C
CJ
Guest
On 20 Nov, 10:50, "tam" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Im a bit confused--you mean the CTC have campaigned -not-to have
> >> facilities?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Is there a cycling group that does support bike paths.
> I will not be rejoining the CTC thats for sure.
>
CTC is not opposed to separate facilities per se. CTC opposes poorly
designed and inappropriate facilities. The original 1930s sidepaths
had both defects, and the inadequacy of their design with regard to
side roads was acknowledeged at the time by the foremost authorities
on road safety and design. CTC did not kill them, the cyclists of the
day (and everyone rode bikes in those days, not just "cyclists")
simply voted with their wheels. Then WW2 intervened and things that
nobody seemed to need or want were hardly a priority for postwar
reconstruction.
During later decades of course, traffic increased in volume and speed
and work began on adapting the trunk road network for the exclusive
use of motor vehicles. Read a few back issues of our magazine and
you'll find that during the 1970s, many CTC local groups were actually
campaigning FOR cycle tracks alongside some of these motorways-in-all-
but name. We didn't get them because of the manner in which the
British trunk road network was constructed, bit by bit and on the
cheap. First a bypass is built. Okay, cyclists don't need to use
those, we can still go through the villages. These bypasses attract
more traffic to the road which eventually clogs the intervening
sections of single carriageway, which as a consequence become so
horrible to cycle upon that most of those who have to ride that way
either finds another way or gives up. By the time those sections are
also dualled, there are so few cyclists using the route anymore that
it is easy to refuse the construction of a proper cycle path on the
grounds of lack of demand.
Here's a quote from Cycletouring Aug 73: "The Sheffield DA had
reported that in spite of representations by them and the Club
nationally, no provision is to be made for cyclists in the scheme to
'improve' the Sheffield Parkway as a motorway link route. The city
engineer has declared that to construct a cycleway would cost about
£35,000 ... and that such expenditure could not be justified. An
important factor in such cases is the amount of actual use - and a
recent 10 hour count is said to have resulted in a figure of only 20
cyclists (19 children and one adult) using the Parkway." It looks like
the Sheffield Parkway must have been on the route to a local school,
but even that didn't cut any ice, apparently.
It's not much different nowadays. The 'powers that be' still refuse to
build proper cycle paths where they are really needed, as parallel
alternatives to motorway-like trunk roads. Where they DO build them,
or rather simply paint outlines of bikes on the footway, is where
significant numbers of cyclists ARE still using the road but get in
the way of the cars! CTC opposes that kind of sidepath, because in
those places it is usually more appropriate to facilitate and improve
the existing sharing of space between cycles and motor vehicles. This
is in complete accord with the latest thinking in Holland and Germany,
where "shared space" is now the favoured option for built-up areas and
minor roads. Separate facilities still have their place, and that
place is alongside roads which necessarily carry high-speed traffic.
However they must be properly designed and built, and generally, in
Britain, they still aren't.
By the way, use of a cycle path is mandatory in Germany, when that
path meets certain criteria for smoothness, width, directness, has
right-of-way over side roads and properly facilitated junctions with
major roads. Despite the, by UK standards, excellent construction of
German bikepaths, my contacts at the ADFC tell me that when it comes
to a dispute they are usually able to find sufficient fault with the
path to get the cyclist off!
> >> Im a bit confused--you mean the CTC have campaigned -not-to have
> >> facilities?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Is there a cycling group that does support bike paths.
> I will not be rejoining the CTC thats for sure.
>
CTC is not opposed to separate facilities per se. CTC opposes poorly
designed and inappropriate facilities. The original 1930s sidepaths
had both defects, and the inadequacy of their design with regard to
side roads was acknowledeged at the time by the foremost authorities
on road safety and design. CTC did not kill them, the cyclists of the
day (and everyone rode bikes in those days, not just "cyclists")
simply voted with their wheels. Then WW2 intervened and things that
nobody seemed to need or want were hardly a priority for postwar
reconstruction.
During later decades of course, traffic increased in volume and speed
and work began on adapting the trunk road network for the exclusive
use of motor vehicles. Read a few back issues of our magazine and
you'll find that during the 1970s, many CTC local groups were actually
campaigning FOR cycle tracks alongside some of these motorways-in-all-
but name. We didn't get them because of the manner in which the
British trunk road network was constructed, bit by bit and on the
cheap. First a bypass is built. Okay, cyclists don't need to use
those, we can still go through the villages. These bypasses attract
more traffic to the road which eventually clogs the intervening
sections of single carriageway, which as a consequence become so
horrible to cycle upon that most of those who have to ride that way
either finds another way or gives up. By the time those sections are
also dualled, there are so few cyclists using the route anymore that
it is easy to refuse the construction of a proper cycle path on the
grounds of lack of demand.
Here's a quote from Cycletouring Aug 73: "The Sheffield DA had
reported that in spite of representations by them and the Club
nationally, no provision is to be made for cyclists in the scheme to
'improve' the Sheffield Parkway as a motorway link route. The city
engineer has declared that to construct a cycleway would cost about
£35,000 ... and that such expenditure could not be justified. An
important factor in such cases is the amount of actual use - and a
recent 10 hour count is said to have resulted in a figure of only 20
cyclists (19 children and one adult) using the Parkway." It looks like
the Sheffield Parkway must have been on the route to a local school,
but even that didn't cut any ice, apparently.
It's not much different nowadays. The 'powers that be' still refuse to
build proper cycle paths where they are really needed, as parallel
alternatives to motorway-like trunk roads. Where they DO build them,
or rather simply paint outlines of bikes on the footway, is where
significant numbers of cyclists ARE still using the road but get in
the way of the cars! CTC opposes that kind of sidepath, because in
those places it is usually more appropriate to facilitate and improve
the existing sharing of space between cycles and motor vehicles. This
is in complete accord with the latest thinking in Holland and Germany,
where "shared space" is now the favoured option for built-up areas and
minor roads. Separate facilities still have their place, and that
place is alongside roads which necessarily carry high-speed traffic.
However they must be properly designed and built, and generally, in
Britain, they still aren't.
By the way, use of a cycle path is mandatory in Germany, when that
path meets certain criteria for smoothness, width, directness, has
right-of-way over side roads and properly facilitated junctions with
major roads. Despite the, by UK standards, excellent construction of
German bikepaths, my contacts at the ADFC tell me that when it comes
to a dispute they are usually able to find sufficient fault with the
path to get the cyclist off!
