Lighting traffic-free cycleways

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Wrong one! It's this: http://www.kbiuk.co.uk/products/pages/ We used it on a scheme last year and we've only have positive feedback about it from all users.
Yes, but are there people who refuse to use it? But I doubt it's a problem if you're using the vehicular application type because that's laid on a tarmac base anyway. It looks like a relatively expensive way to provide decent drainage BICBW.

I'm afraid you guys might be fretting over a problem that doesn't really exist... I think people know that when we talk about 'traffic', we're talking about cars, vans etc and not 'active travel modes' as we call them in the trade :smile:
Not fretting - it's just a small signal of cycling not being treated as a first-class transport mode and routes that are likely to be recreation-only.

Oh and Sustrans use the term 'traffic free' quite happily.
At best, Sustrans pretty much embody "activists who have been reading government jargon a bit too long" and "routes that are likely to be recreation-only". At worst... well, try https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/poor-quality-sustrans-routes.98126/ for one of the politer discussions :laugh:
 

Katherine

Guru
Moderator
Location
Manchester
I would definitely use unlit paths more if there was some low level lighting or reflective markers. They are even needed on paths along side duel carriageways as the street light face the road and away from the path.
 

potsy

Rambler
Location
My Armchair
Used to enjoy my traffic free route to work, only at 5am though, never at 10pm.

Can see why it would be desirable to have some low level lightning but prefer to rely on my own lights to help me see where I am going, @fossyant used to use the same trail sometimes, can still remember seeing him once from a few hundred yards away ^_^
 

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
Used to enjoy my traffic free route to work, only at 5am though, never at 10pm.

Can see why it would be desirable to have some low level lightning but prefer to rely on my own lights to help me see where I am going, @fossyant used to use the same trail sometimes, can still remember seeing him once from a few hundred yards away ^_^

Lumen wars wasnt it... ah those were the days.
 
OP
OP
P

pixiepie

Active Member
Missed this one and have no input on the lights, but @pixiepie thank you so much for actually considering the views of cyclists rather than sitting in an office and coming at it from a motorists point of view.

You're welcome. I think the fact that I am a cyclist and not a motorist probably helps!
 
OP
OP
P

pixiepie

Active Member
Right everyone... I've been having a think and doing some research on the whole "traffic-free" debate and would people be happier if I use the term "off road" from now on or does that have some connotations that I've also missed?
 

summerdays

Cycling in the sun
Location
Bristol
I'm not sure I would associate off road with mountain biking through mud or gravel? I certainly don't think I would expect lights on an off road section. But then I'm ok with the traffic free wording. You can't please everyone all the time sort of problem. I think those people who would prefer to cycle away from roads would understand the word traffic free.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
would people be happier if I use the term "off road" from now on or does that have some connotations that I've also missed?
Sadly that's associated with mudplugging and it sounds like your tracks have better surfaces than that :thumbsup:

What's the reason not to use "car-free"? It's not a term people arrived at lightly. (I don't mind motor-free either but pedants will point at e-bikes.)
 
OP
OP
P

pixiepie

Active Member
Sadly that's associated with mudplugging and it sounds like your tracks have better surfaces than that :thumbsup:

What's the reason not to use "car-free"? It's not a term people arrived at lightly. (I don't mind motor-free either but pedants will point at e-bikes.)

I think that if I single out cars, people will ask if buses etc are allowed to go along them. To me, calling them "car-free" routes would cause more confusion than "traffic-free" which is at least a term people are used to seeing.

I can see why people would associate mud with off-road car and motorbike areas/routes as that's kind of the point but would they have the same associated for off road cycling and walking routes? I'm not so sure.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
I think that if I single out cars, people will ask if buses etc are allowed to go along them. To me, calling them "car-free" routes would cause more confusion than "traffic-free" which is at least a term people are used to seeing.
Firstly, that's you, well-used to council jargon. Secondly, I think people may be used to seeing "traffic-free" but they often misunderstand it as meaning "little-used" or "quiet", which actually exacerbates conflict between transport and leisure users. Cars are allowed on more routes than buses or lorries, so if even they're banned, most people will usually assume bikes are the only permitted vehicles.

(Buses are actually allowed on a cycle track rebuilt into a bus road 4 miles from where I live... but happily that bit of NCR 1 is unusual.)
I can see why people would associate mud with off-road car and motorbike areas/routes as that's kind of the point but would they have the same associated for off road cycling and walking routes? I'm not so sure.
A few years ago, I tried to use "off road" for a while and yes, people really did associate it with muddy tracks... in some parts of the country, that's a fair description of Sustrans routes, though. :sad:
 

Ajax Bay

Guru
Location
East Devon
'Traffic free' is a better description (even if some cyclists on here want to identify themselves as 'primus inter pares' traffic) than 'off road' which in the cycling community and externally is interpreted as off metalled surfaces. The key here is who you're trying to communicate with: it's normal people without an agenda and not commentators like @mjray and @Tim Hall (and @Spinney has added a thoughtful opinion, though I appreciate the point they're making but think that your work to scope minimal but useful lighting on such routes is not the place for that argument), as you said:
you guys might be fretting over a problem that doesn't really exist... I think people know that when we talk about 'traffic', we're talking about cars, vans etc and not 'active travel modes'
Salford's webpages aren't the place to start the revolution
Everyone understands what's meant by 'traffic free' in the context of cycle paths/tracks: it's probably metalled, maybe gravel, or rougher, but there will be no vehicles on it. 'Vehicle free'?
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
The key here is who you're trying to communicate with: it's normal people without an agenda and not commentators like @mjray and @Tim Hall
Most of my cycling is spent encouraging and communicating with "normal people" (which norm defines those, eh?) for a volunteer group that both campaigns and put on newcomers/all-comers/freewheeling bike riders and so I've seen the problems caused by misjudged wording, including opaque council jargon and attempts at humour... but fine, ignore that experience, don't learn from our history and repeat the mistakes if you like!
:cycle:
 

Ajax Bay

Guru
Location
East Devon
I was looking for a 'donning helmet' emoji but couldn't find one. Please identify the 'volunteer group' so we know what your agenda is. Do you think people will be deterred from cycling on a route that is described as traffic free? What do you think the 'normal people' you spend time communicating with understand by 'traffic free'. What problems could such terminology cause, in reality? Do you think 'traffic free' is an example of either 'opaque council jargon' or 'an attempt at humour'? To whose 'history' are you referring? Do you think 'vehicle free' would be a satisfactory and sufficiently descriptive term?
 
OP
OP
P

pixiepie

Active Member
'Traffic free' is a better description (even if some cyclists on here want to identify themselves as 'primus inter pares' traffic) than 'off road' which in the cycling community and externally is interpreted as off metalled surfaces. The key here is who you're trying to communicate with: it's normal people without an agenda and not commentators like @mjray and @Tim Hall (and @Spinney has added a thoughtful opinion, though I appreciate the point they're making but think that your work to scope minimal but useful lighting on such routes is not the place for that argument), as you said:


Everyone understands what's meant by 'traffic free' in the context of cycle paths/tracks: it's probably metalled, maybe gravel, or rougher, but there will be no vehicles on it. 'Vehicle free'?

Thanks! Agreed.

However, if I can't use "traffic free" than surely I can't use "vehicle free" for the same reasons. :laugh:

Thanks for all the debate guys... I'm sticking with "traffic free" :bicycle:
 
Top Bottom