Vote for Sustrans?

[Brock]

Not to mention the more everyday problem of harassment by drivers for having the cheek to remain on the road when there is a cycle path nearby. I get this regular on a newly constructed footway near my place of work- the fact that the footway in question isn't actually a cycle path at all is lost on them! Simply being a bit further down the road from a shared use pavement seems to be enough reason to blast the horn, pass too close while gesticulating at the pavement, offering helpful advice through the window instead of concentrating on the road ahead etc etc

This problem simply did not occur until the widespread appearance of shared use footways, a form of infrastructure that would more usually be avoided if providers of cycling infrastructure followed the appropriate guidance..

I don't see why the ignorance of the odd chavvy drivers, should mean the rest of us can't have an improved choice of routes.
Are you that bothered by the odd chav shouting 'get on the cycle path' at you? If the path wasn't there they'd shout 'Get some proper trousers Grandad' or something else.

 

[Brock]

I cannot understand why you should consider it "daft" to regulate or restrict car performance. Many of our roads have speed limits set at a level way above what the majority of drivers would consider to be a safe speed.
A parallel joint user path has been constructed at great expense in my locality alongside a 1 km straight on a rural road. Drivers leave a 30mph zone and see this 1Km of downhill straight ahead of them, few seem able to restrain their speed frightening the life out of pedestrians and cyclists. Local people then called for footpath/cycle route. At vast expense a joint user path has been constructed and the drivers continue to flout the law.
As a taxpayer, I would prefer to have seen some inexpensive traffic calming to 'restrict car performance'.

I don't think regulating car performance is daft, but in the context of Franklin's paper which is described as 'encouraging cycle use and achieving modal shift from car to bike' it is, very.

In theory I'd love to see all cars limited to the posted speed limits. Not sure if that's feasible or not, but even if it ever happens it won't encourage people to cycle, or make us much safer.


Another thought, 'traffic calming' seems to me to have had a significant role in the proliferation of Chealsea tractors, which certainly do add to the danger for cyclists in my opinion. (I don't have any statistics to 'prove' this though).

 

[wafflycat]

Yes I'm well aware of it, he was *successfully* taken to court, i'll grant you that, presumably by car. I didn't read a lot about the case, but it seemed to prove nothing more than the shocking ignorance of the arresting officers and the judge.
What's your point? We should spend 50 million educating judges?

I was responding to your quote of, "Also I'd like to know how often cyclists are actually barred from using a road when there is a cycle path provided. Has this actually EVER happened?" My response showed it has happened, that being my point. It's that attitude of the push to get us off the roads that is fostered by the provision of separate farcilities. That promotes the erroneous idea that cyclists have no place on the roads.

And in the process, one of the good guys had his life made *hell* for many months as the legal process moves very slowly.

And yes, education is a good thing.

 

[Brock]

I meant barred legally, with NO CYCLING - GET ON THE PATH signs etc, not barred by some drunken fool with a broom, or a mistaken judge.

The fear that Sustrans routes are going to suddenly reach a point where we are all forced to get off the road (despite two thirds of them being ON-road routes) is something that I might consider worth worrying about IF there was any sign that this might actually happen.
White van men shouting abuse doesn't cut it, I'm asking if cycling has actually been prohibited on any normal road because there was an alternative non-traffic route available.

 

[Cab]

Ok I read that, and have to conclude that while Franklin has written an excellent comprehensive book about how to ride on the road, he is slightly bonkers.

I'm not concerned with with the minutiae of accident statistics on whatever passes for the term 'cycle path' when clumsily compared to a similar stretch of busy road. Everything carries risk, cycling anywhere carries risk, just as stepping out of your front door does. If there are statistics that cycling in a blonde wig makes me 2% less likely to be clipped by a wing mirror, it doesn't mean I'm going to wear one tomorrow.

Or, in other words, you're going to blandly ignore the stats then portray them as ridiculous for no other reason than to back up your own choice to ignore them. We're not talking about blonde wigs, we're talking about the use of cycle 'facilities' or not, and if using them can reduce safety (because you're less expected at those points where you inevitably have to go on or off the roads, for example).

Your argument is based solely on personal incredulity; do you have anything more, well, rational to back it up?

IF our sole reason for doing anything has to be the promotion of cycling, lets have a look what the great man Franklin suggests:



This first point just makes me giggle. 'Banish' the words from where exactly? Cycle magazines? The OED? Where will they be banished to? German? Ridiculous.

You're just being silly here. You know what Franklin means in that statement, why are you just picking at his language?

Ok, well we'll be alright for cycle parking if Sustrans follow this advice then won't we? 50 million quid would buy quite a few sheffield stands. Actually come to think of it, I always manage to find somewhere to park my bike. Maybe I just live in a particularly bicycle friendly area.
I do agree with the helmet thing, although for completely different reasons. And I'm not sure how you can stop cycle clothing and accessory companies promoting their products.

So you're taking his conclusions and now responding to them independent of the arguments he has presented that lead to those conclusions? More to the point, what are you on about with this silly accessories point? Where does Franklin argue against 'accessories'?

Genius.

(with regard to accentuating the positives associated with cycling)

Yes, it is, its genius. And its exactly what we as a nation don't do to promote cycling. We promote cycling as a way to be doing something other than driving, we don't promote cycling as a good way to get around on its own merits.

Errrm, no idea what he's waffling about here. Filling potholes I suppose? EVERYBODY moans about the state of the roads already. Access restrictions?

Access restrictions, those design elements that specifically exclude bikes such as dual carriageways in cities that give us no way on or across safely, huge multi-laled roundabouts, etc. He's talking about having good road surfaces along the primary and secondary position lines, and where provision can best be offered off-road he's talkign about having direct routes of high quality as opposed to routes that take ridiculous detours and have terrible surfaces.

Cycling proficiency, definitely should be promoted and provided free to primary schools. Although having banished the words 'safe' 'accident' and 'danger' I'm not sure how you're going to convince anyone that it's worth doing.

You're just being ridiculous, continuing your criticism of his language to try to ridicule a point that you otherwise agree with (i.e. that responsible, safe, skilled cycling should be promoted). Or in other words you're grasping at straws to invent criticisms.

And if you're going to be so blatantly hostile rather than discuss this rationally then I shall not waste further time on you. You, sir, are being an ass.

 

[craigwend]

No clever or long argument, i'll be voting for them as i have enjoyed my local route with family even if the majority of my rides are on those 'road' things.

 

[Brock]

Or, in other words, you're going to blandly ignore the stats then portray them as ridiculous for no other reason than to back up your own choice to ignore them. We're not talking about blonde wigs, we're talking about the use of cycle 'facilities' or not, and if using them can reduce safety (because you're less expected at those points where you inevitably have to go on or off the roads, for example).

Your argument is based solely on personal incredulity; do you have anything more, well, rational to back it up?

No, I'm trying to make the point that Just because Franklin has managed to show with statistics that accidents are more frequent on cycle paths than roads, it doesn't necessarily mean we should not consider cycle paths as a good thing. It might well be that accidents happen on these paths because novice cyclists are far more likely to be using them, also that people feel safer , so pay less attention. It might be that these statistics are simply skewed because only experienced cyclists ride the particular parts of the road he was sampling in comparison to the path. Even if you accept these statistics at face value, and conclude that cycle paths might be more dangerous than cycling on the road, you might still decide that the risk is worth taking, because the cycle path is simply more pleasant. It would be nice to have the choice in my view.

You're just being silly here. You know what Franklin means in that statement, why are you just picking at his language?

I'm not being silly at all. I find it ludicrous that Franklin believes we should encourage cycling by pretending there isn't risk, danger, or concerns about safety. Especially given his exhaustive research and statistics from particularly bad portions of cycle paths in Holland to show that they're marginally more dangerous than the road.

So you're taking his conclusions and now responding to them independent of the arguments he has presented that lead to those conclusions? More to the point, what are you on about with this silly accessories point? Where does Franklin argue against 'accessories'?

Yes, I might be losing the will to take much more of this guff seriously, you're right there.
By accessories, I'm talking about cycle helmets, something Franklin and I actually agree are pretty pointless. He decrees they should not be promoted, I'm asking how he expects us to halt the advertising and promotion of cycle helmets by manufacturers. Just another unworkable idea for 'promoting' cycling.

(with regard to accentuating the positives associated with cycling)

Yes, it is, its genius. And its exactly what we as a nation don't do to promote cycling. We promote cycling as a way to be doing something other than driving, we don't promote cycling as a good way to get around on its own merits.

Well, I wouldn't call it genius really. I was being a bit confrontational and soapboxy with that sarcastic remark, sorry. I actually think cycling IS promoted quite heavily on those points. Perhaps it could be rammed down peoples throats more, but you'd be in danger of just alienating them by being annoying.

Access restrictions, those design elements that specifically exclude bikes such as dual carriageways in cities that give us no way on or across safely, huge multi-laled roundabouts, etc. He's talking about having good road surfaces along the primary and secondary position lines, and where provision can best be offered off-road he's talkign about having direct routes of high quality as opposed to routes that take ridiculous detours and have terrible surfaces.

OK, most of that sounds sensible. Sustrans are working against the DoT here, it would be perfect if cycles were considered more when such roundabouts were designed, but unfortunately they aren't. Maybe in time this will change, but in the meantime Sunstrans seek to provide bridges and routes to aid us to navigate such examples of bad design. Look at some of the Connect2 proposals, they seek to do just that.
I cycle on a dual carriageway quite often on one of my routes home by the way, it's not too bad.

You're just being ridiculous, continuing your criticism of his language to try to ridicule a point that you otherwise agree with (i.e. that responsible, safe, skilled cycling should be promoted). Or in other words you're grasping at straws to invent criticisms.

No I'm not being ridiculous. I'm pointing out that his entire philosophy seems completely flawed. Either it's completely safe to cycle on the road, or it's not. Either it's beneficial to have areas and paths for novice cyclists, or occasional cyclists, or cyclists that for their own reasons CHOOSE not to ride on the road, OR you don't need to worry, because cycling on the road is completely safe, and thus you shouldn't need to 'aspire' to high levels of 'skill' to be successful in your journey.
BUT, yes, I completely agree, as I've said before, that cycling proficiency should be free and available to all. This has nothing to do however, with Sustrans.

And if you're going to be so blatantly hostile rather than discuss this rationally then I shall not waste further time on you. You, sir, are being an ass.

Apologies if I'm giving the impression of hostility, it's an ugly trait borne of frustration.

 

[Brock]

No clever or long argument, i'll be voting for them as i have enjoyed my local route with family even if the majority of my rides are on those 'road' things.

Thankyou Craigwend. I feel the same, still.

 

[KitsuneAndy]

No, I'm trying to make the point that Just because Franklin has managed to show with statistics that accidents are more frequent on cycle paths than roads, it doesn't necessarily mean we should not consider cycle paths as a good thing. It might well be that accidents happen on these paths because novice cyclists are far more likely to be using them, also that people feel safer , so pay less attention. It might be that these statistics are simply skewed because only experienced cyclists ride the particular parts of the road he was sampling in comparison to the path. Even if you accept these statistics at face value, and conclude that cycle paths might be more dangerous than cycling on the road, you might still decide that the risk is worth taking, because the cycle path is simply more pleasant. It would be nice to have the choice in my view.

And also, without going into detail about the accidents it's pretty pointless. I wonder how many people have died cycling on cycle specific paths compared to how many people have died cycling on roads. There may be more 'accidents' on cycle paths, but I bet the majority of them are relatively minor incidents.

On my way to work I use some 'shared' paths but this morning I decided I wouldn't bother, I'm confident enough to cycle on the roads, I just thought I'd see what difference it made to my journey. The usual 30 minute ride took me 45 minutes as the 'shared path' that I use is up a fairly long hill to a very busy roundabout. It's a wide lane all the way up to the roundabout to accomodate the 2 lanes, but it's not dual carriageway. This means that the traffic is at a standstill and there's no room to filter on either side of the vehicles 99% of the time. The constant start-stop really got on my nerves as did spending 15 minutes right behind a car breathing in exhaust fumes.

But according to some people on this thread, this is better for me than using the shared path? (I've never seen anyone actually walking on the path)

 

[snorri]

I don't think regulating car performance is daft, but in the context of Franklin's paper which is described as 'encouraging cycle use and achieving modal shift from car to bike' it is, very.

In theory I'd love to see all cars limited to the posted speed limits. Not sure if that's feasible or not, but even if it ever happens it won't encourage people to cycle, or make us much safer.


Another thought, 'traffic calming' seems to me to have had a significant role in the proliferation of Chealsea tractors, which certainly do add to the danger for cyclists in my opinion. (I don't have any statistics to 'prove' this though).

I am finding difficulty following your argument Brock. Why do you consider it daft to regulate performance, surely slower motor vehicles would reduce danger and perception of danger, both of which would be good for cycling?
I agree with you on the dangers of Chelsea tractors, but can you explain the connection with traffic calming?

 

[Brock]

I am finding difficulty following your argument Brock. Why do you consider it daft to regulate performance, surely slower motor vehicles would reduce danger and perception of danger, both of which would be good for cycling?
I agree with you on the dangers of Chelsea tractors, but can you explain the connection with traffic calming?

As I said, I don't find the idea of regulating the performance (actually why don't we just call it speed?) of cars daft in itself. I just don't see how it would encourage cycling, or make it measurably safer. How many of the cyclist deaths in London that we hear about with frightening regularlity are because the traffic was speeding?

Do you believe Sustrans are wasting money creating links and and routes, where they should be spending it on a campaign to lobby government to limit the speed of cars? Would that really further our interests?

My off the cuff remark about Chealsea tractors and traffic calming is probably cobblers, but I just thought that their proliferation in the cities might have been encouraged by traffic calming measures such as sleeping policeman. I often see them bouncing smugly across such measures without slowing at all.
I don't mean I'm against traffic calming though, it was just a thought.

 

[BentMikey]

And also, without going into detail about the accidents it's pretty pointless. I wonder how many people have died cycling on cycle specific paths compared to how many people have died cycling on roads. There may be more 'accidents' on cycle paths, but I bet the majority of them are relatively minor incidents.

JF quotes 6 people dying on MK's redways vs 1 on the road in a decade. Even after taking into account cycling levels the death rate was apparently still higher on the paths than on the road.

On my way to work I use some 'shared' paths but this morning I decided I wouldn't bother, I'm confident enough to cycle on the roads, I just thought I'd see what difference it made to my journey. The usual 30 minute ride took me 45 minutes as the 'shared path' that I use is up a fairly long hill to a very busy roundabout. It's a wide lane all the way up to the roundabout to accomodate the 2 lanes, but it's not dual carriageway. This means that the traffic is at a standstill and there's no room to filter on either side of the vehicles 99% of the time. The constant start-stop really got on my nerves as did spending 15 minutes right behind a car breathing in exhaust fumes.

I would probably also use the path in that situation. The thing to remember though is that this is an exceptional circumstance. There are very few places where using the path is faster than the road.

 

[BentMikey]

Letter to Sustrans from John Franklin:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/sustrans1.html

 

[bonj2]

JF quotes 6 people dying on MK's redways vs 1 on the road in a decade. Even after taking into account cycling levels the death rate was apparently still higher on the paths than on the road.

Deaths? on a cycle path?!

 

[User482]

Deaths? on a cycle path?!

My reaction too. In any case, it's a small sample and does not prove a causal link. For instance, if cycle paths encourage more novices then it would be no surprise if accidents increased.