Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[lukesdad]

Manners? So "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have stopped there! I was in your way" when the choice was stop or ride under a lorry on the roundabout is manners? Offering to pay for the damage to the car that drove into the back of you when you legitimately stopped at a give-way sign is manners?

If you think that I think you need to get a new definition of m-a-n-n-e-r-s. Or perhaps that is the m-a-n-n-e-r-s which you as a motorist require of cyclists?

As a motorist myself, I would find it far better manners had the motorist in the case I refer to simply driven with basic courtesy and road sense.

Edit to add: I do get very annoyed about the suggestion that cyclists should, in any circumstances, be riding in the gutter. I have seen too many who believe this and seen the consequences of the close pass that this invites: Slipstream causes wobble, front wheel hits kerb and cyclist falls under following (also too close) car. The results are nasty and NO-ONE should be telling cyclists to ride in that position.

I was refering to the gentleman himself rather than his riding style but, you knew that all along didn t you ?

...and I dont really drive a car very much. I do the odd mile or two on a bike though

 

[Crackle]

When I hear straw men mentioned I usually get my coat. It's cyber-rhetoric for changing the points to a favoured polemical branch line and has little to do with fictitious arguments. If I'm grape shotting it's because there are so many free-ranging shibboleths that a blunderbuss works better than a rifle.
If the point is utility cycling is for the fit, hippies and academics of whatever stripe, the game's been ceded far too early. I'll rest easy when old ladies in skirts and men with Woodbines are back on bikes (as they used to be) and not while it's still a branch of enlightenment politics. As an unreconstructed old pinko, I want everyone down to my self-propelled level. Or a bloody good bus service.

I'm pretty sure, apart from a few old ladies, you need a new demographic back on bikes. Something like "when I see people on bikes using the drivethrough in MacDonalds, I'll rest easy"

 

[dellzeqq]

It's difficult to take issue with urban cycling as a combative, hair-trigger thrill because let's be clear, it is. What's harder to swallow is the oft repeated lie that anyone can do it and they'll come through the journey unscathed. Unless you adopt a proactive/ defensive/ in-yer-face mode of bike riding, you will come a cropper, sooner rather than later.

this is complete nonsense. Absolute twaddle. Cycling in London is for all kinds of people on all kinds of bikes wearing all kinds of clothing (as Greg has pointed out). Where have you been for the last twenty years?

 

[dellzeqq]

I'm pretty sure, apart from a few old ladies, you need a new demographic back on bikes. Something like "when I see people on bikes using the drivethrough in MacDonalds, I'll rest easy"

ah-ha! You may wait awhile for that. MaccyD's refused to serve me in teh drivethrough lane for 'Health and Safety reasons'.

(although, to be fair, that was the one in North Cheam - the one just northwest of Old Street doesn't have a problem)

 

[stowie]

ah-ha! You may wait awhile for that. MaccyD's refused to serve me in teh drivethrough lane for 'Health and Safety reasons'.

(although, to be fair, that was the one in North Cheam - the one just northwest of Old Street doesn't have a problem)

I am assuming the health and safety reasons would be to do with the artery clogging nature of their products?

 

[stowie]

this is complete nonsense. Absolute twaddle. Cycling in London is for all kinds of people on all kinds of bikes wearing all kinds of clothing (as Greg has pointed out). Where have you been for the last twenty years?

It has to be said that the vehicular method of cycling as detailed in cyclecraft suits certain cyclists over others. Anyone who cannot accelerate around parked cars or across junctions will be at a disadvantage.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It has to be said that the vehicular method of cycling as detailed in cyclecraft suits certain cyclists over others. Anyone who cannot accelerate around parked cars or across junctions will be at a disadvantage.

are they not doomed to a perpetual trackstand then? Everyone who rides a bike can accelerate to some degree or other?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

ah-ha! You may wait awhile for that. MaccyD's refused to serve me in teh drivethrough lane for 'Health and Safety reasons'.

(although, to be fair, that was the one in North Cheam - the one just northwest of Old Street doesn't have a problem)

I regret to report that once served I fell off my bike at the Crossbush drive through. My mum always told me not to ride carrying a bag in one hand.

 

[stowie]

are they not doomed to a perpetual trackstand then? Everyone who rides a bike can accelerate to some degree or other?

Probably the phrase could have done with the word rapidly (as in accelerate rapidly)...

The problem gets brought home to me when I travel with the little one in the child-seat. I am much slower than normal, and the bicycle much more unresponsive. One has to plan way in advance when negotiating objects, or (as I have done more than one) you simply stop and wait until the traffic eases - which is hardly conducive to care-free cycling. My wife is also relatively slow and cautious and has the same issues.

When I am taking the child, I don't feel that vehicular cycling is something that will help me hugely. I do, however, start to use the LCN routes as they are quieter (despite the fact that LCN doesn't appear to consist of anything other than small signs pointing in random directions). Back roads start to make a modicum of sense at this point although the quieter routes suffer from rat running - they could be delightful if the road design eliminated this.

I still come back to my thought that vehicular cycling is controlling motor traffic using a highly vulnerable road user. It would be rather jolly if they could control themselves, or if the road network helped the pedestrian and cyclist control motor traffic by slowing it down and not giving it priority everywhere.

This isn't an indictment on cyclecraft, which is probably the best way of traveling by cycle at the moment, but I really question any implicit assumption that this is the way things should be.

 

[jonesy]

Probably the phrase could have done with the word rapidly (as in accelerate rapidly)...

The problem gets brought home to me when I travel with the little one in the child-seat. I am much slower than normal, and the bicycle much more unresponsive. One has to plan way in advance when negotiating objects, or (as I have done more than one) you simply stop and wait until the traffic eases - which is hardly conducive to care-free cycling. My wife is also relatively slow and cautious and has the same issues.

When I am taking the child, I don't feel that vehicular cycling is something that will help me hugely. I do, however, start to use the LCN routes as they are quieter (despite the fact that LCN doesn't appear to consist of anything other than small signs pointing in random directions). Back roads start to make a modicum of sense at this point although the quieter routes suffer from rat running - they could be delightful if the road design eliminated this.

I still come back to my thought that vehicular cycling is controlling motor traffic using a highly vulnerable road user. It would be rather jolly if they could control themselves, or if the road network helped the pedestrian and cyclist control motor traffic by slowing it down and not giving it priority everywhere.

This isn't an indictment on cyclecraft, which is probably the best way of traveling by cycle at the moment, but I really question any implicit assumption that this is the way things should be.

stowie, despite blockend's attempts to portray this discussion in that way, I don't think anyone is assuming this is the way things should be. CycleCraft is, as you say, good advice on how to cycle in conditions as they are. It isn't a cycling strategy. Certainly, some of the advice it describes, such as how to ride on a dual carriageway, or how to take large roundabouts at 20mph, doesn't have anything to do with the sort of cycling you see in places with a culture of high cycle use, like Oxford or Cambridge. We've disscussed, at length now, what conditions are like in places with high levels of cycling, and the key factors are: 1) having sufficient trips of cycleable distance, 2) cycling being competitive in journey times and convenience in comparison with other modes and 3) a cycleable road network, principally requiring low traffic speeds.

We've discussed variously how those factors can be acheived, drawing upon experience from places that have high levels of cycling, and also recognising fairly clearly that teaching people to ride according to Cyclecraft cannot compensate for them if they are not achieved. However, it should be clear that segregated infrastructure cannot do this either.

But let's not forget where the OP started, which was blaming Cyclecraft for the poor quality of cycle provision in this country, a claim that simply doesn't make any sense when most of the worst, most sub-standard and disadvantageous cycling provision in this country has been put in to achieve segregation, not vehicular cycling.

 

[Mad at urage]

This isn't an indictment on cyclecraft, which is probably the best way of traveling by cycle at the moment, but I really question any implicit assumption that this is the way things should be.

This is the problem with those who condemn Cyclecraft and its author. One thing that struck me about the book when I read it is that it goes as far as is possible (probably) in a manual that wants to be accepted by officialdom, towards saying that the current situation (for cyclists) stinks. It does not say that people should not use cycle lanes because they should campaign for rights on the road ! It says (and gives valid examples) that many aspects of cycle facilities are poorly designed by people who do not properly consider how to make cyclists safer. That is not an implicit assumption that this is the way things should be!

 

[dellzeqq]

It has to be said that the vehicular method of cycling as detailed in cyclecraft suits certain cyclists over others. Anyone who cannot accelerate around parked cars or across junctions will be at a disadvantage.

Stowie - that was not what was said. According to Blockend urban cycling is a 'survival of the fittest' thing. A cursory inspection of the builders crack/BSO brigade and the sit up and beg division wandering along CS7 or thorugh Broadwasy Market would tell you that the cycling deomographic (horrible phrase, but you know what I mean) has very little to do with fitness or aggression. More like lardiness and doziness - both commendable attributes!

 

[summerdays]

I agree. I do see quite a few cyclists who never look back before pulling out. It seems weird that they put so much trust in following drivers to anticipate their actions.

I assume that they just aren't really concious of the traffic behind them and assume that it can see them and take the right avoiding action - very trusting!.

You've hit the nub of things there GC. It's difficult to take issue with urban cycling as a combative, hair-trigger thrill because let's be clear, it is. What's harder to swallow is the oft repeated lie that anyone can do it and they'll come through the journey unscathed. Unless you adopt a proactive/ defensive/ in-yer-face mode of bike riding, you will come a cropper, sooner rather than later.

In Darwinian terms the riders currently on the roads are the ones who've evolved to cope with its trials. I don't believe most who can physically ride a bicycle have evolved to the extra level, nor should it be necessary to do so. Neither should those who have be setting the agenda. Once that reality sinks in to the campaigning mind, it's clear we shouldn't be forcing one size fits all strategies onto a variety of skill levels or road conditions. I don't see why utility cycling should be a physically or mentally elitist activity.

I definitely wouldn't consider myself as an elite cyclist ... if you saw me crawling up hills at 3 mph (I'm not kidding ). I don't think urban cycling has to be "a combative, hair-trigger thrill", often new cyclists think like car-drivers when they first get on their bike when they plan their route - which often tends to be along the main busy roads. There are a large number of alternative routes in cities that can allow you to filter out some of that "thrill" if you want to. I cycled part way home with a friend today - we took a slightly longer back route than if we had each been on our own, that happened to avoid a hill and a main road ... merely because we wanted to chat as we cycled together.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I don't think anyone is assuming this is the way things should be

Well, yes and no. I don't think anyone things are acceptable the way that they are. However, the predominant opinion amongst British cycling campaigners (and this is, let us remind ourselves, for good or ill, something rather peculiar to Britain) is that cyclists should be mixing it with all other kinds of motor traffic. One might say, 'like it is now, but better', rather than 'rethinking the way roads are' in a more radical way.

Now only one of those radical ways is limited segregation. Personally, I'd have hard segregation on major roads, but do this properly - lots of room, redesigned junctions and traffic signals favouring cyclists, etc. But I'd also ban motor vehicles almost entirely (except for vehicles for the disabled and set hours for deliveries) from a much wider range of roads and streets and return them to the mixed use spaces that they once were, places where children could play and all kinds of impromptu activities could happen. We are too fixated, whether we are cyclists or drivers or both, on transport and mobility, and not enough on the qualities of place and everyday life.

 

[Tommi]

Just stumbled upon this article where certain John Franklin (I presume it's the same one) is quoted saying:

Cyclists don't want cycle routes. The best thing is the general road network which should be made more suitable.

Now, I don't know the context of the question so maybe the situation is different from what I'm thinking, but I'm fairly certain most cyclists would prefer cycle routes. That is, I don't believe every road in the network is ever going to fully accomodate both cars and cyclists so you'll always end up with roads that are more suitable for cars, and others that are more suitable for bicycles, you know, cycle routes. When cycling in places I've never been before I'd like to be able to just follow cycle route signs to get where I'm going and actually get a reasonable route avoiding motorway like conditions.