Safe Road Cycling; Cycling Specific Infastructure; Why Not Advocate for Both?

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Somewhere about here in the "Cyclist escapes prosecution after fatal collision with pensioner" the thread was starting to turn toward discussion of cycling infrastructure and the age old 'road versus cycleway' debate started to simmer, albeit on a low heat.

This reminded me of sitting in LA cycling forums with Sustrans rangers in the cycling infrastructure camp and a few dyed in the wool road cyclists in the 'anything but poor quality cycle lanes/paths/ways' camp, with no consensus and very little getting done. This was over two decades ago if I recall correctly and in the twenty years since it seems that in some respects there have been positive changes and in others, at least on the ground outside London, little has changed.

Why does catering to cyclists always amount to solutions that go one way or the other (these days - mainly building out new infrastructure) rather than solutions that cater to both camps? Why can't we have the cake and eat it?

Discuss.

 

[mjr]

In the linked discussion, you label me as "clearly in the pro-infrastructure camp" but I do advocate for safer carriageway cycling conditions too. Say it softly, but I suggest that specific infrastructure isn't needed on low motor volume low speed streets, as now reflected in the design manuals, and the money would be better spent building or rebuilding ones alongside major motor roads.

I feel the problem tends to be far more the subset of road cyclists who oppose everything not usable by cars because they fear it'll be botched and/or they'll be forced to use it. They assume today's highways designers are as bad as ever and put everyone's noses out of joint before a shovel hits dirt, while being a gift to the stuffed shirts in limos who exploit them to suggest not even cyclists want any road improvements.

Over in the linked topic, I described John Franklin as anti cycleway. You observed that he's only anti shoot ones so I asked if he had ever approved of any cycleway. I missed it in your reply, so would you mind saying here if you know of any Franklin-approved cycleway?

 

[All uphill]

I sort of agree. I'd be delighted with dedicated high quality cycling infrastructure, where possible, or with intelligently designed roads shared by cars and cyclists.

What I hate to see is scarce money spent on pointless short stretches of cyclepaths leading to a sign that says cyclepath ends, or narrow, poorly maintained cycling areas in the gutter alongside a road.

LTN 1/20 gave a good guide (imo) to LAs. Do your highways team follow it? Ours wouldn't take notice of it if it was covered in £50 notes.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

I missed it in your reply, so would you mind saying here if you know of any Franklin-approved cycleway?

This is oddly specific way of trying to make a point. I'll quote John from one of his own papers:

That is not to say that cycling infrastructure is never appropriate. However, there are probably few
aspects of traffic engineering where getting the context and detail right are so important

Source: http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/glos_seminar.pdf

He has also architected the 'heirarchy of provision':

This is sourced from the same document. John does say, paraphrasing, that options further down should not be done in leiu of options further up - because the options further up the heirarchy have the broadest benefits. He does not state the opposite. That the options further down cannot be done in addition to the options further up.

I put you in the 'pro infrastructure' camp because of your comments about John, who I think were unfair. But it's not the first time I've heard them from people advocating exclusively for cycling specific infrastructure. I am sorry if I tarred you with that brush when I should not have.

As I indirectly expressed in the other thread, John's position is that using cycling specific infrastructure should be no more dangerous than on road cycling and his work cites many places where it is.

Granted, things have moved on with LTN 1/20 and two revisions of the Highway Code, the latter I think which really sought to address some of the issues with cycling specific infrastructure and junctions where drivers were always previously given priority.

 

[Jameshow]

I was cycling through bingley and a lady with two panniers used up the whole dedicated cyclepath. I had to go on the narrower road or wait half a mile at 10mph to get past her!

 

[presta]

Why can't we have the cake and eat it?

For years now, my answer to that has been the same: look at the rage among motorists who see money being spent on cycle paths whilst cyclists persist in not using them. They're seeing red. There's long been a campaign to introduce a rule in the Highway Code requiring cycle path use, and at the last count we only narrowly avoided it. Now people are screaming that they should be made compulsory, and frankly, I don't wonder at it.

I recall seeing a video on twitter taken by a bus passenger of the bus following a cyclist who was on the road rather than the cycle lane, and it was embarrassing. "But we're entitled to use the road" just doesn't cut the mustard. You can't complain that the roads are dangerous enough to need cycle paths, and then not use them when you're given them. I have a better reason for not using them: I don't advocate for them because I accept the evidence I've seen that they are less safe. Most don't.

You can't have your cake and eat it, and I think compulsion is coming as sure as God made little apples. It's inevitable. Those who would have it only need to win the argument once, cyclists will have to keep on winning the argument every time, and sooner or later you'll lose. All it will take is an unpopular government looking for a vote-winner when they're on the ropes, and that'll be it. Done. Scrapping ULEZ one minute, compulsory cycle paths the next.

Then what? You'll be a captive market, that's what. No need to worry about the quality of the facilities then, because the punters won't have any choice but to use them, no matter how bad they are. Anything will do.

We have a society full of drivers who think that cyclists have no right being on the road, and cycle paths are just teaching them that they're right.

Doubtless people will come back at me with lots of arguments about what should happen. Perhaps it should, but it won't.

 

[steveindenmark]

If you want to know how this works. You do not need to pay a working group of a fortune. You need to get a cheap Ryanair flight to Billund, Denmark and see how it works in practice.

 

[chriswoody]

I live on a quiet residential street here in Northern Germany, there's no speed bumps or other traffic calming measures and the road is just wide enough to accommodate two cars. We're also the main thoroughfare for cyclists reaching town and beyond, so there's a lot of cyclists sharing the road with cars.

Several years ago the council appeared and painted pictures of bike symbols all down the street and signs popped up either end declaring it's a Fahrradstraße, or "Bike Street" in English. It's something that's been appearing more and more throughout Germany in the last years and shows the holistic approach they take to bike travel.

Essentially whilst residents are allowed to drive down the street, bikes have absolute priority. Cars are prohibited from overtaking the bikes and the bikes set the speed limit. It's not only my street, but a number of other smaller roads through town where it's impractical to have seperate bike infrastructure because there's no room. Sometimes there's some minor conflict with motorists, but in the main it works really well. We actually had a large temporary sign appear the other week, reminding motorists that cyclists set the speed in our street and not to overtake, it's all taken pretty seriously over here.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

@presta

You highlight perfectly what will happen in the UK if, IMHO, the cycling lobby doesn't present a simple message in a single unified voice.

When the Government of the day echoes the false truth's of conspiracy theorists, you know that indisputable facts may not weigh in on resultant legislation.



In general, our local cycing infrastructure as it current stands is fine if:

• You are not in any hurry
• You are aware of the dangers presented by predestrians, driveways, concealed entrances
• You are comfortable riding on gravel
• You are comfortable riding in traffic - as some of the routes are along quiet residential roads and others drop you back into the traffic in silly places

I've recently cycled a chunks of NCN 5, NCN 55 and a 'greenway' that connects two towns. I'm less then impressed, to be honest. All the routes presented issues in terms of directness, practicality and some sections were impassable for months due to heavy rainfall. One of the routes does have a large section in a flood plane. I find them much slower than using the road. I have some responsibilities ~ 25 miles away. I've cycled a couple of times and it's taken be over ~2 hours 30 minutes each way. If I took the main roads and used my Ribble CGR, I recon I'd be down to ~1 hour thirty minutes each way. That compares to ~45 minutes by car.

Now with all that said, new cycling infrastructure is being developed through the town as we speak. Long ongoing works have lead to a lot of vociferous complaints which have become the subject of evening news programmes. As a result, traffic and journey times through the town have been horrendous. I believe there's been a small uptick in the number of people walking and cycling to beat the traffic. The majority of people though are still driving, causing congestion and almost literally choking residents. It seems absured to me that people in general will complain about the time it takes to drive a few miles by car but won't consider any alternatives.

I'll be keeping an open mind about the new cycling infrastructure. What I've seen of the most recent developments has been shared pedestrian / cyclist footways with the odd toucan crossing. Roundabouts with very little assistance to help cyclists cross and when drivers ignore the latest revisions to the highway code, which they often do, cyclists having to cross three roads in effect to negotiate their way safely around a roundabout.

 

[All uphill]

There's a chicken and egg situation isn't there?

Until there are lots of cyclists the case for cycling provision is easily challenged, but until our infrastructure is perceived as safe there are unlikely to be a preponderance of cyclists.

IMO we need to get out there and cycle; lobby our local politicians relentlessly and get as much positive local press as possible, together with lots of persistence.

 

[Drago]

Not trying to kill cyclists while they ride upon the roads they helped pay for is hardly "catering" for them. Its good manners and simple common sense, sadly commodities lacking within far too may road users.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

The funding allocated to cycling specific infrastructure is pitifully small, compared to the money spent on road building. It not kept clear, is often iced in winter, involves negotiating driveways and priority side roads frequently, are littered with street furniture, poorly signed, and disjointed, meander all over the place and often just end nowhere in particular. The signage is so small and poor, you often don’t even know where they are supposed to go.

Look at the furore over 15 min cities, traffic calming, and 20 zones. At what happens when you try and make streets liveable. Someone on radio complaining about the delay in a 5 mile commute by car in Wales because of 20 limits. A commute of 5 miles, and they are driving for gawds sake!

There is a lot of hostility to change.

 

[mjr]

This is oddly specific way of trying to make a point. I'll quote John from one of his own papers:


Source: http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/glos_seminar.pdf

And yet, he only includes examples of cycleways he disapproves of in that paper! It's not an oddly specific way of trying to make a point: it's the acid test. You can claim he's not anti-cycleway, but it seems he's anti-every-cycleway-he's-ever-seen in person, doesn't it?

He has also architected the 'heirarchy of provision':
View attachment 730870

This is sourced from the same document.

It's actually Table 1.2 from LTN 2/08, the 2008 edition of the Cycle Infrastructre Design manual. I'm sure most cycling campaigners who were active more than 5 years ago know it and how it was used in practice by councils to argue that expensive budget-eating "hazard site treatments" should be tried first (usually resurfacing the whole carriageway at great expense for the benefit mainly of motorists but paid for by cycling budgets), then when that failed as usual, they'd grudgingly put in pathetic painted dashed cycle lanes calling it "reallocation of carriageway space". Cycle track building was the second-last resort, which quickly got rejected because there wasn't space for cycleways to be taken from the carriageway, leaving the last resort of converting footways into shared use, or Cycleways Resembling A Pavement.

Now, John is citing that in 2009, which may be before the perversion of it became obvious, so I don't blame him for it. A lot of people were optimistic that it would help, but it didn't.

I put you in the 'pro infrastructure' camp because of your comments about John, who I think were unfair. But it's not the first time I've heard them from people advocating exclusively for cycling specific infrastructure. I am sorry if I tarred you with that brush when I should not have.

My comments about John Franklin are mainly because I think he did an unethical hatchet job on the MK Redways that stunted their growth and harmed their maintenance, but also because I think chapter 10 of Cyclecraft ("Cycle paths and other facilities" is full of shoot. Barely a page goes by without the author's politics slipping in. And things like "The primary riding position should be just to the left of centre of the track" seem like actively trying to cause conflict with pretty much every cyclist going faster than the reader. Keep left unless there's good reason not to.

Granted, things have moved on with LTN 1/20 and two revisions of the Highway Code, the latter I think which really sought to address some of the issues with cycling specific infrastructure and junctions where drivers were always previously given priority.

At least we can agree that LTN 1/20, the 2020 edition of the design manual, is much better than the previous misused edition.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

I live on a quiet residential street here in Northern Germany, there's no speed bumps or other traffic calming measures and the road is just wide enough to accommodate two cars. We're also the main thoroughfare for cyclists reaching town and beyond, so there's a lot of cyclists sharing the road with cars.

Several years ago the council appeared and painted pictures of bike symbols all down the street and signs popped up either end declaring it's a Fahrradstraße, or "Bike Street" in English. It's something that's been appearing more and more throughout Germany in the last years and shows the holistic approach they take to bike travel.

Essentially whilst residents are allowed to drive down the street, bikes have absolute priority. Cars are prohibited from overtaking the bikes and the bikes set the speed limit. It's not only my street, but a number of other smaller roads through town where it's impractical to have seperate bike infrastructure because there's no room. Sometimes there's some minor conflict with motorists, but in the main it works really well. We actually had a large temporary sign appear the other week, reminding motorists that cyclists set the speed in our street and not to overtake, it's all taken pretty seriously over here.

How lovely!
Sadly, here it would not work, because there are no resources for enforcement.
I mentioned before on here that I get regularly beeped off the road in a traffic calmed area, a short narrow road with speed bumps leading to a school.
My housing estate has a 20 mph speed limit: again, no enforcement results in children not allowed to cross the road to play in the field, pets have been run over. Drivers use our small road to race to the local shops.
Here in Glasgow we have some great recently built by the city segregated routes. The older ones, mainly Sustrains routes, are a bit pants.
Trouble is that a cycling segregated way, shared or not, will immediately be full of broken glass that never gets cleared, will not be gritted or cleared of leaves, ever.
If the facility is on road, it will be full of parked/loading/unloading vehicles.
If it's a paved or gravel path near green spaces, it will be full of dog walkers, dogs not on the leash.
If the facility is on a shared pavement near shops we also have the pedestrians to be aware of, because they certainly aren't!
I am a bit too slow to cycle in heavy traffic, I prefer a segregate route when it's available.

 

[mjr]

You can't complain that the roads are dangerous enough to need cycle paths, and then not use them when you're given them.

But that's not why we say the roads need space for cycling. The safety argument is a contested one and the difference for a cycleway near a carriageway is likely to be small. I argue for them mainly for directness, comfort and attractiveness: it's simply not attractive to ride on any road busy with motor vehicles averaging more than 15mph and we can tell a lot of people agree by the fall in cycling as roads became busier with motor traffic. It's not comfortable to be among the fumes, dust and abuse spewed out by motorists. And where I live, in an area carved up by waterways and railways, cycle routes can be much more direct because a bike bridge will always be cheaper to build than a full road bridge.

I have a better reason for not using them: I don't advocate for them because I accept the evidence I've seen that they are less safe. Most don't.

And you also don't accept the evidence that led to the junction designs in chapter 10 of LTN 1/20.

Is the evidence you've seen the 1980s Lund one, some of Jensen's papers, or what?

Then what? You'll be a captive market, that's what. No need to worry about the quality of the facilities then, because the punters won't have any choice but to use them, no matter how bad they are. Anything will do.

I am confident that if we ever lost the compulsion argument, then we would win the right to either extinguish or avoid bad facilities. Even the European countries with the most compulsion have various exceptions to it and ways to downgrade substandard cycleways to optional.

But I don't think we will lose the forced-use argument any time soon. Motorists aren't compelled to use motorways instead of nearby roads, and horse-riders aren't compelled to use bridleways instead of nearby roads.