more cycle lanes or more 'considerate' motorists?

[Origamist]

Vehicular Cyclists have has what 30+ years to win the shared road space argument. They haven't carried the day. My wife won't ride on the road, my fiends think I'm nuts to cycle, fellow cyclists think I'm nuts to cycle on the roads I ride, we can't uninvent the car nor reverse what it has done to society. Perhaps the way forwards is segregated infrastructure ridden on by people riding bikes with upright riding positions rather than bent backed race bikes (of both flat and drop barred varieties)?

“Vehicular cycling/cyclists” (a divisive Americanism) is principally a method of cycling best practice espoused by Forester in the US and Franklin in the UK to deal with the road/traffic environment. However, its meaning has also evolved over the years to encompass (and to a certain extent, pigeon-hole) a small but vociferous group who are perceived as anti-segregationist.

I often cycle in a vehicular manner, but I’m not ideologically opposed to cycling provision – in fact, quite the opposite. The bind for cycling campaigners is that if they do advocate segregated facilities (based on the Dutch model) they often end up with one of the following: no change, a poor shared use path, or narrow cycle-lanes.

I’m optimistic that we can increase the cycling modal share, but it will be a gradual process and not a cycling revolution (decades, not years) and like Greg, I believe improved cycling infrastructure will play a part (but by no means the only part) in getting more people cycling.

 

[jonny jeez]

Which leads me to the question that if motorists were more aware of cyclists not just physically, but if they had some understanding of what its like to be cycling on the roads, would they be less 'inconsiderate' to cyclists creating some equality on the roads?

OR

is the issue that motorists and cyclists need to be separated with physical barriers between cycle lanes and motorists roads to create a safer environment for road users?

Welcome, glad you joined us, sorry its a bit quiet here of late, it'll get busier though.

1= YES
2= Impractical

Jonny

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Welcome, glad you joined us, sorry its a bit quiet here of late, it'll get busier though.

1= YES
2= Impractical

Jonny

Well, I would suggest that it's not impractical per se, just that there is zero political will out there for that kind of solution. Or at least the proper Dutch style segregation, not crappy bits of paint on the pavement.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

How about we put the onus of responsibility for road safety onto the morons that kill the most people (including themselves): i.e. the vehicle drivers, not the most vulnerable?

As others have said, we could do both separate infrastructure and proceed as you suggest. I'm at a loss, though, as to how your suggestion above might be practically implemented. You are asking for attitudinal change, affecting some of the individual's most closely held beliefs about the autonomy and independence car use gives, regardless of how erroneous these might be held, on a scale that is almost unprecedented. We've been campaigning as a society about drink driving for years, yet some bell-ends still do it.

So what is your plan?

I'd suggest scrapping all the existing road safety organisations with their blame the victims approaches and re writing the Highway Code completely. But that is cloud cuckoo thinking. I fear one terrible statistic will prevent me being elected to do this anyway. Out of an electorate of some 40 million about 30 million own cars. for the majority of them the purchase of said car is their second most expensive purchase. Surely that buys them some entitlements?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I recently underwent an epiphany regarding separate infrastructure. I ****ing hate shared use paths, on pavement cycle lanes, all that off road b*ll*cks with 15 poxy give way lines in 500m. Why? Cos it stops me going fast. Fast is a relative term but my bikes encourage a certain head down arse up press on style of riding. Even my tourer, pretty laid back, engenders a mindset of 'I've got miles to complete so let's get on'.

Then I bought a bike, a very eccentric folder as it happens, with a radically diferent riding position. Bolt upright. Bars in my lap and above saddle height, pedals in front of me almost. I felt like a vicar riding to evensong. one 56" gear. can't go fast. Suddenly pedestrians on the shared path are not obstacles getting in my way and slowing me down, but fellow travellers to be greeted, and smiled at, and even stopped and chatted too.

Everyone with absolutist vehicular cyclist tendencies needs to ride a dutch bike, or simlar sit-up-and-beg bike for a month. and chillax.

 

[Origamist]

I recently underwent an epiphany regarding separate infrastructure. I ****ing hate shared use paths, on pavement cycle lanes, all that off road b*ll*cks with 15 poxy give way lines in 500m. Why? Cos it stops me going fast. Fast is a relative term but my bikes encourage a certain head down arse up press on style of riding. Even my tourer, pretty laid back, engenders a mindset of 'I've got miles to complete so let's get on'.

Then I bought a bike, a very eccentric folder as it happens, with a radically diferent riding position. Bolt upright. Bars in my lap and above saddle height, pedals in front of me almost. I felt like a vicar riding to evensong. one 56" gear. can't go fast. Suddenly pedestrians on the shared path are not obstacles getting in my way and slowing me down, but fellow travellers to be greeted, and smiled at, and even stopped and chatted too.

Everyone with absolutist vehicular cyclist tendencies needs to ride a dutch bike, or simlar sit-up-and-beg bike for a month. and chillax.

Welcome to the fold, Greg.

 

[Jezston]

I recently underwent an epiphany regarding separate infrastructure. I ****ing hate shared use paths, on pavement cycle lanes, all that off road b*ll*cks with 15 poxy give way lines in 500m. Why? Cos it stops me going fast. Fast is a relative term but my bikes encourage a certain head down arse up press on style of riding. Even my tourer, pretty laid back, engenders a mindset of 'I've got miles to complete so let's get on'.

Then I bought a bike, a very eccentric folder as it happens, with a radically diferent riding position. Bolt upright. Bars in my lap and above saddle height, pedals in front of me almost. I felt like a vicar riding to evensong. one 56" gear. can't go fast. Suddenly pedestrians on the shared path are not obstacles getting in my way and slowing me down, but fellow travellers to be greeted, and smiled at, and even stopped and chatted too.

Everyone with absolutist vehicular cyclist tendencies needs to ride a dutch bike, or simlar sit-up-and-beg bike for a month. and chillax.

Where's the 'like' button?

 

[ManiaMuse]

I recently underwent an epiphany regarding separate infrastructure. I ****ing hate shared use paths, on pavement cycle lanes, all that off road b*ll*cks with 15 poxy give way lines in 500m. Why? Cos it stops me going fast. Fast is a relative term but my bikes encourage a certain head down arse up press on style of riding. Even my tourer, pretty laid back, engenders a mindset of 'I've got miles to complete so let's get on'.

Then I bought a bike, a very eccentric folder as it happens, with a radically diferent riding position. Bolt upright. Bars in my lap and above saddle height, pedals in front of me almost. I felt like a vicar riding to evensong. one 56" gear. can't go fast. Suddenly pedestrians on the shared path are not obstacles getting in my way and slowing me down, but fellow travellers to be greeted, and smiled at, and even stopped and chatted too.

Everyone with absolutist vehicular cyclist tendencies needs to ride a dutch bike, or simlar sit-up-and-beg bike for a month. and chillax.

A couple of months ago I did hire for a few days a wobbly-wheeled, sit-up-and-beg, super-spinny-geared Dutch bike and rode it mainly on pristine Dutch cycle paths.

Didn't stop me from getting my head down, scalping every cyclist in sight, mowing down pedestrians when they strayed into the cycle path, and playing chicken with traffic when I got the chance.

 

[CotterPin]

As others have said, we could do both separate infrastructure and proceed as you suggest. I'm at a loss, though, as to how your suggestion above might be practically implemented. You are asking for attitudinal change, affecting some of the individual's most closely held beliefs about the autonomy and independence car use gives, regardless of how erroneous these might be held, on a scale that is almost unprecedented. We've been campaigning as a society about drink driving for years, yet some bell-ends still do it.

So what is your plan?

I'd suggest scrapping all the existing road safety organisations with their blame the victims approaches and re writing the Highway Code completely. But that is cloud cuckoo thinking. I fear one terrible statistic will prevent me being elected to do this anyway. Out of an electorate of some 40 million about 30 million own cars. for the majority of them the purchase of said car is their second most expensive purchase. Surely that buys them some entitlements?

I am not sure what Comedy Pilot's plan might be but I would suggest the following:
1. Incorporate cycle training into driving lessons or at least ensure that all trainee drivers have ridden a cycle in traffic before they start their driving lessons
2. Reduce the length of validity of a driving licence to ten years or less and require a retake of the driving test before it can be renewed
3. Introduce the concept of stricter liability into UK law where liability for an incident is assumed by the operator of the more lethal machinery. At the moment it is the other way round where the vulnerable and usually more injured party has to prove it was the fault of the other party in order to make a claim against them
4. Ensure that police see road policing as a serious priority

These are all major things and it will take time for some or all of them to be achieved. However I feel that taking these actions are preferable to building more infrastructure for cyclists as they are likely to have a greater impact on a greater number of people. They could make it safer for children to play out and walk (or cycle) to school. They could revive local communities lived behind curtains because of the major thoroughfare that runs through them. Cycle facilities will benefit some cyclists and probably not do too much to improve things in the long run. We would not get away from the idea that roads are dangerous places to be avoided. How many times have we witnessed the frantic shout to a child as they approach a kerb as if they are about to plummet down a great ravine? How many of us have done it ourselves? Is that the society we really want?

There is an argument that well-built cycle lanes could encourage more people to take up cycling and so make them more considerate motorists when passing other cyclists. Personally I am not convinced of this. I am not sure whether the numbers of cyclists in other countries has a direct correlation to the amount of cycle lanes available to them. Other factors may have contribued to the number of cyclists (including, perhaps, the application of the stricter liability concept). In any event in my experience as a cycle campaigner too many of the bike lanes I have seen built have been woefully substandard.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I am not sure what Comedy Pilot's plan might be but I would suggest the following:
1. Incorporate cycle training into driving lessons or at least ensure that all trainee drivers have ridden a cycle in traffic before they start their driving lessons
2. Reduce the length of validity of a driving licence to ten years or less and require a retake of the driving test before it can be renewed
3. Introduce the concept of stricter liability into UK law where liability for an incident is assumed by the operator of the more lethal machinery. At the moment it is the other way round where the vulnerable and usually more injured party has to prove it was the fault of the other party in order to make a claim against them
4. Ensure that police see road policing as a serious priority

These are all good points, but none of them do anything to address the fact that some roads are inherently scary places to people who do not regularly ride bikes.

Why do Dutch towns and cities have cycling modal shares of 30-40%, or higher, and yet across London (for instance) modal share is only 1-2%, and clearly going nowhere?

Safe infrastructure.

 

[CotterPin]

As I said in my earlier posting I am not convinced that it is the infrastructure that is solely responsible for the higher numbers of cyclists in, for instance, the Netherlands. There are other factors that may come into play - for example, it might be that the popularity of cycling did not decline as much as it did in the UK so the culture of cycling did not disappear so much. Also, the concept of stricter liability is in my opinion the greatest thing we can do to improve road safety. I have cycled in Belgium and I was impressed when a driver turning right into a side road paused to allow me to continue along the cycle track (the equivalent of a left turn in the UK). I would suggest that would not occur in the UK and in fact does not happen (I have been close to being sideswiped on cycle lanes by drivers crossing my path). So even if we did have an infrastructure I believe it would need to go hand in hand with the ideas I have suggested so that we do end up with a change of attitude amongst all drivers. This would have the benefit of making the facilities more effective.

I am concerned, however, that there is a danger that too much emphasis will be placed upon building the infrastructure and less on changing attitudes. This concern is based upon the experience of campaigning in North London where too often I have seen the engineering too soon when all that was needed would be to reduce the speed limit, for example. Being somewhat provacative here, I would suggest that there is a danger we could end up not like Copenhagen with more people cycling - we just end up with loads of bike lanes and the roads as bad as they ever were.

I have to admit I agree with you on the fact that many would be cyclists see the roads as inherently scary. However I would suggest that the cycle training mentioned in my suggestions should be available to all.

 

[theboytaylor]

As I said in my earlier posting I am not convinced that it is the infrastructure that is solely responsible for the higher numbers of cyclists in, for instance, the Netherlands.

+1. Only building the segregated infrastructure is possibly even less helpful as the separation may lead both groups to think that they do not have to think about or come into any contact whatsoever with the other groups. With the additional change in attitude that would hopefully come about with a change to strict liability, hopefully in areas with segregated infrastructure each will be aware of the other and take care at junctions, in areas without any segregation the strict liability may (I said may) lead to a bit more caution and consideration being shown.

Segregation is also far less practical in the UK, I think. I used to go to Holland a bit with my job and what you notice is that for the most part it's flat, and the countryside between towns is open. Even on what I guess are "A" road equivalents there is plenty of space each side so that a cycleway can be built alongside the main road. I imagine that if you were designing a new road in Holland there would be very few physical obstacles to creating a wide enough road way to have a dual carriageway with a wide cyclepath alongside. Contrast that with much of the road infrastructure here - where would you put the segregated facility? The A roads in my neck of the woods often run alongside natural obstacles such as forests or hills - there's nowhere to increase the overall size of the roadway.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

As I said in my earlier posting I am not convinced that it is the infrastructure that is solely responsible for the higher numbers of cyclists in, for instance, the Netherlands.

Fair enough - but I'm not arguing that it is the sole reason. I'm just arguing that it is the principal reason for the 30% difference we see in modal share between us and them. The people who aren't cycling here for practical reasons (i.e. to the shops and so on) are, I would imagine, women and families. It is these groups that are most put off by cycling in busy (and hazardous, subjectively or otherwise) traffic environments. Provide segregated infrastructure, and they will use it. The immense success of the Skyride/Freewheel events in getting people out on their bikes in a safe environment is further testament to this.

I am concerned, however, that there is a danger that too much emphasis will be placed upon building the infrastructure and less on changing attitudes.

Well, there is no reason why segregated infrastructure can't go hand in hand with stricter liability (and attitude changing), which I am also in favour of, and is eminently sensible. It costs nothing, essentially! But unfortunately, I suspect, there is a massive political barrier to both these kinds of initiatives. People are basically wedded to their cars and anything that they perceive as interfering with their basic rights is met with massive hostility. We have 40+ years of negligence in transport planning to thank for this.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

+1. Only building the segregated infrastructure is possibly even less helpful as the separation may lead both groups to think that they do not have to think about or come into any contact whatsoever with the other groups.

See my post above. I'm certainly not arguing that infrastructure is the only solution.

I used to go to Holland a bit with my job and what you notice is that for the most part it's flat

Maybe so, but even in the hilly parts of Holland in the South (as hilly as any urban areas in the UK), we still see modal shares far in excess of anything in the UK. For instance, Maastricht has over 30% modal share, and that is a very hilly area. I'm quite sceptical when 'flatness' is advanced as a reason for Holland's higher modal share.

I would agree - to a limited extent - with the idea that it is difficult to put segregated infrastructure in. The problem is that Holland did this 40 years ago, when car-centric infrastructure was less entrenched, both there and here. Putting in infrastructure now is consequently going to be far harder for us than it was for them then.

But I'm not sure about the 'space' argument. The space is there. It is just being taken up by infrastructure designed for cars - parking bays, wide 2-3 lane roads, and so on. Political will is the biggest barrier here, not space.

 

[CotterPin]

I think in either case we are up against a political and cultural will. Witness the new Transport Secretary and his tired comments about the so-called "war on motorists". With attitudes like that it will be a hard ask to get the infrastructure you would like to see which removes car parking space and reduces the capacity for motor traffic in favour of cyclists. It might be that we need to change people's attitudes before we can be assured that we will get a decent infrastructure and not the typical substandard stuff that many of us on this forum are familiar with.

It might be that other countries such as the Netherlands have already gone through that cultural change and so were able to the cycling infrastructure you would like. This would suggest there was already a sympathetic view towards cycling in those countries. It might even be that this was the driver that encouraged more people to cycle. The infrastructure was a part of a bandwagon that was already rolliing.

Without that change of attitude that other countries must have gone through to facilitate better cycling facilities, I would suggest that we in the UK could end up with poor quality facilities that do not encourage people to cycle and our roads will continue to be seen as dangerous no go zones, the preserve of the motorists. Worse, it may be that we will find ourselves obliged to use the facilities that have been cobbled together (although this might be an alarmist viewpoint).