New cycling infrastructure - a noteworthy obstacle is cyclists themselves, apparently.

[wiggydiggy]

In Leeds they've nearly finished a fully segregated bi-direction cycle route down this road. I'll take a picture next time I'm down that way.

Its a massive help as Leeds has been on an anti-car (good!) trip lately and lot of roads have been closed to private traffic meaning the few that are left open like this one are very busy.

The segregation is on the left and takes up the space previously occupied by these parked cars: https://maps.app.goo.gl/THxkQLBraivSNEgc7

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

When you get shared cylelanes with pedestrians
or even the ones with a white line down the middle which the pedestrians generally ignore

then they are not really much use except for people who are just nipping out for a nice leaisure ride or something

If you had a road where people were generally to be expected to be wandering around aimless on it then there would be uproar
but for a cycle lane it is just accepted

TBF they are good and useful - jsut not as good or usable as some drivers seem to think!

I also seem to remember that there is a highest advised speed when using them
and I also seem to remember thinking "yea Gods that's fast with pedestrians a few inches away from you!!"

 

[YMFB]

Oh, top trumps, eh?

In that case please allow my to show you my Lamborhini Countach card - I'm a retired copper who used to teach advanced driving. That's proper advanded driving to coppers, not the watered down civilian 'advanded" which is actually a lower level than police "standard".

Indeed, I was taught to drive by my Dad who was a RoSPA instructor and I was a civilian gold certificate holder before I'd even passed my driving test (my first test was cancelled due to fog so the observation drive I had booked for soon after actually took place on L plates, dual carriageway taking the place of the motorway for this purpose.)

The most dangerous sector of driving society, in terms of the disproportionate number of smacks they have compared to their numbers, is the under 30s. They ace the over 70s by some margin, so if we're using the likelihood of of a driver having a smack as a yardstick then the under 30s should be retested every two years first.

I would agree that anyone who drives for work above and beyond simply driving themselves from A to B should hold a professional licence, with strict training to obtain it and penalties for abusing it. It's a nonsense that some of the worst drivers are "professionals", but hardly surprising seeing as they're some of the worst paid out there. Businesses aren't likely to attract either top talent or conscientious characters for the abysmal salaries drivers earn.

As a retired police officer you should understand that continuous assessment and training is required to maintain the required standard. The Police motorcycle riders I have worked with are clearly highly trained and excellent riders. The RoSPA examiners are almost exclusively retired police officers who give their time to help others.

Having cycled 55 miles today in Wiltshire and Hampshire including and one short section of shared footpath and cycle path i maintain that a large proportion of the car drivers do not understand the Hierarchy of road users.

I maintain a multi faceted approach is require, training is part of that, but so is physical separation of vunerable road users from vehicles.

 

[classic33]

Having cycled 55 miles today in Wiltshire and Hampshire including and one short section of shared footpath and cycle path i maintain that a large proportion of the car drivers do not understand the Hierarchy of road users.

I maintain a multi faceted approach is require, training is part of that, but so is physical separation of vunerable road users from vehicles.

Part of the problem/issue is that some driving instructors are passing on their bad habits to those under their instruction. There's a large, well known in these parts, driving school whose instructors could do with being retested. Ignoring ASL's/bike boxes and clear road signage. Signs as simple as No U-Turns, No Entry and directional signage. Some are even selling outdated copies of the Highway Code. I've reported two of them for what they are doing.

Physical separation of road users doesn't work though. There's more vehicles parking up on footpaths, simply because the drivers feel entitled to do so.
Drivers need to realise that we as cyclists aren't getting in the way/slowing traffic down, we are part of the same traffic as they are. Build segregated facilities and you reinforce that perception. Why are there no calls for motorists to use the facilities that were built for their benefit, motorways?
Cyclists are removed from the equation, so some of those using them seek another group using the same roads to blame.

 

[mjr]

I also seem to remember that there is a highest advised speed when using them

No, that's a zombie myth. About 20 years ago, the DfT consulted on issuing a "cycleway code" telling cyclists to slow down and do other annoying mitigation acts, rather than try to stop councils building so much rubbish. The consultation responses flamed them to a well-done crisp (rightly), they never issued the code, and eventually, 15 or so years later, we got Active Travel England with (so far) some weak silk gloves to lightly slap councils and deny them national grants if they try to build rubbish or trash good things.

and I also seem to remember thinking "yea Gods that's fast with pedestrians a few inches away from you!!"

Another way that the code issued for consultation was wrong-headed. The minimum passing distances in the highway code should apply everywhere. If you can't achieve that, slow to a gentle jog as you pass someone, wait behind them, or use a carriageway lane if available, accessible and appropriate. "Buzzing" and "skimming" slower walkers is always illegal, even on a carriageway, even on a bike or on foot.

I agree with much of the rest of your post. Unlike Germany and some of its neighbours, walkers here mostly don't follow rules (which is a joy IMO) so putting a dividing line down a path mainly reduces the width available for cyclists to pass them safely. Arguably, that's one of the things that the 2020 Cycling Infrastructure Design manual gets wrong, although it does also say it should be walkway - cycleway - carriageway and most walkers will tend to walk on the bit furthest from the heavy killer machines so it may not often be a problem in practice. (Walkers still use the bit furthest from the motorists on the A10/A149/A47 roundabout near me, which is stupidly laid out cycleway-walkway-carriageway, not that it matters because nobody is policing it and everyone is using all three.)

 

[mjr]

Why are there no calls for motorists to use the facilities that were built for their benefit, motorways?

When my family lived in parts of Surrey where the M3 and M25 are have parallel A and B roads serving mostly local traffic, there were indeed such calls. When it was pointed out that the motorways were congested and so sat navs then flood the rest of the strategic road network, the calls are then for "one more lane"s which people think will solve it, despite that almost never working in the past and leading to the London end of the county being primarily tarmac.

 

[Drago]

Indeed. When your waste bin is full and really needs emptying, tying an empty carrier initially attracts even more rubbish, and ultimately ends up full as well.

 

[mjr]

See above. Do you realistically expect segregation for every single metre every journey?

No, just the nasty bits. It's a false dichotomy to pretend that we must have protected infrastructure everywhere or it must be nowhere.

Physically and economically it's an impossibility.

Even so, it's not. Kitting out all remaining 50/60/70mph major A roads (the Strategic Road Network) with protected cycleways would cost about a tenth of one Road Investment Strategy budget. Dropping the limit to 40mph on those that are truly physically constrained (so not just someone being too lame to convert a lane to cycles + emergency vehicles only, but those with one mixed-traffic lane each way and some not-reasonably-surmountable obstacle to adding 4m width) would cost another couple of million. It's a government policy choice not to do that. With the millions saved from each death prevented and each life prolonged by Quality-Adjusted Life Years, it would pay back economically within a generation.

Other measures, such as reducing the National Speed Limit on unlit minor (C/D/U classification) roads without centre lines to 40mph, would cost even less (a few signs to change at borders and port exits, some speed cameras to reprogram when possible) and deliver even wider benefits. A government that cared about public health would start the process to do that on day one.

It probably won't happen, but it's not because it can't. It's because enough people have fallen for the lies and believe it can't. The very profitable and subsidised fossil-extraction industry ain't gonna lose any income it can avoid, whether from propelling vehicles or repairing roads with heavy sticky bitumen more often because people have been convinced or bullied to trundle thousands of kilograms around with each traveller.

 

[Drago]

No, just the nasty bits. It's a false dichotomy to pretend that we must have protected infrastructure everywhere or it must be nowhere.

No more false than the contributor that suggested, in quite rude terms, that the behaviour of motorists could not be modified.

And what's a nasty bit? It's errant motorists that make roads dangerous, not the roads themselves, and danferous drivers can strike anywhere, any time.

And traffic flow, usage, and driver behaviour are constantly shifting. What might be a nasty bit today may not be this time next year. Just up my end, changes to a busy roundabout in March has caused a radical shift in usage patterns, favoured routes and driver behaviour, and the existing segregated infrastucture (theres is some, as crap as it is) is now suddenly redundant, and where it might now be needed there is none. It's not physically or financially practical to keep chasing changes in road development by continuously playing whack-A-mole with mallet of new segregation.

And there's the elephant in the room, the one about there being little evidence that cycling infrastructure makes a NET conteubution to rider safety in the UK and  may actually have a higher casualty rate than the roads. Thats difficult to quantify for sure without much more research and analysis, but the little data that does exist is sufficient to support genujne doubt over that matter - this requires investigation. As we know, doing something blindly in the name of safety rarely makes us any safer and often actually increases the risk.

The simplest and most cost effective solution is to tackle the problem at source. No cost to the exchequer, no issues of planning or practicality, and no issues with getting left behind by the ever changing ebb and flow of traffic. Sadly that's also the politically most unpalatable solution because motorists form a significant voting bloc.

 

[Dogtrousers]

But this also highlights a concerning issue that those in authority are considering social media chatter and nonsense when formulating policy.

It's a bit of a bizarre article.

I agree that it's concerning that the nonsensical cesspit of drivel that is social media (CC excepted ) is given any credence at all.

 

[Jameshow]

View attachment 774798
The new(planned mandatory) lane on the right in the picture, will be to the left of a left turn only lane. Assuming they keep the current planned setup. You're required to use it even if going straight on.

Less than the length of a bus, and it begins where the two signs in the lane are. Right after a dropped kerb for a new light controlled pedestrian crossing is due to go. So you'll be stopping to turn into a lane that will have another set of lights controlling the three roads.
The yellow box is due to disappear as well.

Halifax?

 

[classic33]

Halifax?

Ay lad

 

[mjr]

No more false than the contributor that suggested, in quite rude terms, that the behaviour of motorists could not be modified.

Well, maybe. But two wrongs don't make a right, eh? Don't stoop to their level. You're better than that.

And what's a nasty bit? It's errant motorists that make roads dangerous, not the roads themselves, and danferous drivers can strike anywhere, any time.

Ah, not only. Some road designs are just rubbish, so-called "unforgiving" ones which are a bit akin to giving toddlers automatic firearms: sooner or later, someone is going to make a predictable error and someone will die. Some road layouts are even so rubbish that they're not used any more and any examples were fast-tracked for change. There are even some so terrible that a cyclist making a mistake might kill themselves with no motorist involved (an incompetent council planting a black-painted signpost leg in the middle of an unlit cycleway is one example). But usually, yes, it's errant motorists doing predictable things, including just using smelly and/or dusty vehicles which roll along noisily because they're so heavy.

It's not physically or financially practical to keep chasing changes in road development by continuously playing whack-A-mole with mallet of new segregation.

It's financially practical, as I explained earlier. It's also physically practical, because once we've upgraded the legacy network once, then we'd only need to require highways authorities to build the new stuff to the modern standards that they ought to be following anyway (but still often don't, creatively finding loopholes like the notorious argument that the new bits of the A11 and A14 didn't need cycleways because nobody was previously riding diagonally across the fields where the road would go).

And there's the elephant in the room, the one about there being little evidence that cycling infrastructure makes a NET conteubution to rider safety in the UK and  may actually have a higher casualty rate than the roads.

The Active Travel Commissioner for England was also troubled by that, so he commissioned some research and claimed in an interview earlier this year that it found such evidence, as well as showing that badly-done gutter lanes were worse than nothing, but I've not seen it yet. Let's wait for them to publish, so we can discuss that based on some facts at long last.

The simplest and most cost effective solution is to tackle the problem at source. No cost to the exchequer, no issues of planning or practicality, and no issues with getting left behind by the ever changing ebb and flow of traffic. Sadly that's also the politically most unpalatable solution because motorists form a significant voting bloc.

How are you suggesting tackling that at no cost with no planning? If it was roads policing then that sounds like planning deployment/redeployment of officers, which has a cost.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

ROund here one of the main roads out of town clearly used to be a dual carriageway

Probably one of the 30 mph ones

now it has a blank space on the left - then a cycle lane - then the car lane
very useful for bikes and traffic doesn;t pile up
probably did before because it turns into a normal single carriageway road after a point so the dual bit was always a bit pointless

seem to work well - but mostly because all the houses have driveways and enough garden to make them bigger
plus a wide grass verge which some people can be used to second cars etc
which avoid the "everyone parks in the inside lane" situation I see in similar roads around Bootle

It requires local knowledge and thinking

which appears to the the problem

 

[Dogtrousers]

Quick summary of the thread
* We don't need segregated infrastructure
* Oh yes we do (sometimes)

I think I'm in the sometimes camp.

A couple of sometimes ...

For busy A roads between towns where there is no parallel series of minor roads, a cycle path alongside can be a boon. It's OK for me as I don't mind the odd stretch of busy road. But where there's a decent cycleway I'll use it - it reduces stress levels. For less confident riders it opens up a route. I rode one recently - the A413 Winslow - Buckingham. It was generally OK-ish

Shared use paths - yes you are reduced to walking pace and yes you may have to deal with dogs on extending leads, people with headphones and so on. Nothing wrong with that provided you adjust your expectations accordingly, slow down and treat people with respect. The shared use signs are a reminder to everyone that yes, cyclists really are allowed here.

That's just speaking personally as a relatively confident rider.