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

[classic33]

As explained later on that forum, the poster is referring to a discarded consultation draft. The consultation response was so negative that no such limit was ever advised, probably because it would have resulted in councils building even worse cycleways than usual.

From guidance issued in 2004.
Annex D: Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists

The following key messages are suggested as the basis for a code of conduct notice for cyclists. The code could be posted at points of entry and at intervals along the route. This will be especially useful when the facility is new.

• If a feature segregating cyclists from pedestrians is present, keep to the cyclist's side. This will be indicated on blue and white road signs and by cycle logos on the surface.
• Ride on the left hand side of the area available to you. If you need to overtake another cyclist, give a gentle ring on your bell or say 'Excuse me'.
• When coming up behind pedestrians, always pass them at a safe distance, and slowly enough so that you could avoid them if they made a sudden change in direction.
• Remember that some pedestrians may be hard of hearing or visually impaired and hence might not be aware of you. If in doubt, give a gentle ring on your bell or say 'Excuse me'.
• Always respect pedestrians even if they stray onto the cycling side (if there is one); they are entitled to do so. Always thank people who move out of your way.
• Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.
• Use lights at night.
• In pedestrianised areas, only ride your cycle if there aren't too many pedestrians about; otherwise dismount and push it. When visiting shops etc, park your cycle so that people will not trip over it; use formal cycle parking if available.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives...e/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688

 

[mjr]

From guidance issued in 2004.
Annex D: Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists

https://webarchive.nationalarchives...e/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688

Note the heading. "Archived consultations". Only issued for consultation, it was flamed to a well done crisp for several reasons, not least the speed limit, and never issued as guidance. There is no LTN 2/04 on the current page https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-transport-notes

 

[classic33]

Note the heading. "Archived consultations". Only issued for consultation, it was flamed to a well done crisp for several reasons, not least the speed limit, and never issued as guidance. There is no LTN 2/04 on the current page https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-transport-notes

Well after twenty years I'd expect it to be long forgotten, not archived.
You will note that it does predate your 2015 date given and it does quite clearly state what was said much earlier, by myself, about travelling faster than 18mph and you're expected to be travelling on the roads, not a shared use footpath.

It's been done to death on here, C+(now bikeradar) and the former CTC site, in the intervening twenty years. I believe, but may be wrong that it was in Cycle Craft as well.

 

[mjr]

Well after twenty years I'd expect it to be long forgotten, not archived.

Government archives lots of stuff, although not all online. How can it be forgotten when people keep referring to it as if it was actually issued guidance? It's some words by some officers that failed the laugh test when published for consultation.

You will note that it does predate your 2015 date given and it does quite clearly state what was said much earlier, by myself, about travelling faster than 18mph and you're expected to be travelling on the roads, not a shared use footpath.

So what? It clearly states that but isn't much more official than you stating it. It was never adopted policy, issued guidance or whatever. Annex D was deleted from the issued LTN. Since at least 2004 (if not before: I just don't have the earlier manuals to hand), official guidance was that cycleways (with or without foot use) should be built for 35kph average (which means faster in most places, to compensate for junctions where you must slow).

It's been done to death on here, C+(now bikeradar) and the former CTC site, in the intervening twenty years.

Yes, it's a farking zombie. Some people won't let it die, no matter how often they're told it was only a consultation draft. It's a pretty harmful myth, helping bad councils get away with building for lower speeds (which means worse surfaces, shorter junction sightlines, tighter turns).

I believe, but may be wrong that it was in Cycle Craft as well.

It is not in the Third Impression 2004 that I have here.

 

[mjr]

Who is suggesting a solution with no cycling-specific infrastructure?
I've long since accepted it is necessary to get people cycling. But it's only one piece of the puzzle. I would rather it didn't subject novice cyclists to risks they might not yet be aware of.

I wasn't accusing you of not accepting it's a necessary part of the puzzle, but I've been in stakeholder consultation meetings with cyclists who push for removing cycling-specific infrastructure from projects, people who seem to have swallowed Franklin's spin whole.

You are talking about cycleways. Is this a generic term for cycle lane / cycle track or something else?

A cycleway is a separate way for cycles, like a carriageway is separate from a footway. So a cycle track (which in English law, isn't necessarily alongside a carriageway) is one, but so is a kerbed (sloping or full) or post-protected cycle lane. Much of what people call "shared use pavements" or similar terms that try to hide or minimise cycling are really "a cycleway with a right of way on foot". A with-flow cycle lane that's only paint for its entire length wouldn't normally be a cycleway: paint is not protective and can be taken away pretty easily next time the paint crew pass.

Just because I haven't met a cycleway that I've considered good does not mean I don't believe such a thing can exist.

If you've never experienced a good one, can you advocate for them effectively? Ideally, visit the Netherlands or Denmark, where not everything is good but it's easier to find good. Closer to you, Manchester has the beginnings but some looks incomplete (Trafford Road) while other places seems narrow or compromised (Oxford Road, Chester Road). I guess Boardman and Deegan weren't there long enough or didn't have enough power to get things finished. Birmingham has a few flagship routes which look more complete, such as the A38 from just inside whatever Middleway out to Selly Oak where it degrades into older stuff. Good is not perfect or flawless, of course.

The only thing that has come close in the two localities I often cycle are roads that have been closed to motorised traffic. Oh and a BOAT on a private estate in Shropshire that had an impeccable surface and although it was open to motor traffic, pedestrians and cyclists out numbered motorised vehicles by about 10:1.

Yeah, those are the easiest ways to get decent stuff. Near me, there's an abandoned section of an A road, and the roads through the Holkham Estate are very useful although not all are rights of way and some of the gates are very narrow.

I don't think you are familiar with how many local authorities actually operate. I've had my fill of dealing with local government - in a good number of different capacities - and in three different areas.

Oh, probably not. I've only been campaigning for about 25 years with five district councils, three county councils, two combined authorities and one unitary authority.

I've participated in more consultations for this particular authority than I can count and when you do get the opportunity to challenge councillors they straight up lie.

Some lie. Some don't. The liars don't tend to last as long around here, fortunately. It's far more difficult to deal with councillors who consistently oppose cycling but steadfastly believe they are doing the right thing and cannot be swayed by any evidence to the contrary.

That would be a waste of my time. Most of these reports are now not actioned. I used to report issues to the local authority but I gave that up and now, in my locality at least, I resolve problems in so far as I can myself.

Well, I think that's unsustainable. I do know what you mean because I sometimes cut routes clear, but I feel some time is better spent reporting the problems and then pursuing and publicising the inaction, because just doing it ourselves is basically double-taxation and will never get the authority to fulfil its duty.

I might be willing to cycle on a quiet dual carriageway on a Sunday morning but I'm absolutely not recommending that to anyone else. Please stop making these type of assumptions.

Again, it's not necessarily about you. For example, chapter 2 of Cyclecraft, "Basic cycling skills" contains the lovely advice "Increasing cadence and sprint speed are two of the most positive steps a cyclist can take to enhance safety. A good cadence to aim for is about 80, whilst a sprint speed of 32km/h (20 mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease." Because adding more speed to a complex crash-risk situation always helps(!) 🙄 There are people who have swallowed this shoot and then conclude that any cyclist not capable of 20mph is not competent to cycle and should not be encouraged to do so, so no provision should be made for them or they can put up with awkward shoot which will slow them further and that's OK because any competent cyclist will be on the carriageway anyway....

When asked 'why don't you cycle' we know most adults cite drivers in one way or another. But I think that question is often answered in the same vein that people say they drive because they have to.

Others have covered people feeling they having to drive because bad design has made some of our country that way, which I broadly agree with.

I've found that when asked why they don't cycle, people don't directly cite drivers. In my nearest town, 35% said they're just not interested, 20% preferred to walk (it's a small town), 14% had no bicycle (but that might be linked to the bike theft problem), 14% said the roads are too busy (only 3% fear injury, though), 12% found weather offputting, 8% didn't know the routes or parking.

When a national survey (Sustrans Walking and Cycling Index 2023) asked what would help people to cycle more, 67% want more routes away from roads, 65% want better public transport links including secure station parking, 63% want more protected cycleways, 63% want more quieter street routes, 53% access to home secure cycle storage, 53% access to a bicycle, 47% access to a cycle hire scheme, 45% access to an e-bike, 42% cycle training and organised rides, 34% access to a cargo bike, 25% access to an adapted cycle.

However, when asked directly whether fewer motor vehicles would help them to cycle more, 59% agreed. And 71% think that streets are currently dominated by motor vehicles. Maybe people are just reluctant to appear "anti-car" now because of all the guff from Sunak's leaders?

Hearts and minds have to be won, to get more people cycling. Public highways should be designed to make it as safe as possible - I'd like to see more LTNs, more road space taken away from motorised vehicles, clamp downs on on-street/pavement/cyclelane parking, and road designs that give more efficient and less impactful transport higher priority over less efficient and more impactful transport.

Great. How?

Campaigns should be run by local authorities, offering (in no particular order) free bike checks, cycle training and guided rides to show people where the less obvious cycling infrastructure is. Town Centre's should be closed to motorised traffic one day a month (yeah that'll go down like a lead balloon).

Bicycle checks, offers of training, guided rides? Yeah, that happens near me. https://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/new...on_spring_active_and_sustainable_travel_event

As for closed to motorised traffic, that depends what you mean by "town centre". Lynn's very centre has been closed to motorists since the early 1980s. Sadly, it's also closed to cyclists and we're expected to go play on the A148 with only a little infrastructure mostly from the 1990s. Yeah, no.

Campaigns of checks, training, maps, rides and so on are fairly easy, with few willing to argue against them except on monetary grounds, but that's necessary but not sufficient. We also need some infrastructure too: signs putting up and maintaining, gaps in the network filled somehow (new cycleways, old roads closed to through motors, I don't much mind how), the dodgy old shoot fixing, secure parking expanded instead of being ripped out at the drop of a hat every single time and it being a struggle to even keep what was there. There's at least plans for this now in most of our area, through the Local Cycling and Walking Implementation Plans (LCWIPs), but actually getting the stuff in those plans built in the priority order still needs more pushing.

It's relatively cheap which makes it annoying to see millions spaffed up the wall on motoring vanity projects, like a hilltop multi-storey car park that will loom over the entrance to an ex-council estate for decades to come. Maybe the next UK government will have saner transport spending priorities.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Chapter 2 of Cyclecraft, "Basic cycling skills" contains the lovely advice "Increasing cadence and sprint speed are two of the most positive steps a cyclist can take to enhance safety. A good cadence to aim for is about 80, whilst a sprint speed of 32km/h (20 mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease."

That's really quite shocking. The bit about cadence is just irrelevant hogwash, and the bit about speed is outright stupid.

I'm quite glad I've never read Cyclecraft.

 

[mjr]

I'm quite glad I've never read Cyclecraft.

My excerpts are not the whole story. It does contain a lot of good coping strategies for carriageway cycling too! Sadly, the politics of the typical 80s/90s club hard man seem to pop up often and are best ignored, else "wobblies and gimps" (not Franklin, but British Cycling's Shane Sutton) would never ride.

I should check his later book and see if he toned down the ableism, but there's no apology or retractions on his website which is proudly named cyclecraft too.

 

[presta]

When most drivers are also cyclists the distinction fades and ceases to be a problem.

I was anticipating that would be the case.

They do, you just need to reallocate the space almost exclusively engineered for wider and wider vehicles. Politically they won’t do it, as they want to be populist vote. Many existing roads could be made single lane one ways for motorised traffic and equal space provision for walking and cycling each way.

What you're describing amounts to getting cars off existing roads, which is what I've been advocating all along. Get people out of their cars and leave them to choose their own alternative rather than spending a lot of money trying to cram inadequate cycle paths into places where there isn't room. For all their cycle paths and cycle use, the Dutch drive just as much as we do, so bikes have just added to the total transport burden rather than relieving some of it.

Stevenage and the Netherlands alike: give people cheap cars and good roads, and they'll use them.

 

[steveindenmark]

Do other countries have the same degree of feuding between motorists & cyclists?

Shared space. I'm all for that.

"for many, life would not be liveable without their car.....stop local councils using so-called 15-minute cities”
The reason life isn't liveable without a car is that we've spent the last century constructing an environment where a car is necessary. Motorists want to have their cake and eat it: they insist they can't manage without a car, at the same time as denying that those without a car are being disadvantaged. (I travelled 15 miles for a vaccine because the local one wasn't accessible on foot/bus.)

Unless we deal with the cars. Shared space, low traffic networks, better public transport, amenities accessible without a car. At the moment we're still building communities that force car use.

It never ceases to surprise me the number of cyclists who just have no idea how much energy is wasted by being repeatedly forced to stop or slow down for drives, entrances, side roads etc. At 12mph, stopping just once every 100m doubles your energy consumption. I can see myself taking 'unnecessary' risks on cycle paths rather than keep deferring to side roads, so I'm damned sure that the research Franklin cites showing that cycle paths increase accident risk at junctions is spot on. Yes, you can give cyclists priority in theory, but you're still risking your life if you assume drivers will respect it in practice. Or you can just carry on slowing down every time, and let the motorists rely on you doing so.


Cycle paths never will be as clear as roads, because they don't have the same volume of wheels running over them to disperse the debris. Grit on a road quickly migrates into the gutter.


Stevenage is another example of a would-be cycling utopia that never materialised. Cycling levels are the same as the national average, because Claxton defeated the need for cycles by making Stevenage too easy to travel by car. The cycling proponent shot himself in the foot. Like gold plating brooms in the hope of selling them to people who have vacuum cleaners that you've already given them for free.


What is the attitude to cyclists in Germany though? If attitudes are different, the resources needed for enforcement will be different too.


But the majority of towns don't have huge areas of empty space just waiting to be converted into cycle motorways that go from A to B in a straight line. There's a pleasant cycle/foot path through the park near here, but it goes from nowhere to nowhere, and creates a detour for nothing, whereas if I want to go into town, the direct route is along a straight Roman road that has no room for cycle paths. (Just recently, a short 130m stretch in the town centre has had a cycle path added to allow bikes to contraflow a one way section rather than go the long way round. That's OK, and not before time after 30 odd years.)


The list on Franklins website. I read all the ones that are open access, and they say what he claims they say.


Because they go the long way round.


Exactly. People stopped cycling because they preferred the comfort, convenience, speed, and prestige of a car. Just as many stopped using Youth Hostels when they could afford better.


Walkers don't get up the noses of motorists.


The Netherlands was reportedly the inspiration for the cycle path network in Stevenage, and that was designed in 1946.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

trying to cram inadequate cycle paths into places where there isn't room.

There is room they are just trying to cram inefficient vehicles into the space. You can move more people by removing the cars from the space. There’s plenty of room, it is just that the choice was made to fill it with cars.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

A cycleway is a separate way for cycles, like a carriageway is separate from a footway. So a cycle track (which in English law, isn't necessarily alongside a carriageway) is one, but so is a kerbed (sloping or full) or post-protected cycle lane. Much of what people call "shared use pavements" or similar terms that try to hide or minimise cycling are really "a cycleway with a right of way on foot". A with-flow cycle lane that's only paint for its entire length wouldn't normally be a cycleway: paint is not protective and can be taken away pretty easily next time the paint crew pass.

or "a footpath with a right of way en velo" ?

If you've never experienced a good one, can you advocate for them effectively? Ideally, visit the Netherlands or Denmark, where not everything is good but it's easier to find good. Closer to you, Manchester has the beginnings but some looks incomplete (Trafford Road) while other places seems narrow or compromised (Oxford Road, Chester Road). I guess Boardman and Deegan weren't there long enough or didn't have enough power to get things finished. Birmingham has a few flagship routes which look more complete, such as the A38 from just inside whatever Middleway out to Selly Oak where it degrades into older stuff. Good is not perfect or flawless, of course.

I don't advocate for cycleways. I don't advocate for on-road cycling. I advocate for cycling. It is the most logical and reasonable choice of transport in so many circumstances, where as the private motorcar is not. Beyond that, what matters to me is that people can cycle as unhindered and safely as possible without impinging on the freedoms or safety of anyone else not operating heavy machinery in public spaces.

I'd love to see a world where walking, cycling and public transport are used in preference to private cars.

I'd need a better reason to travel abroad. I was involved with Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign but moved away after the Oxford Road Corridor scheme was implemented.

Yeah, those are the easiest ways to get decent stuff. Near me, there's an abandoned section of an A road, and the roads through the Holkham Estate are very useful although not all are rights of way and some of the gates are very narrow.

I only found one of them via Komoot and the next leg of the route I'd planned wanted to take me along a private driveway - that sadly meant a considerable detour along a busy A road which would have been preferable to avoid.

Oh, probably not. I've only been campaigning for about 25 years with five district councils, three county councils, two combined authorities and one unitary authority.


Some lie. Some don't. The liars don't tend to last as long around here, fortunately. It's far more difficult to deal with councillors who consistently oppose cycling but steadfastly believe they are doing the right thing and cannot be swayed by any evidence to the contrary.

I've been using guarded terms to stop the thread getting overly political. I've lost the will to deal with local politicians now, with literally two exceptions.

Well, I think that's unsustainable. I do know what you mean because I sometimes cut routes clear, but I feel some time is better spent reporting the problems and then pursuing and publicising the inaction, because just doing it ourselves is basically double-taxation and will never get the authority to fulfil its duty.

I hear what you are saying and if reports resulted in action, I'd get straight back on that. The LA is now doing the absolute bare minimum it can get away with. Continually reporting problems is equally unsustainable. If I go out and clear back some hedgerows, at some people are able to make their way unhindered.

Again, it's not necessarily about you. For example, chapter 2 of Cyclecraft, "Basic cycling skills" contains the lovely advice "Increasing cadence and sprint speed are two of the most positive steps a cyclist can take to enhance safety. A good cadence to aim for is about 80, whilst a sprint speed of 32km/h (20 mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease." Because adding more speed to a complex crash-risk situation always helps(!) 🙄 There are people who have swallowed this shoot and then conclude that any cyclist not capable of 20mph is not competent to cycle and should not be encouraged to do so, so no provision should be made for them or they can put up with awkward shoot which will slow them further and that's OK because any competent cyclist will be on the carriageway anyway....

The thing is, I fully appreciate where that advice comes from. It's sprinting away from traffic lights when there is no cycle gate and no advanced stop line and getting clear of the junction before the motorised vehicles have gained momentum. It also means you can get out ahead where you are more easily seen - after phone drivers have stopped checking twitter to resume their journey. Some might say it is ableist - and again, this is why we need roads designed for pedestrians and cyclists as well as cycleways. If you a person does choose to cycle on the road, where there are no provisions, it is a useful ability to have. It shouldn't be regarded as essential because drivers are expected to be attentive and drive with care and consideration. And It's not much fun (and quite positively dangerous) when your freewheel chooses not to engage and you get dumped on the road 🤦‍♂️

Others have covered people feeling they having to drive because bad design has made some of our country that way, which I broadly agree with.

I've found that when asked why they don't cycle, people don't directly cite drivers. In my nearest town, 35% said they're just not interested, 20% preferred to walk (it's a small town), 14% had no bicycle (but that might be linked to the bike theft problem), 14% said the roads are too busy (only 3% fear injury, though), 12% found weather offputting, 8% didn't know the routes or parking.

When a national survey (Sustrans Walking and Cycling Index 2023) asked what would help people to cycle more, 67% want more routes away from roads, 65% want better public transport links including secure station parking, 63% want more protected cycleways, 63% want more quieter street routes, 53% access to home secure cycle storage, 53% access to a bicycle, 47% access to a cycle hire scheme, 45% access to an e-bike, 42% cycle training and organised rides, 34% access to a cargo bike, 25% access to an adapted cycle.

However, when asked directly whether fewer motor vehicles would help them to cycle more, 59% agreed. And 71% think that streets are currently dominated by motor vehicles. Maybe people are just reluctant to appear "anti-car" now because of all the guff from Sunak's leaders?

I'm paraphrasing because I can't be arsed to go back and quote from specific studies. What I was getting at is there is a body of evidence that supports people not cycling because they feel roads a dangerous, at least in response to surveys. I'm over a decade out of date so I don't think it's just the guff from the current leader of the day's Government.

Bicycle checks, offers of training, guided rides? Yeah, that happens near me. https://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/new...on_spring_active_and_sustainable_travel_event

As for closed to motorised traffic, that depends what you mean by "town centre". Lynn's very centre has been closed to motorists since the early 1980s. Sadly, it's also closed to cyclists and we're expected to go play on the A148 with only a little infrastructure mostly from the 1990s. Yeah, no.

I really mean the town centre and it surrounds. In small towns, possibly the entire town save for through routes. Same situation here in respect to pedestrianised town centre.

Campaigns of checks, training, maps, rides and so on are fairly easy, with few willing to argue against them except on monetary grounds, but that's necessary but not sufficient. We also need some infrastructure too: signs putting up and maintaining, gaps in the network filled somehow (new cycleways, old roads closed to through motors, I don't much mind how), the dodgy old shoot fixing, secure parking expanded instead of being ripped out at the drop of a hat every single time and it being a struggle to even keep what was there. There's at least plans for this now in most of our area, through the Local Cycling and Walking Implementation Plans (LCWIPs), but actually getting the stuff in those plans built in the priority order still needs more pushing.

It's relatively cheap which makes it annoying to see millions spaffed up the wall on motoring vanity projects, like a hilltop multi-storey car park that will loom over the entrance to an ex-council estate for decades to come. Maybe the next UK government will have saner transport spending priorities.

I think some well crafted social media campaigns would also not go amiss. Both at local (specific) and national (general) level.

 

[presta]

There is room they are just trying to cram inefficient vehicles into the space. You can move more people by removing the cars from the space. There’s plenty of room, it is just that the choice was made to fill it with cars.

View attachment 731097

Which is precisely the point I am making. What are you trying to contradict?

You've deliberately misquoted me just to be argumentative:

What you're describing amounts to getting cars off existing roads, which is what I've been advocating all along. Get people out of their cars and leave them to choose their own alternative rather than spending a lot of money trying to cram inadequate cycle paths into places where there isn't room.

 

[mjr]

What you're describing amounts to getting cars off existing roads, which is what I've been advocating all along. Get people out of their cars and leave them to choose their own alternative rather than spending a lot of money trying to cram inadequate cycle paths into places where there isn't room.

Does this mean you would support adequate cycle paths (or even good ones) in places where room is freed by getting people out of their cars?

Because if you just leave the space totally unrestricted, motorists will normally hog it all sooner or later, as demonstrated in so many failed "Shared Space" attempts over the years. If motorists can access a road, if they don't drive on all of it, then they'll park on the rest, leaving nothing for walkers or riders.

 

[classic33]

Does this mean you would support adequate cycle paths (or even good ones) in places where room is freed by getting people out of their cars?

Because if you just leave the space totally unrestricted, motorists will normally hog it all sooner or later, as demonstrated in so many failed "Shared Space" attempts over the years. If motorists can access a road, if they don't drive on all of it, then they'll park on the rest, leaving nothing for walkers or riders.

Why would the first, getting drivers out of cars, mean that the only option is that their cars still take over the roads.

If the drivers are out of their cars, how are they now moving around. On foot, public transport, or maybe even increasing the number of cycles on the roads. In the last case, there's the chance that "tipping point"* may be reached.

*The number of people cycling on the roads increases to the point at which they're on the roads in near equal numbers.

 

[Richard Fairhurst]

I’m honestly amazed it’s 2024 and there are still people defending John Franklin.