That worthless and dangerous cycling infrastructure

[Richard Mann]

What Hembrow was doing was pointing out out how the Netherlands changed street design to a less car-centric model.

That's a bit ahistorical. They upgraded pre-existing cycle tracks to make room for cars. Subsequently they've moved to a less car-centric model, but starting from a rather different road-form and urban-form.

As I've said several pages of posts before: as far as I'm concerned (dell must on holiday) other ideas are more than welcome. Show us how it's politically, financially and spatially viable.

 

[SavageHoutkop]

That's not correct. On Botley Road, most cyclists use the lane most of the time.

Agree wholeheartedly; I used to use that regularly when I lived out that way. It's actually wide enough. Not sure what the alleged problem with it is. Most certainly suited my riding style and I'd go so far as to say it's necessary for those who are less stable; of which there are many in Oxford. I don't think I ever noticed cyclists not using that lane. Later, when it jumps onto the pavement, perhaps.

I haven't yet read through the whole tome of this thread, but can say that the cycle lanes provided along Botley Road are most certainly the most pleasant place to be. Indeed, in traffic they are the best place to be as the traffic is usually stationary where the cycle lane is moving. I'm far less fond of the on-pavement bit a bit further on; but it still does the job.

 

[jonesy]

I'm not sure that Crossrail is that irrelevant, given that it will at least provide some extra capacity, and have stations at Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road.

And on the cycling thing - well, they probably won't allow it if we all sit back and be defeatist about it.

Only a small minority of the trips served by Crossrail will be within the distances typical of mass cycling, so it is largely irrelevant to this discussion. Moving the buses out of parts of Oxford St simply means more buses elsewhere, the problem of how you provide for buses while trying introduce widespread Dutch or Danish style segregation for cyclists doesn't go away. London has a very high modal share for bus travel, and it is naive to think that this can be shifted onto either rail or cycling. The rail network is already congested, and still doesn't serve all the places served by buses. While cycling can overlap to some extent in travel distances with bus, they still extend to distances beyond where cycling gains a large modal share even in Denmark, and cycling isn't for everybody. So buses have to remain a large part of the modal mix, and that has signficant implications for the practicability of segregated cycling infrastructure.

 

[Red Light]

You can write it off as fantasy and make as many sniffy, 'glass is half empty' comments as much as you like but they did it.

To a degree. But as Hembrow says, it all happened over 15 years* and if you look at Dutch cycling in the past 15 years it hasn't increased. And minority groups that traditionally haven't cycled are not cycling any more as a result. In fact it hasn't changed for the past 30 years and if anything its dropped if you take into account population growth. Whatever the reasons are for the Dutch cycling so much they were there before any of this happened.



*Actually more like 25 years since the start of the Bicycle Master Plan.

 

[TheJollyJimLad]

Only a small minority of the trips served by Crossrail will be within the distances typical of mass cycling, so it is largely irrelevant to this discussion. Moving the buses out of parts of Oxford St simply means more buses elsewhere, the problem of how you provide for buses while trying introduce widespread Dutch or Danish style segregation for cyclists doesn't go away. London has a very high modal share for bus travel, and it is naive to think that this can be shifted onto either rail or cycling. The rail network is already congested, and still doesn't serve all the places served by buses. While cycling can overlap to some extent in travel distances with bus, they still extend to distances beyond where cycling gains a large modal share even in Denmark, and cycling isn't for everybody. So buses have to remain a large part of the modal mix, and that has signficant implications for the practicability of segregated cycling infrastructure.

And now the conversation mooches on to bus movements. And who said 'Dutch' always has to mean 'segregation'? Even the Dutch would say that's a stupid idea.

 

[jonesy]

And now the conversation mooches on to bus movements. And who said 'Dutch' always has to mean 'segregation'? Even the Dutch would say that's a stupid idea.

Not me. I didn't say Dutch = segregation, I said "Dutch style segregation". So we don't have to have that argument.

But sorry, you can't ignore the buses in any discussion about what changes you might make to a London street.

 

[TheJollyJimLad]

To a degree. But as Hembrow says, it all happened over 15 years* and if you look at Dutch cycling in the past 15 years it hasn't increased. And minority groups that traditionally haven't cycled are not cycling any more as a result. In fact it hasn't changed for the past 30 years and if anything its dropped if you take into account population growth. Whatever the reasons are for the Dutch cycling so much they were there before any of this happened.

[attachment=4783:Screen Shot 2011-08-18 at 14.36.42.png]

*Actually more like 25 years since the start of the Bicycle Master Plan.

That graph shows kilometers of cycling per person per day. The amount of people actually cycling has still risen over 30 years. The whole lot puts the UK very much to shame.

 

[Richard Mann]

If that is the case why is the cycle lane in the Botley Rd photos ^ so narrow and the other lane so wide? Just looking at the red car and the one further down the road by the central island they have loads of width whereas bikes have a narrow lane squashed up into the door zone.

The traffic lane is generally 3m (buses are about 2.5m, so it starts getting difficult to get a lot lower than that, if you want them to stay in their lane). There's a few places where the traffic lane gets a bit wider than that, but not for very long.

Yes it would probably be better if the cycle lane was slightly wider and the traffic lane was slightly narrower. Traffic lanes under 3m are distinctly new territory in the UK, and the County were very hostile to the idea back in the late nineties when this scheme went in.

Keeping the traffic lane wider than a bus means they stay in their lane, which could well be better than having them overlap into the cycle lane. Since it's the large vehicles that are the biggest problem for cyclists, I'd be worried about letting them off the leash.

 

[Red Light]

That graph shows kilometers of cycling per person per day. The amount of people actually cycling has still risen over 30 years. The whole lot puts the UK very much to shame.

Sorry wrong graph but same conclusion. If the amount of people cycling has increased then it means individuals are cycling less. Whichever way you look at it there has been no significant change in the amount of cycling and the current cycling levels today are basically determined by what the cycling levels were in 1975



From Cycling in the Netherlands 2009

 

[Richard Mann]

Sorry wrong graph but same conclusion. If the amount of people cycling has increased then it means individuals are cycling less. Whichever way you look at it there has been no significant change in the amount of cycling and the current cycling levels today are basically determined by what the cycling levels were in 1975

[attachment=4784:Screen Shot 2011-08-18 at 15.39.12.png]

From Cycling in the Netherlands 2009

Amsterdam only went up from 26% to 37% (or thereabouts).

 

[SavageHoutkop]

That width of cycle lane goes most of the way into the city on Abingdon Rd. Here it is much further in, complete with drain cover taking up half its width.
So I was right, any cycle lane is better than no cycle lane.

Again, I used to live down that street. That cycle lane is plenty wide enough, and the road surface there is actually pretty good.
That road is IIRC 30mph; and usually stuck to (aside from late night boy racers).

I certainly prefer having that lane to what it would be like if the lane wasn't there. This is probably not helped by the pedestrian islands in the middle of the road.

 

[SavageHoutkop]

In that one, with the traffic as shown, I would want to be in the centre of the lane with the oncoming truck there and the side road to the left. The cycle lane goes across the mouth of the side road, and I would be outside of it when passing that side road in any circumstances. The door opening zone of the parked cars extends to the solid white line of the cycle lane, so I would be outside of the cycle lane there, and I would be taking the centre of the lane in the approach to the pedestrian refuge, given the pavement extension that immediately precedes it.

I would expect to get drivers regularly blasting their horns behind me and pointing to the bad cycle lane in both these cases, which really does make the journey rather unpleasant.

Something is not better than nothing when it causes these problems.

Those parking spots aren't very frequent movers and the space there is usually more than sufficient to prevent a dooring. I've never had a cycle lane comment or a hoot on this stretch of road. Cars are not normally going very fast here.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Those parking spots aren't very frequent movers and the space there is usually more than sufficient to prevent a dooring. I've never had a cycle lane comment or a hoot on this stretch of road. Cars are not normally going very fast here.

Well, 2 door cars have doors that extend as far as 1.3m. I generally try to stay 1.5 clear metres away, which I think would put me just outside the cycle lane.

What you seem to be saying is that this road is OK to cycle along because traffic is slow and drivers tend to be civil there, not because there is a cycle lane.

 

[Mad at urage]

Yes it's part of a grander scheme to slow the traffic. That's what makes it work. It also has some side benefits, like being pretty popular.

Given that reduction in traffic speed, I'm also concerned to make the cycle lanes feel comfortable, and minimise the safety issues that remain (having reduced the speed). That seems to be roughly what the bulk of existing and potential cyclists want. So it's cycle lanes, as long as they're as comfortable and as safe as reasonably practical. I wouldn't describe that as "no matter how crap"; I certainly think there's some constraint. "Crap" is such a vague term.

"No matter how crap" was the phrase you challenged a response to, the vagueness of the phrase I countered by specifying why they are crap. To reiterate:
They put the riders in the door zone (unless they ride out of the lane) - contrary to any modern safe-cycle training practice.
They are (in many cases as shown by the links posted by others) far too narrow. Certainly they are narrower than accepted good practice, many appear to be barely handlebar width. This encourages close overtakes with the motor vehicle not deviating from their line in their 'designated lane'.
They put cyclists in the most dangerous place at road junctions. Some even divert slightly into the road mouth at the junction! Whilst continuous, this puts the cyclist out of the sightline of most motorists and encourages left-hooks, pull-outs and all the ways motorists can take us out (unless cyclists ride out of the lane). Again this is contrary to modern safe-cycle training practice.
They encourage the idea that cyclists do not belong on the road.

You justify these crap lanes because it slows the traffic, so you appear to be happy to allow "any lane, no matter how crap": An overtaking lorry or bus doesn't have to be moving fast to crush a cyclist under its wheels. These lanes are not safer for cyclists. Other means can and should be used to narrow the roads and slow traffic, not using cyclists as the scapegoat. When traffic speed is reduced (even if that is simply caused by congestion), cycling becomes much safer outside of cycle lanes.

 

[Red Light]

Amsterdam only went up from 26% to 37% (or thereabouts).

And cycling in Manchester doubled.