That worthless and dangerous cycling infrastructure

[blockend]

So what provision do we make on country lanes, where you 2x speed ratio is comfortably exceeded (comfortably in the sense of "by some margin" as opposed to anything at all comfortable)? Do we buy strips of land to create parallel cycle routes or do we tell the people there "Sorry it's for the bold and experienced only. You can drive, catch the daily bus, or man up and get on with it"?

It depends on the lane obviously. Those in Lincolnshire or South Shropshire with grass up the middle aren't really an issue as the traffic volume is negligible, some in Essex or the Manchester suburbs I can think of are rural race tracks and the answer is to enforce low speeds. How one does this is problematic without environmentally intrusive monitoring devices or chipped vehicle regulators. At any rate, such lanes are generally an extension to suburban A and B roads where such driving is the norm, so I believe those are the ones that need tackling first.

 

[MartinC]

I find this whole discussion totally confusing. Is it a rehash of the old segregation v, integration argument? Is it a proposal that any cycling infrastucture is a good thing (as per the OP)? Or is is it a discussion of what types of infrastructure should be created? Or, again, is it a discussion of how we encourage more cycling? No-one seems to know. It looks like it's degenerated into a useless argument

 

[snorri]

If we do not promote universal low speeds we must accept cycle tracks are the answer to cycling safely. That leads to accusations of 'separationism'. What works safely in cities should either be extended to the country as whole, or we have to accept that some roads are inherently dangerous. These discussions usually involve someone asking a 'where does it say we should' type question which hides the competing desires of city cyclists, leisure users, time trialists and so on, each with an axe to grind.
In short, I'm suggesting how it is now is roughly as good as it gets

Well, I find your last sentence rather defeatist, and would quite happily ideal with accusations of separationism, city cyclists by definition are not on rural roads, leisure users appear to be quite happy with segregation, leaving only sport cyclists opposed . To what extent should we be allowing the interests of a few sport cyclists to limit opportunities for the rest of the population to enjoy some diversity on our national transport network?

 

[blockend]

My responses are to the OP point. His data suggests cycle lanes increase rider safety in some circumstances. I agree with him in the absence of motor vehicle speeds being brought down nationally, which is unlikely. The debate centres around the extent to which cycle lanes/tracks are acceptable to those pushing the utility cycling agenda, as there are no touring and leisure cycle campaigns that amount to anything.

 

[blockend]

The reason I emphasised the cycling 'enthusiast' angle is because they're the ones most likely to prioritise freedom to use the roads over absolute safety, indeed would argue there is no absolute safety. That freedom includes the right to mix with cars travelling at 60 mph in close proximity, which is a sufficient turn off to widespread on-road leisure cycling take up IMO. The question is whether it matters what such cyclists think. Speaking as one of them I'm aware of a tension between what I enjoy and promotion of that activity as a safe one. I'd encourage anyone to do it, so long as they're aware of its constant and manifest dangers.

 

[snorri]

Bollocks are we.

Woops

My comment was based on personal observation, I had thought the objection came from high speed cyclists rather than leisure cyclists, but welcome an expansion of your reply.

 

[MartinC]

cycle lanes increase rider safety in some circumstances

A very worthy but very anodyne conclusion. So let's have some cycle lanes. Ah! We have already so the problem is solved.

A facile point but it illustrates that everyone is operating within their own set of definitions. Exactly what sort of cycling infrastucture are we talking about?

I'm still having trouble deciding whether I'm a city, rural, sport, leisure, utility or enthusiast cyclist (or even some other sort), Presumably someone will be along to tell me shortly.

 

[snorri]

. That freedom includes the right to mix with cars travelling at 60 mph in close proximity, which is a sufficient turn off to widespread on-road leisure cycling take up IMO.

More importantly it is a turn off to the take up of utility cycling. Whilst mixing it can be acceptable for leisure cycling under certain conditions of weather and light, it is unattractive for regular utility usage.

 

[Red Light]

It does indeed. I'm not persuaded there's a one-size-fits-all solution to integrating bicycles and motor vehicles on Britain's roads. If one suggests some roads are simply too dangerous to ride on safely the answer is to bring speeds down. If we accept that we necessarily assume any road on which a cyclist is legally able to travel must carry a survivable impact speed.

But your whole premise is a house of cards built on shaky foundations. And that is the premise that cycling is exceptionally dangerous. There is about one death for every 40 million km cycled. An enthusiastic cyclist might do 4,000km a year. Its going to take them 10,000 years of cycling at that rate before they are likely to suffer a fatal injury. Serious injuries are more frequent but the vast majority of serious injuries are not life changing. Yes some cyclists do get killed and seriously injured just as some people win the lottery and some people get killed by lumps of ice falling off aircraft. But its rare...extremely rare and we need to get away from being driven in our daily activity by exceptionally rare events and get on with living it instead.

 

[Dan B]

More importantly it is a turn off to the take up of utility cycling. Whilst mixing it can be acceptable for leisure cycling under certain conditions of weather and light, it is unattractive for regular utility usage.

Why do you say the utility cyclists are more important? I'd suggest that anyone prepared to mix it with traffic for a non-essential journey is more not less likely to entertain the same idea for a trip they actually have to make. If you're a leisure cyclist you actually want to enjoy it, whereas a utility cyclist will accept a trip that's merely tolerable.


(Unless I'm missing something important then this is a side issue to the main point, I think, so don't view this as a call to expend considerable effort on your reply)

 

[blockend]

But your whole premise is a house of cards built on shaky foundations. And that is the premise that cycling is exceptionally dangerous. There is about one death for every 40 million km cycled. An enthusiastic cyclist might do 4,000km a year. Its going to take them 10,000 years of cycling at that rate before they are likely to suffer a fatal injury. Serious injuries are more frequent but the vast majority of serious injuries are not life changing. Yes some cyclists do get killed and seriously injured just as some people win the lottery and some people get killed by lumps of ice falling off aircraft. But its rare...extremely rare and we need to get away from being driven in our daily activity by exceptionally rare events and get on with living it instead.

On the other hand I used to ride with a club in which most riders had accidents that had seen them hospitalised at some point and a couple of members had been killed. I never stated that cycling was exceptionally dangerous - base jumping and free climbing fit that bill - I said there was constant and immanent danger most of which is beyond the rider's control. Enough danger to put the majority of people off cycling on main roads and many regular cyclists to avoid them whenever possible.

 

[blockend]

But your whole premise is a house of cards built on shaky foundations. And that is the premise that cycling is exceptionally dangerous. There is about one death for every 40 million km cycled. An enthusiastic cyclist might do 4,000km a year. Its going to take them 10,000 years of cycling at that rate before they are likely to suffer a fatal injury. Serious injuries are more frequent but the vast majority of serious injuries are not life changing. Yes some cyclists do get killed and seriously injured just as some people win the lottery and some people get killed by lumps of ice falling off aircraft. But its rare...extremely rare and we need to get away from being driven in our daily activity by exceptionally rare events and get on with living it instead.

On the other hand I used to ride with a club in which most riders had accidents that had seen them hospitalised at some point and a couple of members had been killed. I never stated that cycling was exceptionally dangerous - base jumping and free climbing fit that bill - I said there was constant and immanent danger most of which is beyond the rider's control. Enough danger to put the majority of people off cycling on main roads and many regular cyclists to avoid them whenever possible.

 

[MartinC]

But your whole premise is a house of cards built on shaky foundations. And that is the premise that cycling is exceptionally dangerous.

This is one of the contradictions. There's a perception that cycling is dangerous and this needs to be overcome to increase the take up of cycling. When you've reached critical mass with take up then this perception disappears. Cycling infrastucture one way but not the only one to overcome this. Other things may be more achievable and beneficial in the long term.

To me one of the biggest barriers to cycling in the UK is the attitude of Drivers. Cycling infrastructure doesn't address this and, arguably, reinforces bad attitudes and is thus counter productive.

We can't have total segregation - I can't even get a bike out of my garage without using a space shared with cars. Cycling infrastucture to circumvent really cyclist unfriendly features (eg. tunnels at large roundabouts) is a good idea in my book. Arguing for across the board segregation isn't.

 

[Red Light]

We could have near total segregation. Cut and cover tunnel the roads and stick all through traffic down there. This leaves the above ground for people and motorists (I draw the distinction because the act of driving tends to dehumanize people and is the fundamental problem) making end parts of journeys at walking pace.
Would that work for everyone?

Cue Boston's Big Dig which did exactly that through Downtown Boston. Only cost them $14.6Bn for 3.5 miles and took 25 years. I can see that being popular

 

[MartinC]

Surely you are responsible for the ones on your drive. Can't you get rid of them?

Too many assumptions. I don't have a drive. My garage opens directly onto the shared road at the back of our street. Each house has a garage and a parking space. It's traversed by many cars that I'm not responsible for, the bin lorry, etc..........................................

Interestingly within 50 metres of my front door I could cycle through the park and the Honeybourne Line Cycle Path a mile or too across Cheltenham without going on the road. I normally cycle across the A46 and on roads to the start of cycle path. It's far too dangerous cycling through the park. The cycle path has many hazards but is a convenient short cut right across town.