Segregated, none-broken, cycle lanes on all A roads by 2020

[middleagecyclist]

That is not exclusion. That is not being given things exactly as you want.

I say de facto exclusion, you say not being given things exactly as you want. The end result is still the same. Some cyclists/potential cyclists are not prepared to use those particular roads. How do you address that?

 

[middleagecyclist]

Semantics. Either way Police Officers decided that a cyclist should not be on the road and a judge agreed with them. It was the presence of the cycle path that brought this thinking about. Get rid of the problem so we don't have to worry about it.

The argument could equally be made to get rid of the cyclists and then the problem will not occur. You wouldn't agree with that though would you? The interpretation of the law was incorrect. The cycle path was blameless. Why should it suffer?

 

[middleagecyclist]

Personally I would exclude more drivers and have a presumed civil liability regime.

Reducing motorised traffic certainly has its place. How should I go about doing this on the A1 nr Morpeth which I avoid cycling on despite it offering the most direct route for some of my journeys?

 

[middleagecyclist]

As above that is not excluded, that is not having things as you want them.

Adrian. Just repeating this does not answer the point. Stop playing semantics/pedantics and tell us how you would encourage more cyclists to use A road NSL DCs that have no cycle provision. Thanks.

 

[srw]

Reducing motorised traffic certainly has its place. How should I go about doing this on the A1 nr Morpeth which I avoid cycling on despite it offering the most direct route for some of my journeys?

Those short sections (a few hundred yards I make it) where there is no nearby alternative - like the old pre-dual-carriageway A1 - are exactly the sort of roads which would benefit from a good quality cycle path.

[edit]
I'm tempted to say MTFU and JFDI. As long as they're not excessively busy my experience of dual carriageways is that they're an awful lot less intimidating than I think they're going to be. I don't think that's a full solution - this is exactly the sort of road where additional paths for cyclists, horseriders and pedestrians would be useful.

 

[middleagecyclist]

You don't think that you might be being a touch silly here?

Only as silly as your suggestion that getting rid of segregated cycle ways would also get rid of the problem.

 

[middleagecyclist]

Those short sections (a few hundred yards I make it) where there is no nearby alternative - like the old pre-dual-carriageway A1 - are exactly the sort of roads which would benefit from a good quality cycle path.

This ^^^^. Hurrah!

 

[srw]

Only as silly as your suggestion that getting rid of segregated cycle ways would also get rid of the problem.

There are certainly some segregated cycle ways which are a problem. For two reasons - because numpties think they're safe and convenient and should be used, and because they're utterly shite. My understanding is that the one that kicked off this latest spat (the one in Telford) is both shite and inconvenient.

 

[middleagecyclist]

As long as they're not excessively busy my experience of dual carriageways is that they're an awful lot less intimidating than I think they're going to be.

And what about when they are excessively busy? Maybe give them a miss and use a longer alternative because they don't offer exactly what is wanted? Exclusion by another name is still exclusion me thinks.

I don't think that's a full solution - this is exactly the sort of road where additional paths for cyclists, horseriders and pedestrians would be useful.

I totally agree with you. This is just the type of road where I think segregated cycle paths should be encouraged.

 

[middleagecyclist]

I am not just repeating it, I am repeating it because Mr Paul repeated the opposing view.
If you care to scroll up a few posts #127 you could read my preferred options.

And I refer you post #129 and note I still await an answer.

 

[middleagecyclist]

There are certainly some segregated cycle ways which are a problem...

I agree. We should insist on decent infrastructure. Just because I would welcome some segregation does not mean I am blind to the crap farcilities we have at present.

 

[middleagecyclist]

The argument isn't over segregation outside the urban area, where there is generally room to spare...The argument is whether segregation is required where space is more contested, and the costs rather higher....

This may not be the argument as you and I see it but I also see some people who oppose segregation in any shape or form as the start of the end for cyclists right to the road. Well, if that road happens to be a 70+mph DC with a high density of traffic on it then count me out thank you very much. I will exclude myself.

 

[middleagecyclist]

...and I am not going to concern myself with your specific route.

I have given you an actual road and asked you to tell me how you would encourage cyclists to use it. Perhaps I should just use your example of avoiding something when there is not the willingness to face it and just go and find another route instead?

 

[dellzeqq]

In Britain we always come up with hundreds of (usually crap) reasons why we can't get stuff done (unless its more bloody roads of course). I sometimes wish we'd just get on with it.

and sometimes we come up with good reasons why crap shouldn't be done. As in cycle paths.

 

[dellzeqq]

Flippant 'ell. Sorry I attempted to be lighthearted. Better go and dig out my tape measure and get you some stats and a plan or two.

show us the drawing