back to the question I've asked before. What are you going to do now to get more people to cycle now. Not 20 years or more in the future, now?
Make them feel safe as well as being safe would be a good start. The best way to do that is to reduce their interaction with fast moving vehicles. You can do that by slowing down the traffic (though no-one has yet answered where their own back yard 20mph zone is supposed to end and reality kicks in) or providing separate provision. Given the £X million pounds it costs to build a new bypass I don't see an addition percentage for a separate surface of the same quality for bikes being a deal breaker.

Now answer me this - how do you propose increasing road safety for cyclists outside city centres to reduce the absurd and tragic deaths that keep occurring on dual carriageways and major trunk roads?

My visits to Holland have been mostly for pleasure, but you probably already know that.
 

WilliamNB

Active Member
Location
Plymouth
tweaked to reflect my personal point of view. Segregation implies a transportation apartheid. NO CYCLISTS HERE. where as I think they should be free and safe to cycle on the big roads if they want to.

Newsflash - we've had, as you refer to it, transportation apartheid for decades. There are many roads that are dangerous and alien to any pedestrian or cyclist, and that's before we look at motorways.

Cars have been taking public space away from everybody not in a car for decades, yet there are people on here stating that dividing public space more in favour of cyclists is barbaric! Presumably they've been planted by the AA?

It isn't a case of dividing public space as such, but rather a case of redistributing the wealth that is public space, to make it safer, cleaner and more livable. And yes, in certain selected spots this may involve decent separate infrastructure, although speed reduction and traffic calming should do fine in most instances.
 

snibgo

New Member
Yes, because it couldn't possibly be that anyone is concerned for their safety while riding outside city centres.

Real safety or perceived safety?

As mentioned above, reducing speed limits on single carriageways to 50 mph would save 260 lives/year.
 

blockend

New Member
Real safety or perceived safety?

They're exactly the same thing. Fear stops people doing things. 50 mph on a main road is x5 differential for a newbie cyclist. Why do city dwellers require 20mph and everyone else has to make do with a lethal impact speed?
 
As far as I can establish the average road lasts 15 to 20 years before requiring major resurfacing (happy to be corrected). If the proposed dedicated cycling network is to be installed on the back of the existing maintenance regime we'll be waiting some time for it.

We'll have run out of oil by then anyway and all be driving around in nuclear hover cars.
 

blockend

New Member
We'll have run out of oil by then anyway

Far too many cyclists actually believe that to be true! They could be right of course but I wouldn't rely on powered traffic volumes shrinking to get cyclists out of a hole anytime soon. Except in those special 20mph places we call cities of course.
 

Richard Mann

Well-Known Member
Location
Oxford
(though no-one has yet answered where their own back yard 20mph zone is supposed to end and reality kicks in)

The entire built-up area, bar dual carriageways. I'd settle for about 25-30mph on urban single carriageway main roads.

Outside the built-up traffic-lit area, you need separate tracks (or clear parallel routes) if traffic volumes are too high or width is too low. Alas, if you don't already have these, they can be pretty expensive, and may not rate as a top priority. I've got one such problem road (an excessively fast windy B road), which effectively creates a no-go zone for me; I get the bus instead.
 

blockend

New Member
So to summarise, we have a cycle campaign agenda that isn't really pro cyclist, it's a means of making cities more desirable places to live. Those who live 'outside the built up area', which in the case of London runs from Berkshire to Essex and Hertfordshire to Sussex, have to make do with fast roads because campaigners don't believe in 'segregation' on principle, while those inside get blanket 20 mph zones.

You'll have to explain how that isn't NIMBYism.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
The entire built-up area, bar dual carriageways. I'd settle for about 25-30mph on urban single carriageway main roads.

Outside the built-up traffic-lit area, you need separate tracks (or clear parallel routes) if traffic volumes are too high or width is too low. Alas, if you don't already have these, they can be pretty expensive, and may not rate as a top priority. I've got one such problem road (an excessively fast windy B road), which effectively creates a no-go zone for me; I get the bus instead.

This is vaguely ill defined as I've said before and we argue about this everytime 20's plenty comes up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom