more cycle lanes or more 'considerate' motorists?

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

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.

The above (from page 9 here) shows 20th c. modal share for the bicycle in a number Dutch cities (alongside Basel and Eindhoven), with Manchester (the blue line at the bottom).

We see massive decline across the board from 1950 onwards. The decline was arrested, and reversed, in the early 1970s, in the four Dutch cities included on the graph - this was precisely the period when the Dutch started building safe segregated infrastructure, and removing the car-centric layouts of their towns and cities.

I would argue that the 'cultural change' you speak of is a consequence of that infrastructure, not the other way around. Getting more people on bikes results in an attitudinal shift towards the bicycle, especially when driving around people on them - because you are likely to know what it is like to ride one. I would suggest that in the UK most bad driving towards cyclists is perpetrated by people who go nowhere near a bicycle for everyday activities.

Without the infrastructure, it is likely the decline would have continued, as it did in Manchester.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Basically, by way of a footnote to the above, I think attitudinal change comes directly from a critical mass of people cycling. The Dutch have a favourable attitude to cycling because a lot of them do it - I don't think there was a pre-existing attitude, or something in the Dutch genes that pre-disposed them to look favourably upon bicycle use.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think the dutch, and other continental experiece is vital, and vital becuase it how they phased it. Image a typical provincial city centre, or a medium sized town centre, imagine it as it is today. Chock full o'motor vehicles. Then imagine the city fathers, or town council saying "Enough! towns are for people not cars, and we will remove these cars from the centre." Do that and you don't need cycle infrastructure because voila! pedestrians and cyclists and skateboarders and roller bladers and etc., have a perfect infrastructure already in place, the roads. Then when you have all these people in town on bikes the logical thing is to join the centres to the 'burbs and that is where your infrastructure needs to be created in existing towns. First comes the will to remove the mighty motor from its throne; that's our problem, we don't have the will, and we have left it almost too late, I fear, to reverse the trend.

 

[ComedyPilot]

I suggest every cyclist ride at least once in their life in the Netherlands, then they will see how the infrastructure is implemented.

New road builds cannot pass planning laws without adequate cycle lane provision, likewise for repairs to existing roads, they have to solve the cycle 'need'. A lot of the time out of town traffic is sent via the equivelant of the bypass, whilst local & cycle traffic goes direct A to B, even then cycling is the most direct, and local cars have to zig-zag quite a bit.

I suspected it would be good cycling in the Netherlands, then I rode 800 miles in May all the way round the country, and BOY do we have A LOT of catching up to do.

Google 'David Hembrow', and look at his site for excellent Dutch/British infrastructure (and attitude) comparisons.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Our cycling 'culture' almost disappeared when we started 'brown-nosing' the americans, and adopted their 'gotta get a big car to be a big man' attitude. Thankfully there are a militant few still pedalling. In a way I feel (as a cyclist), like I am in an element on the fringe of 'society' about to battle back into mainstream acceptance. Not too dis-similar to women's lib-bers in the 20's and gays in the 70's/80's - if you excuse the bad analogy?

 

[Arch]

I suggest every cyclist ride at least once in their life in the Netherlands, then they will see how the infrastructure is implemented.

Sod that. We should make every driver DRIVE there!

 

[davefb]

manchester is a poor choice though,, what about more historically bike friendly places like oxford or cambridge ?

seem to recal renting a bike when in Hannover, it was great , cycle lanes on wide pavements ( in the main)... then again, the rest of the public transport was fantastic as well .

i also have a feeling that there'd be more cycling , if the UK had less hills

[edit]

oh and,, both, proper tarmaced off road ones and more understanding from drivers.

 

[handsome joe]

I’m pleased to say am completely over my initial pessimism regarding cycle lanes. I've been using and enjoying Boris’s superhighways ever day. Find myself wanting to use them. If things keep going in the right direction then I feel very optimistic about the future of London’s cycling infrastructure. Hopefully there will be more and more cycle lanes. I tried the Barclays hire bikes out the other day in Hyde Park and I really enjoyed myself. There were a lot of tourists and locals using them.



The other day it brought it home to me how much London desperately needs more people using bicycles. I took the bus home from work. This journey takes me 20 minutes by bike. The equivalent on a bus took an hour and a half. Due to the traffic I also had to change buses which cost me another fare. The bus driver had to terminate the journey early and turn around because he missed his slot. The fact is London, especially central and inner, cannot take the volume of traffic it currently deals with. Trying to encourage people new to cycling onto our non-segregated roads is a dead end.

 

[gbb]

Cycle lanes that run alongside parking bays direct those cyclists inexperienced enough to use them into the door zone. Potentially lethal.
Cycle lanes that run alongside pedestrian barriers at junctions direct cyclists into the killing zone of left-turning lorries. There are plenty like that.

The reality is that as in all other walks of life, cyclists make bad judgements just like everyone else. Its too easy to blame the facilities. A cycle lane runs alongside a parking bay. IF a cyclist refuses to, or doesnt take care, thats his risk. Realistically, the lane cannot be placed anywhere else. Its there to assist you, not give you a god given right to blunder on regardlessly (i'm not talking about you personally dondare, just generally)
The same applies to the second point. One of my cycle lanes is exactly like you describe. If there's a bus in front turning left, i'll wait behind him even though i COULD get through. Its risk reduction. I can, but choose not to. The problem lies usually (athough doubtless not in all cases) with bad judgement, not the facilities.

Personally. i like cycle lanes. They're not perfect, but at least there's some sort of visual seperation between me and the cars. They bring problems of their own, but overall i can make my way better with them than without.

 

[dondare]

The reality is that as in all other walks of life, cyclists make bad judgements just like everyone else. Its too easy to blame the facilities. A cycle lane runs alongside a parking bay. IF a cyclist refuses to, or doesnt take care, thats his risk. Realistically, the lane cannot be placed anywhere else. Its there to assist you, not give you a god given right to blunder on regardlessly (i'm not talking about you personally dondare, just generally)
The same applies to the second point. One of my cycle lanes is exactly like you describe. If there's a bus in front turning left, i'll wait behind him even though i COULD get through. Its risk reduction. I can, but choose not to. The problem lies usually (athough doubtless not in all cases) with bad judgement, not the facilities.

Personally. i like cycle lanes. They're not perfect, but at least there's some sort of visual seperation between me and the cars. They bring problems of their own, but overall i can make my way better with them than without.

It would take an essay to answer this fully.
A daft cycle lane gives me the choice of making a bad judgement or taking a risk. In theory it might be there to assist me but in reality it's worse than useless.
If the only place to put a lane is exactly that part of the road the cyclist should be most wary of then it shouldn't be there at all.
There is a brand new and utterly cretinous cycle facility right by where I work that increases the chance of every kind of accident without confering any possible advantage. The philosophy that any cycling facility, however stupid, is better than just letting cyclists use the real roads properly is insane.

 

[Origamist]

The reality is that as in all other walks of life, cyclists make bad judgements just like everyone else. Its too easy to blame the facilities. A cycle lane runs alongside a parking bay. IF a cyclist refuses to, or doesnt take care, thats his risk. Realistically, the lane cannot be placed anywhere else. Its there to assist you, not give you a god given right to blunder on regardlessly (i'm not talking about you personally dondare, just generally)

The only potential positive of having a cycle lane next to parking bays/on street parking is that it might increase car occupants awareness of cyclists using the lane and it might make them think twice before opening their door into the path of a cyclist.

I'd much prefer the on-street parking to be removed (unlikely), or a 1+ metre buffer zone between the cars and the cycle lane making it far harder to hit a cyclist, or simply do away with the lane - all options are better than a cycle lane in a door zone. Finally, a 20mph (enforced) limit would be a real benefit in this scenario.

 

[gbb]

It would take an essay to answer this fully.
A daft cycle lane gives me the choice of making a bad judgement or taking a risk. In theory it might be there to assist me but in reality it's worse than useless.
If the only place to put a lane is exactly that part of the road the cyclist should be most wary of then it shouldn't be there at all.
There is a brand new and utterly cretinous cycle facility right by where I work that increases the chance of every kind of accident without confering any possible advantage. The philosophy that any cycling facility, however stupid, is better than just letting cyclists use the real roads properly is insane.

Doubtless there are daft cycle lanes (depending on your interprtation of daft)...this is a problem where i see all (or most) of MY cycle lanes as beneficial. Your cycle lanes i have no knowledge of, so its difficult (nay impossible) to make any judgement.

But isnt that a copout. Usually, a particular junction was always that way, before the introduction of a cycle lane, and before the cycle lane, people used to ride there anyway.. Therefore, the risk always existed.

I'll detail one of my cycle lanes, its pro's and con's.
Oundle Road, coming out of town. The road hasnt changed but they've included a cycle lane, maybe 3 to 4 ft wide. This has inevitably narrowed the available road to cars. Most cars now don't encroach into the lane, but of course some do. Many cars will now pass you quite close...i think they think 'but i'm not encroaching into his lane'. A minus....but before the cycle lane, they did that anyway...AND in stationary or slow moving traffic would frequently drive close to the kerb, blocking your progress. That doesnt happen now (generally). That's a plus.
This lane also passes parking bays for some distance, with all the risks that brings. You had to ride past them anyway before the cycle lane. Nothings changed. Proceed with caution...just like you always should anyway. There's no benefit or loss really.

Pro's and con's. I break people down into two types (again, not aimed at you dondare)...romantics and realists. Romantics have a well intentioned idea of how things should be, and reality is often a let down for them.
I'm a realist, i see things as they are and modify my behaviour or expectations accordingly.

Both again have their pro's and con's. If we were all realists, nothing would change, but realists dont really get dissapointed, we just get on. Its one of the reasons why people have such opposing views...some shout, others shrug their shoulders.

 

[Ticktockmy]

Personally I think all of us road users have a nightmare problem, to much information!
The cyclist has to watch out for other road users, including people who step off the kerb into the road with out looking, along with trafice lights and signs, for potholes and broke glass, the list is endless.
The motorist like wise has a myriad of signs and other road users including us Cyclists to contend with, no wonder there are clashes. but lts face it so many cyclist act in a very on socible manner on the roads, which will Pee off most drivers.

The other evening I rode through London from Euston Station down to London Bridge station, and watched cyclist after cyclist ignore red lights, swerving in fornt and across the traffice lanes, for a country boy it amased me, and in someway angered me, cos I could see why the motorist gets so pee-ed off with us cyclist.
If I had my way I would go back to the days when i started to drive. No white lines, hardly any signs, but then there where more cyclists and not so many cars.

 

[davefb]

The only potential positive of having a cycle lane next to parking bays/on street parking is that it might increase car occupants awareness of cyclists using the lane and it might make them think twice before opening their door into the path of a cyclist.

I'd much prefer the on-street parking to be removed (unlikely), or a 1+ metre buffer zone between the cars and the cycle lane making it far harder to hit a cyclist, or simply do away with the lane - all options are better than a cycle lane in a door zone. Finally, a 20mph (enforced) limit would be a real benefit in this scenario.

if they were made of an adequate width, ie the parking bay being WIDER than the cars its intended for,,then a proper wide cycle lane, then it would make sense, when going past, keep to outside edge of lane, if there's parked cars..


but normally the thinking must go 'well there isnt enough room, but we must put the parking and cycle lane in,, so lets just shrink them' so you end up with parking bays narrower than the cars they're meant for and cycle lanes that arent wide enough for a cycle... but hey, the council will get that funding because they've marked some cycle lanes.... insanity, they wouldnt mark a 3 lane motorway in a normal road using the same logic (wouldnt put it past em i suppose)..

 

[John the Monkey]

The other evening I rode through London from Euston Station down to London Bridge station, and watched cyclist after cyclist ignore red lights, swerving in fornt and across the traffice lanes, for a country boy it amased me, and in someway angered me, cos I could see why the motorist gets so pee-ed off with us cyclist.

I've been cut up and close overtaken by motorists who've been able to observe me scrupulously observing traffic law (because I do do so).

The "behave yourselves or we'll knock you down" trope is a red herring; it's a post facto justification for the sort of bullying and indifference to others that typifies some British motorists.