Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[srw]

I fear we're having parallel conversations. Until you address what happens to cycling outside towns, you can't claim a comprehensive solution to advance cycling, which is the largest slice of my beef. My fear, based on a wide reading of internet boards, is extra-urban cycling is seen as a sporting activity on a par with surfing and hang gliding. A pastime, a day trip in an adventure playground. Fun, but of very little relevance.

Unless you adduce any evidence to the contrary, it is. And always will be. That's because towns are where the people are, and towns are where the work is, and towns are where the shops are. Less than 10% of the population lives out of an urban area, and many of them are neither in the target age-groups for working nor in the target age-groups for cycling.

 

[blockend]

Why should a solution be comprehensive?

No reason at all, unless you're claiming to promote cycling, as opposed to say, making nicer cities. The two aren't always compatible. Apparently.

So far as cycling outside towns being irrelevant, it's pure bollocks. Until a very few years ago almost all of UK cycling was a sporting activity of one kind or another and had been since about 1960. The less than 10% figure is equally untrue, unless your vision of cities encompasses a view entirely free from houses, like Wester Ross. Bad, fast roads start way, way before that version of a city runs out.

I don't know the figure for suburban and extra-urban habitation that perforce includes a fast main road to get anywhere on a bike, but it's a damned sight bigger than 10% and almost certainly a majority.

nor in the target age-groups for cycling.

Remind me, what is the target age group for cycling?

 

[dellzeqq]

I do claim to be promoting cycling. And I've had some success, of which I'm proud. I just don't see cycling as the be-all and end-all of improving towns.

srw, by the way, has population figures at his fingertips. If he tells me something I take his word for it.

 

[Red Light]

Right now she's using tracks because she is not confident in her bike control but she will move onto the road when she is ready.

You might offer to accompany her on her first few forays onto the road. I find doing that lowers the stress level a lot for the first rides and thereby reduces the barrier to doing it.

 

[dellzeqq]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ
for a different take on 'bike lanes'

 

[srw]

srw, by the way, has population figures at his fingertips. If he tells me something I take his word for it.

http://webarchive.na...0bignumbers.pdf

Take a look. Less than 5m in "village, hamlet and isolated dwellings". Admittedly that's England only, but my perception is that Wales and Scotland are even more skewed towards the large cities and conurbations than England. Feel free to produce a different set of figures if you want.

[edit]
The point of using this definition is that you usually need to get a very long way indeed into the countryside before there is no alternative to a given road. And because the problems of traffic are most acute where there are more people.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I do claim to be promoting cycling. And I've had some success, of which I'm proud. I just don't see cycling as the be-all and end-all of improving towns.

And neither does Blockend. In fact nothing he's said in that last post would suggest this. He has said that he is interested in what happens outside towns too.

The deliberately talking past one another is getting very tedious.

 

[dellzeqq]

will somebody let me know if FM is telling me off? Oh, on second thoughts..........

 

[Ravenbait]

You might offer to accompany her on her first few forays onto the road. I find doing that lowers the stress level a lot for the first rides and thereby reduces the barrier to doing it.

Offer has already been made. I will be organising a wee trip out in the imminent future, as soon as she says she's up for it.

Sam

 

[snibgo]

A comprehensive solution (or rather set of solutions, as one size doesn't fit all) would be useful.

I live in rural SW Cambs. We have a good set of country lanes with few cycling problems, especially out of peak periods. The main issues are:

1. Pseudo-motorways that sit on top of the old road, so non-motorway traffic has nowhere to go, eg the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge. Solution: don't make roads like this.

2. Fast busy single-carriageway A-roads, eg the A428 between St Neots and Caxton Gibbet, which isn't wide enough for lorries to overtake cyclists when traffic is approaching, so cycling is less pleasant than it might be. Solution: a parallel cyclepath would be pleasanter.

3. Roundabouts and other junctions that are designed to keep motorists moving quickly, instead of slowing them down. Solution: don't make junctions like this.

These solutions are technically simple. Combine with 50mph limits for single-carriageway roads, perhaps reducing to 40 or 30 in places, and 20 in villages, and it couldn't really get any better. 

Another wish-list item: we have many bridleways, some of which are historic roads that run directly between settlements, all of mud that is churned up by hooves. Tarmacing these would be wonderful, perhaps over half their width so horse-riders don't get too upset.

Do all this, and the modal share would rocket up from practically zero to maybe 1 or 2% in the short term. Why not more? Because I live 4 miles from the nearest shops library etc. Many villages are much further. This is a long distance to a non-cyclist.

 

[blockend]

The Pennines, North Wales, Devon and Cornwall, Cumbria, Western Scotland are also badly served for alternative routes.

 

[blockend]

Really? Never had a problem in the South West of England or Scotland.

Depends how much you enjoy climbing hills.

 

[Ravenbait]

I've never had a problem in the West of Scotland. IME, because there are so few roads and no off-road provision, and a healthy tourist population, drivers are reasonably considerate of cyclists.

I mean, sure you get the odd one or two, but I suspect the feral sheep will get them before they get any cyclists, purely because there are far more feral sheep than there are cyclists.

I'm more scared of the sheep out there than the cars, it has to be said.

I didn't really experience any significant problems on my 20 mile each way commute in Devon when I lived there, either. I preferred the main road to the back roads, because the sight lines were better.

Here's a thing: since I started cycling for transport seriously I've always lived somewhere I imagine Blockend would describe as rural. Not now, because I'm in Edinburgh, but prior to that my commutes have been at least partially on rural roads. It wasn't cycle path provision that got me started.

I do sometimes ask myself why we spend so much effort and time looking at what non-cyclists say would make them take up cycling (a hypothetical answer for a hypothetical situation) and relatively little asking what made people already cycling for transport (an actual answer for an actual experience) start.

Sam

 

[Red Light]

2. Fast busy single-carriageway A-roads, eg the A428 between St Neots and Caxton Gibbet, which isn't wide enough for lorries to overtake cyclists when traffic is approaching, so cycling is less pleasant than it might be. Solution: a parallel cyclepath would be pleasanter.

Or build it like the A10 between Royston and Cambridge. Wide enough to overtake with plenty of room with oncoming traffic, good sightlines so no being surprised by cyclists. Probably a lot easier and cheaper and taking up less land than building a cyclepath alongside.

Another wish-list item: we have many bridleways, some of which are historic roads that run directly between settlements, all of mud that is churned up by hooves. Tarmacing these would be wonderful, perhaps over half their width so horse-riders don't get too upset.

Please no. Lots of us mountain bikers use those trails and if we wanted to ride on tarmac we'd be riding on the roads instead.

 

[Mad at urage]

I fear we're having parallel conversations. Until you address what happens to cycling outside towns, you can't claim a comprehensive solution to advance cycling, which is the largest slice of my beef. My fear, based on a wide reading of internet boards, is extra-urban cycling is seen as a sporting activity on a par with surfing and hang gliding. A pastime, a day trip in an adventure playground. Fun, but of very little relevance.

There has been several parallel conversations throughout this thread, I'm surprised you only now noticed it.
As for the rest, well quite: For most people (i.e. the majority) cycling outside of towns is a novelty, 'leisure or sport' activity. Those who cycle the (larger) distances outside town for other than leisure or sport are a minority and are likely to remain so:

So far as cycling outside towns being irrelevant, it's pure bollocks. Until a very few years ago almost all of UK cycling was a sporting activity of one kind or another and had been since about 1960. The less than 10% figure is equally untrue, unless your vision of cities encompasses a view entirely free from houses, like Wester Ross. Bad, fast roads start way, way before that version of a city runs out.

I didn't think you'd read it TBH: It's derived from TRRL and they use statistics :
"Long term monitoring of personal travel by the UK National Transport Survey and other international evidence [4] shows that the time spent in daily travel is fairly constant over time, at about 1.2 hours per capita per day. The main reason why national mileage travelled has increased over time, with consequences for traffic congestion, is that car ownership has steadily increased. It is not because the overall time spent travelling by the population has increased since the 1970s.

If we are to consider people changing from motorised travel to walking and cycling (to benefit public health, reduce road danger and oil dependency) then we should not expect much change in the time spent travelling. Rather, the overall mobility of the population would reduce."
That means people will not en masse choose to cycle the larger distances between urban areas because it would increase their travel time beyond what is acceptable.