Cars clog up 80% of cycle lanes

"National strategy to get us on our bikes failing as drivers put cyclists in danger"

http://www.sundayherald.com/33931

"A multi-million pound national strategy to encourage people to leave their cars at home and get on
their bikes is failing because parked cars clog up more than 80% of the cycle lanes central to the
Scottish Executive's plan.

Experts claim cycle lanes, which cost up to £180 per metre to install, can be even more dangerous
for cyclists than roads without lanes as they are too narrow, fragmented and cyclists can be boxed
in by parked cars."

Regards! Stephen

 

"Steve McGinty" <[email protected]_DOT_.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Experts claim cycle lanes, which cost up to £180 per metre to install, can be even more dangerous
> for cyclists than roads without lanes as they are too narrow, fragmented and cyclists can be boxed
> in by parked cars."

I wish more notice was taken of these experts then. I don't see the problem as being parked cars
defeating the purpose of cycle lanes. The fact is they are mostly ill-conceived in the first place.
In an urban environment there is not so much need to separate cycles and motor traffic in that way.

Cycle lanes might be more useful running alongside major fast roads, but only if they are wide
enough to allow cyclists to overtake each other in both directions, are kept clear of debris and as
free of impediments to progress as the road they parallel are.

I would like to see the money that is available for cycling measures being spent in a way that
really facilitates cycle travel instead of being wasted on unnecessary measures in towns. Give us
more long distance direct paths, facilate mixed mode travel etc.

Rich

 

Totally agree. In my experience, cycle paths/lanes running parallel to roads are next to useless
unless you cycle at walking pace, in which case you may as wel walk!

They're laid out so you have to give way at every side road, entrance-way etc; making progress slow
&, if a bit switched off (glycogen deficiency after long hard ride for example, only happened a few
times to me over the years, but can happen) can be quite dangerous, far more so than sticking to the
road in the first place.

The "planners" should be cyclists themselves as they're likely to do a better job.

As for long distance cycle lanes, great idea, but as the oil starts to run out I guess that's what
the roads will become! Apparently only 30 to 40 years of world reserves left!

Admittedly I do drive as well as cycle, but usually share my commute of 30+ miles, and cycle home
quite a bit when colleague drive me in. I'm trying to do my bit, honest!

Now for the solar water heater. (Not sure it'll make me cycle faster though)

Niv.

"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Steve McGinty" <[email protected]_DOT_.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Experts claim cycle lanes, which cost up to £180 per metre to install, can be even more
> > dangerous for cyclists than roads without lanes as they are too narrow, fragmented and cyclists
> > can be boxed in by parked cars."
>
> I wish more notice was taken of these experts then. I don't see the
problem
> as being parked cars defeating the purpose of cycle lanes. The fact is
they
> are mostly ill-conceived in the first place. In an urban environment
there
> is not so much need to separate cycles and motor traffic in that way.
>
> Cycle lanes might be more useful running alongside major fast roads, but only if they are wide
> enough to allow cyclists to overtake each other in both directions, are kept clear of debris and
> as free of impediments to progress as the road they parallel are.
>
> I would like to see the money that is available for cycling measures being spent in a way that
> really facilitates cycle travel instead of being
wasted
> on unnecessary measures in towns. Give us more long distance direct
paths,
> facilate mixed mode travel etc.
>
> Rich

 

"Steve McGinty" <[email protected]_DOT_.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Experts claim cycle lanes, which cost up to £180 per metre to install.....

Bloody expensive for a can of white paint!

 

Niv wrote:
> As for long distance cycle lanes, great idea, but as the oil starts to run out I guess that's what
> the roads will become! Apparently only 30 to 40 years of world reserves left!

Yeah, but people have been saying that for the last 30-40 years

Besides, the non-motoring tax payers who subsidise motoring will just end up subsidising motoring
with some alternative fuel, whether it be rapeseed diesel or hydrogen or ethanol or whatever else
seems to work.

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

 

"Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Niv wrote:
> > As for long distance cycle lanes, great idea, but as the oil starts to run out I guess that's
> > what the roads will become! Apparently only 30 to 40 years of world reserves left!
>
> Yeah, but people have been saying that for the last 30-40 years

Thats cos saddam was hiding it.

It looks like oil isn't actually going to run out in the forseeable future.

 

On Sun, 18 May 2003 11:55:52 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:

>It looks like oil isn't actually going to run out in the forseeable future.

Thanks to the fearless "President" Bush and his campaign to liberate the Iraqi oil from the tyranny
of Hussein's dictatorship. Now at last the oil can safely be delivered from slavery into the hands
of freedom-loving corporations who, purely by coincidence, happen to be major contributors to the
Republican party...

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

"Niv" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> The "planners" should be cyclists themselves as they're likely to do a better job.

But how would they get to work without proper transport?

--
Dave...

 

> > Experts claim cycle lanes, which cost up to £180 per metre to
install.....
>
> Bloody expensive for a can of white paint!
>
>
I think you'll find it's the painter that costs the money. Don't forget the 15% council tax increase
we've just suffered. (15% if you were lucky, that is!) Niv

 

On Sun, 18 May 2003 19:22:32 +0100, "Niv" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I think you'll find it's the painter that costs the money. Don't forget the 15% council tax
>increase we've just suffered. (15% if you were lucky, that is!)

As a public service to all other council tax payers in the area, I propose that Reading council
redeploy the man and his white paint doing something od more value to society. This should not be
too hard, as obviously just about anything he could legitimately do with said paint is of more
benefit than poxy cycle lanes...

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

Following on from Richard Goodman's message. . .
>Cycle lanes might be more useful running alongside major fast roads, but only if they are wide
>enough to allow cyclists to overtake each other in both directions, are kept clear of debris and as
>free of impediments to progress as the road they parallel are.

Depends on the amount of traffic. Even shared use two way tracks don't have to be particularly wide
- but it depends on the context.

I've just been involved with a Highways Agency scheme where lots of width was proposed but only
18" separation from a busy MIABN (motorway in all but name) (A12) LTN 2/86 gives design guidance
for widths according to use but AFAIK there is no design guidance for separation/protection from
trunk roads.

IMHO the specification should be
* minimum 2m verge
* crash barrier
* some protection against being blinded by oncoming traffic at night
* vegetation control

The sort of people who use these tracks are live-and-let-live people who say "Hello" in the 1 in 5
times they meet others.

However a decent width of tarmac _is_ useful to keep side vegetation in check.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded

Witham Cycling Campaign www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm East Anglian Pub cycle rides
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides

 

In message <[email protected]> "Richard Goodman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I wish more notice was taken of these experts then. I don't see the problem as being parked cars
> defeating the purpose of cycle lanes. The fact is they are mostly ill-conceived in the first
> place. In an urban environment there is not so much need to separate cycles and motor traffic in
> that way.
>
>
Around here cycle lanes are the fastest way through gridlocked roads. Where traffic is hardly moving
the width of a cycle lane is not that important wheras keeping parked cars out is vital. Perhaps
when CC is extended out to the M25.....

Paul Luton

--
CTC Right to Ride Representative for Richmond upon Thames

 

On 18 May 2003 09:28:14 -0700, [email protected] (Dave Kahn) wrote:

>But how would they get to work without proper transport?

If the planners are that bad, it's probably best that they don't.

 

"Niv" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Experts claim cycle lanes, which cost up to £180 per metre to
> install.....
> >
> > Bloody expensive for a can of white paint!
> >
> >
> I think you'll find it's the painter that costs the money.

Round here it's not a painter and a can of paint, it's a team of contractors with various bits of
plant and machinery blocking a quarter to a third of the road width for months on end to install 200
yards of extra kerbing on one day a month. So that at the end of it all we have a bi-directional
cycle lane blocking a substantial part of the road width where cyclists can endanger themselves and
other cyclists (because they are too narrow for proper bi-directional flow), and pedestrians who
walk in them. Of course, because they are bi-directional but located on one side of the road,
cyclists going in one direction have to cross the path of oncoming vehicles to get into them, and
those of us who choose not to use them are more endangered by motor vehicles because of the reduced
road width.

Rich

 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 May 2003 19:22:32 +0100, "Niv" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I think you'll find it's the painter that costs the money. Don't forget the 15% council tax
> >increase we've just suffered. (15% if you were lucky, that is!)
>
> As a public service to all other council tax payers in the area, I propose that Reading council
> redeploy the man and his white paint doing something od more value to society. This should not be
> too hard, as obviously just about anything he could legitimately do with said paint is of more
> benefit than poxy cycle lanes...

If you haven't noticed, cycle lanes are actually there to play tricks on the brains of car drivers
to make them drive slower.

Nothing to do with bikes!

 

On Mon, 19 May 2003 08:33:12 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:

>If you haven't noticed, cycle lanes are actually there to play tricks on the brains of car drivers
>to make them drive slower.

car ... drive ... slow ... does not compute ...

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Round here it's not a painter and a can of paint, it's a team of contractors with various bits of
> plant and machinery blocking a quarter to a third of the road width for months on end to install
> 200 yards of extra kerbing on one day a month. So that at the end of it all we have a
> bi-directional cycle lane blocking a substantial part of the road width where cyclists can
> endanger themselves and other cyclists (because they are too narrow for proper bi-directional
> flow), and pedestrians who walk in them. Of course, because they are bi-directional but located on
> one side of the road, cyclists going in one direction have to cross the path of oncoming vehicles
> to get into them, and those of us who choose not to use them are more endangered by motor vehicles
> because of the reduced road width.

Sounds an unusual type of lane! Have you got a photo link of it?

 

W K wrote:

>
> If you haven't noticed, cycle lanes are actually there to play tricks on the brains of car drivers
> to make them drive slower.

Yet another failure of transport planners then.

John B

 

"Adrian Boliston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Sounds an unusual type of lane! Have you got a photo link of it?
>

No, I don't unfortunately. If you know central London, the route I'm thinking of is one they're
building along Torrington Place - Byng Place (where it inexplicably and quite unnecessarily runs at
pavement level, giving peds even more excuse to walk in it) - Gordon Square - Tavistock Square
(which is the part currently under construction and a considerable nuisance for everyone to get
around) etc. It runs east-west and they're building it on the north side so if you are heading west,
at some point to get into it you have to cross the path of east-bound traffic. I think it's supposed
to be part of some route joining stations intended to ultimately provide a route from Gower Street
through to Gray's Inn Road. Perhaps there is some ultimate plan to provide more satisfactory feed in
for westbound cyclists but who knows? Personally I can't see how they expect to get a segrated
bi-directional cycle lane of adequate width (not that what's already done is of adequate width) and
two lanes of traffic beyond Tavistock Sq as the road narrows off after that.

Rich