Lighting traffic-free cycleways

[Apollonius]

It's a urban/suburban area with street lighting on all the surrounding streets.

Then I like your idea. It needs to be visible as a "real" route rather than a black hole, but still nature-friendly.

 

[Ajax Bay]

key question for me is whether these products would encourage more people to use the routes after dark (and whether they make the routes safe enough to do so).

Answering your question: I believe they would. My experience is that the previously rather dark cycle track with indeterminate edges (gravel) is much easier to cycle on in the gloom of dusk. So installation of these would make cycling on them in those light conditions safer and safe enough.

Worth considering how frequent they need to be and whether you go for both sides or just one. Think the Exe Estuary path has them at 20m intervals on alternate sides of the track. Will depend on the likely ambient light levels (but you said several of your sections were in cuttings which will make them 'darker'). To assuage the concerns of the 'no more light' brigade, these lights are 'gentle' and light spill is minimal: you'll only notice them if you're walking/cycling the path.

 

[Tin Pot]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution

If you must introduce lighting there are some tips there to minimise pollution.

 

[MichaelW2]

For cyclists, reflective edge markers are useful.
For pedestrians, a low level, downward facing glow with some kind of gradual on/off dimmer/motion sensor and a system for firing up adjacent light bollards to show the way. Surely someone must have developed this in a wildlife-friendly and vandal-hostile form.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 4217298, member: 259"]If people are cycling in the dark they should have lights on their bikes. I cycle down unlit lanes all the time and i don't have a problem.[/QUOTE]
Lights for cycling in unlit areas are rather brighter than the 4 candela that I think is required to be legal. If the path has more than a few users, arguably glow-in-the-darks or well-aimed solar LEDs will cause less light pollution than all of them upgrading to German-spec (or worse, cheap O-beam CREE LED specials) headlights.

I've ridden and walked sections of NCR11 through Ely that have solar LED studs along the sides, which seem to work OK. I used to ride the Shute Shelve tunnel section of NCR26 between Axbridge and Winscombe that had motion-activated LEDs but in the centre of the track which wasn't as good because you never quite knew how far sideways you could go before landing in the gravel.

 

[RichK]

When it gets dark, I stick to the road & avoid the off-road alternatives due to them being much more isolated in the event of an incident. Lighting wouldn't encourage me to use them.

 

[Tizme]

I have to say I hate the thought of lighting on paths. I once took a group of children, as part of a school trip, on Exmoor. All of them had torches etc, all flashing around, not a problem, but I then got them all to turn off their lights and look UP. They were amazed, as their eyes became accustomed to the dark it literally opened up a whole new vista to them. After that we had one torch leading and one following up the rear and silent, amazed kids enjoying a virtually light pollution free experience.

Apologies if that wa a bit off topic! More on topic, a year or two ago the road to the local rail station was closed for repair (3 months), the footpath from the village to the railway, adequate for 20+ years in it's unlit state suddenly had lights mounted on posts every 5 metres or so all the way up the hill (with a large black cable linking each light to the next), so the now walking drivers could find their way. It was a nightmare, ignoring the fact that you could see the lights "climbing" up the hill from about 2 miles away, about once a week some joker would pull up 4 or 5 and drop them across the path or worse put one light on the other side of the path so the cable crossed the path at about knee height. It was a nightmare trying to negotiate the path with a commuter bike in one hand and the post in the other as you worked your way up the hill trying to clear the path and all this at 5am, the alternative was a 3 mile detour up a 9% climb single track lane.

 

[pixiepie]

Thanks for all your comments so far. The issues you've raised and the pros and cons are all the things that were already going round my head so thanks for confirming that this is far from a clear cut issue and that (as usual) there isn't a really obvious answer.

I'll keep on with the research (we're getting sent a sample of the glow in the dark type to try out) and report back with how we get on and if we end up using any of them. If so, I'll probably do a pilot scheme along a section of one of the routes and get feedback from people before I commit to lighting the whole network.

Oh and by the way, I didn't want to say before in case it swayed people's views but the routes are in Salford... http://www.salford.gov.uk/trafficfreecycleroutes.htm

 

[mjr]

I always love how many of the "rural areas should be condemned to darkness" brigade live in towns, which are by far the worst light pollution sources. Standing on the edge of the common behind my house, there are few street lights directly visible, but the glow of the town four miles away still lights the sky.

Oh and by the way, I didn't want to say before in case it swayed people's views but the routes are in Salford... http://www.salford.gov.uk/trafficfreecycleroutes.htm

I don't think it'd sway views, but it may get a bit of off-topic feedback about other Salford topics - for example, classing cycles as not being traffic (a traffic-free cycle route is an unused one), regarding cycle-commuting as an "or even", and overuse of gravel and barriers.

 

[Tim Hall]

Thanks for all your comments so far. The issues you've raised and the pros and cons are all the things that were already going round my head so thanks for confirming that this is far from a clear cut issue and that (as usual) there isn't a really obvious answer.

I'll keep on with the research (we're getting sent a sample of the glow in the dark type to try out) and report back with how we get on and if we end up using any of them. If so, I'll probably do a pilot scheme along a section of one of the routes and get feedback from people before I commit to lighting the whole network.

Oh and by the way, I didn't want to say before in case it swayed people's views but the routes are in Salford... http://www.salford.gov.uk/trafficfreecycleroutes.htm

Any chance you can use your influence to change the description away from "traffic free" to something else? Cyclists (and pedestrians) are traffic too. What about "motor free" or "car free"?

 

[pixiepie]

I always love how many of the "rural areas should be condemned to darkness" brigade live in towns, which are by far the worst light pollution sources. Standing on the edge of the common behind my house, there are few street lights directly visible, but the glow of the town four miles away still lights the sky.


I don't think it'd sway views, but it may get a bit of off-topic feedback about other Salford topics - for example, classing cycles as not being traffic (a traffic-free cycle route is an unused one), regarding cycle-commuting as an "or even", and overuse of gravel and barriers.

Ha ha! "Traffic free" is a term widely used to mean walking and cycle only routes. If you can come up with a better term, do let me know.

Salford's policy on cycle routes is to not use any barriers (and to remove existing ones) and to use "Flexipave" type surfaces

 

[mjr]

Ha ha! "Traffic free" is a term widely used to mean walking and cycle only routes. If you can come up with a better term, do let me know.

It's only widely used by councils (and activists who have been reading government jargon a bit too long) and used more by councils who don't take cycling seriously IMO. @Tim Hall is right: "motor-free" and "car-free" are both better terms. I also like "park routes" but that's only appropriate for some. I shy away from "off-road" and "greenway" because they suggest dirt track to me.

Salford's policy on cycle routes is to not use any barriers (and to remove existing ones) and to use "Flexipave" type surfaces

Glad to hear it on the barriers (but I think you've a few to remove!) but flexi-pave? http://www.flexipave.co.za/ ? I don't think I've met that one yet. Please consider giving cyclists smooth low-CRR surfaces like machine-laid red Hot Rolled Asphalt 55/10.

 

[pixiepie]

Glad to hear it on the barriers (but I think you've a few to remove!) but flexi-pave? http://www.flexipave.co.za/ ? I don't think I've met that one yet. Please consider giving cyclists smooth low-CRR surfaces like machine-laid red Hot Rolled Asphalt 55/10.

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.

OK... so I just googled "car free cycle routes" and guess what google gave me? A list of webpages talking about "traffic free cycle routes". 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
Oh and Sustrans use the term 'traffic free' quite happily.

 

[Spinney]

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.

OK... so I just googled "car free cycle routes" and guess what google gave me? A list of webpages talking about "traffic free cycle routes". 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
Oh and Sustrans use the term 'traffic free' quite happily.

It's not a problem that exists as far as 'car free routes' goes, but what it does do is feed the sense of entitlement that some drivers seem to have that cycles (and pedestrians) are not 'traffic' and so have no right to take up tarmac that their car 'should' be on instead/has more right to be on, etc.

I accept that 'traffic free' is in fairly common usage, but I hope you can see that there is a point to suggesting they be called something else.

 

[pixiepie]

OK... I accept that and as a cyclist and non-driver I'm on your side. I guess my point is that maybe Salford's webpages aren't the place to start the revolution.