It's a vision of hell. The clue is in the title. But then as long as we know what you are advocating, we know where we are.
Cyclists-who-fail-to-use-dedicated-lanes-could-be-fined ....
- Thread starter Fab Foodie
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
How is it hell? Many of our carriageways aren't as good as some of those cycleways pictured. The thing is, most of our compatriots would prefer riding in that landscape than our current share-the-road/mutual-respect legend.
As for "the clue is in title", if you mean the thread title, then I'm completely against fining people who ride on the carriageway: no matter how many or how large they build cycleways, it will probably never be everywhere or enough and definitely not any time soon because there's a legacy of 80 years of crap to fix. If anyone is considering forcing people to use the cycleways, then those cycleways probably aren't first-class and need improvement.
I meant the video title. Mono-functional roads. Streets are public spaces with many functions.
TBH - Have ridden extensively in cities in the Netherlands, i would much prefer to cycle there on their city bike network than the poor excuses we have in the UK that I refuse to use, instead taking to the road. People should remember that the aim is to facilitate mass transit in a safe way, they are not designed for 'lycra louts'. Personally although I see some minor issues with the cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands most of it is due to cost considerations and not totally paralyzing motorized traffic. I would much prefer to commute using Dutch infrastructure than our piss poor excuse.
You've gone all monofunctional again. The aim is to create liveable cities.
Fine paint pictures of daisy's on the tarmac too. To me a liveable city is one I can move around in freely without the threat of being squashed by a tipper truck. TBH it is not just truly separated paths that make a big difference it is the philosophy that cyclist is king that really does it. Sounds like utopia to me.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Streets can be composed of multiple roads, as pictured. Most streets already have distinct carriageways and footways. Are you a shared space advocate? Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't, as far as I've seen.
As far as I can tell... like yesterday, unprompted, someone told me that they won't ride here but do ride when they go over there. Looking at the data: more cycleways often shows up as what people say is the top (Bicycles in the UK 2010) or second (King's Lynn Area Transport Survey 2007) thing which they'd like to help them ride more. Have you seen anything more recent that suggests that's changed? CTC recently conducted a survey mentioned in http://bikeweekorguk.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150615_BikeWeek2015_YouGovPoll.pdf but I didn't find the original data anywhere yet. Or do you know something more specifically asking people here whether they prefer cycling on Dutch cycleways or British carriagways?
w00hoo_kent
One of the 64K
- Location
- Maidstone or Greenwich
British thanks.
I have no interest in being segregated off of the roads in to tight lanes where I'm riding in a peloton every day if I want to try and make any kind of progress on my commute. Other cyclists are nobbers (at least in Amsterdam they were) and I feel safer when I'm not having to second guess what they are going to do all the time (as it won't be anything relating to a lot of the regulations they are supposed to be following, at least in Amsterdam anyway). Once I was out of town the cycle paths in the Netherlands were nice, but you know what, so were the roads they were next to, I'd have been just as happy on those. Wasn't that much traffic.
Finally, what about the Australian example, less bikes on the road means less care taken for bikes. Segregation, even non-compulsory, is going to hurt our numbers and reinforce the drivers concept of 'the roads aren't for you' and their antagonism towards bikes. My worst coming together to date was cycling on a segregated path because the left hooker almost definitely didn't bother looking for me because I wasn't on their road so the fact that they were supposed to give way to traffic on the cycle path before driving across it never crossed their mind. I don't know for sure, I was on the pavement (where they'd pushed me, thankfully still upright) with a knackered pedal, bruised leg and buckled wheel, I'm not sure they'd even slowed down. They definitely didn't stop, so I couldn't check for sure.
Be careful what you wish for, it might turn out to be shite, especially if our government is in any way responsible for it.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
To be fair, I did think that the street at about 1 minute into the video would be better with some greenery, but in England, that would probably still be completely grey (and multi-lane carriageways with no protected space for cycling), rather than having lovely gardens!
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
That attitude is already there, whether or not there's a cycleway nearby and I think the lack of protected space is hurting our numbers more than more cycleways would. I've crashed and seen crashes on carriageways and on cycleways... I feel the solution is a complicated many-threaded thing, but continuing the failed approaches of most of the last century and letting government keep screwing it up isn't an option. Sometimes I'll be opposing a cycleway being shoved in when they should be making a carriageway safe... but in a few situations, I feel a dedicated cycleway would be the best next step. I'll always oppose the sort of nonsense that Boris said to trigger this thread, though - it makes as little sense as fining motorists for not using adjacent motorways.
Pictures of Daisy's what?
Of course I'm an advocate of shared space - but not necessarily always as a proper noun. The horrible images in the video show space that is dominated and proscribed, devoid of interaction on the human scale. Footways are not some kind of pedestrian victory - they are a testament to the normalization of the dominance of motor traffic.
I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I've just watched the video in its entirety again, and I am utterly gobsmacked that anyone would need to ask that question. Have we all gone completely barmy?
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
Roads are useful for more than just transport. Or storage for cars, as seems to be the norm (funny how cars parked on pavements never seems to be complained about, even though it's considerably more common than pavement cycling). Not so long ago, it used to be the space in which children played in. The myopic vision of that strip of tarmac being for the exclusive use for vehicles has resulted in at best the most sedentary generation ever seen, and that's something that is rather difficult to see any societal benefit from.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
As far as I know/remember, neither surveyors (definitely Mintel for the UK one and MottMac for the local one) offered excuses. Those surveyed were asked an open question and left to provide whatever reasons they wanted and their responses were then grouped/coded (else you get loads of similar-but-slightly-different responses all with a frequency of one, which isn't helpful). I graduated in statistics and I'm well aware of ways that people bias surveys, but I didn't spot it in those.
For example, I wouldn't rely on this video with vox pops because we can easily level those sorts of accusations at it:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un-oO079jQo
The vocal support for more cycleways (or pedalways in Norwich-speak) seems accurate to me, but we don't see the interviewer's questions which are probably leading/prompting, the context of the report is all about money for them so it's hardly surprising people like them and Mustard TV is owned by Archant whose newspapers seem pretty cyclist-hating so could be accused of wanting to get us off the carriageway.
But those surveys? I've little reason to suspect they're seriously biased and the respondents weren't "offered an excuse". If you'd like to convince people it ain't so, bring more data
Similar threads
