Cyclist spotted holding up traffic - while ignoring new £1.2m cycle path

[NorthernDave]

And therein lies the problem. The infrastructure is designed for a nice family pootle at 8mph with the kids. For that it works fine

But if you're a cyclist wanting to go a bit faster (dare I say it, a "serious" cyclist) then you're far better off on the road

But other road users see cyclists as a homogenous group and that causes the conflict. The issue lies in design of the infrastructure

Exactly. And that's the reason that I won't use much of the £30 million CSH put in up here.

 

[mjr]

That website is absolutely nothing to do with the Department for Transport. HTH.

And the Cambridge News quotes it instead of the real highway code because...

 

[classic33]

That website is absolutely nothing to do with the Department for Transport. HTH.

(If I set up a website called Alien8smum.com, that doesn't make me your mum.)

As noted earlier, its Lithuainan.

 

[smutchin]

And the Cambridge News quotes it instead of the real highway code because...

Ah! I think I owe @Alien8 an apology - sorry for the facetious comment. Didn't get why that website was being brought into the discussion. Went back and re-read the OP more carefully and it all makes sense now.

I suspect the reason the CEN quoted the fake site rather than the official site is that whichever overworked, underpaid, inexperienced 12-year-old hack churned out the non-story was caught out by the plausible URL and didn't check properly that it was a valid source.

Funnily enough, I came across that same website in a similar context recently when working on a piece about cyclists and the law, where the writer had cited it as a place to buy a copy of the Highway Code. In that case, it was just plain ignorance rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, and I suspect it's the same for the CEN piece.

Obviously it was a slow news day in Cambridge if "man posts video on facebook" was deemed worthy of coverage, but I guess they've got to fill the pages somehow.

 

[mjr]

Nail. Head.

My bike is my primary means of transportation, I use it to go to work, or the shops. When the infrastructure becomes an inconvenience, thats actually a big problem for me.

Part of the run into work is down a fairly wide and busy A-road. On each side of the road there was a wide pavement, which the council has split and designated as a cycle route. The road side half being for cycling, where the bus stops, trees, phone cabinets and railing lie, then by the time you've added side roads and driveways, it's difficult to reach a 10mph average moving speed.

That's fine for a family or for kids out for a bit of fresh air, but it's wholly unfit for the purpose of transportation.

The trouble is, it's wholly unfit for the purpose of a family or for kids out for a bit of fresh air, too, unless they've got a raft on the bike (in another Cambridge instance). Inconvenient infrastructure is often inconvenient for everyone, even if people less willing to ride among motorists are more likely to use it. To paraphrase one of our local campaigners: why would anyone think young children, new or slow cyclists want to deal with obstacle courses?

One really frustrating things is that we actually have some decent infrastructure standards now - the latest update to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the London Cycling Design Standards may be the two closest to me - but compliance with those standards is not compulsory, thanks to a succession of spineless national governments. Even 2008's Cycling Infrastructure Design guidance ( ) said "A design speed of 20 mph is preferred for offroad routes intended predominantly for utility cycling. This provides a margin of safety for most cyclists." -- but good luck finding any highway authority designing for 20mph for the last decade, so by implication, most have been building shoot that's officially unsafe.

So, please, keep kicking the politicians when they're responsible for substandard shoot - you'll be doing all cyclists a favour - but please demand that they fix it and require standards-compliance for all future building, not that they dump all cyclists onto the roads where most will continue to be bullied out of cycling by the rampant motorists. We push the councils for decent infrastructure and push the police to deal with the rubbish motorists - it's a multipronged campaign.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

Another crock of shoot story to create resentment from the 'Road Tax' crowd.
OK let's use the money to build roads the same as the cycling infrastructure. Trees and broadband boxes on the third lane of the M1 perhaps...

 

[steveindenmark]

I read somewhere that mile for mile, riding on cycling specific infrastructure was statistically no safer than riding on the road.

You need to add on that you are talking about the UK. This is an international forum and your statement would not apply to Denmark.

 

[Drago]

Absolutely, pretty sure it was something in the Cycling UK magazine where I read it, and it was indeed just here in Blighty.

 

[mjr]

Another crock of shoot story to create resentment from the 'Road Tax' crowd.
OK let's use the money to build roads the same as the cycling infrastructure. Trees and broadband boxes on the third lane of the M1 perhaps...

"The Earth is unprepared - helpless - for the nightmares I have seen": how about traffic lights activated by a pushbutton sited on the right-hand-side of the road and so far forwards you have to stick your front wheels into cross traffic, signs telling you to get out and push and confusing painted arrows telling you to swap sides with oncoming traffic...

I think this remains one of LCC's best ever articles: https://lcc.org.uk/articles/what-wo...eated-them-the-same-way-we-do-our-cycle-lanes

It's possible to do so much better than that. Often it would even be easier not to fark it up. Apply pressure to the wound politicians, please.