Why we need bike paths.

Quoted message said:

As far as I understand, the Dutch were always a nation of cyclists
even before the Germans built cyclepaths.

Guy
--

And so were most European countries before the populations became much
wealthier.

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf (pdf) has some
references to the fact that cycling in Holland (and other places) fell of
dramatically through the 1960s and 70s as people chose to travel further as
motorised transport became cheaper. This trend appears to have been
reversed by a large range of measures - some set out in
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/Cycling%20in%20the%20Netherlands%20VenW.pdf
(pdf).

Some of these measures are now being implemented in UK towns and cities (see
especially some of the work done in cycle demonstration towns - Aylesbury
has some very encouraging statistics)

More demonstration towns are being announced in a couple of weeks (cycle
England web site).

Matt

Tom Crispin said:

I can understand why a road with a cycle track alongside may have a
cycle lane removed. The on-road cyclist needs to cycle in primary
position.

Well, yes. But what if they reduce the uphill direction from two lanes
to 1, at a width of about 3.2 metres, and then stick a busy
unsignalled junction at the top of the hill, with poor sightlines and
no room to set the cycle crossing back from the junction.

Imagine taking primary position in that lane for about 500 uphill
metres - but somehow you have to be on carriageway before the junction.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Pete Biggs said:

Arguing with the opposition may encourage them to temper their views.

I don't think the right to cycle on the road needs lobbying to defend at the
moment, but may do in future if others lobby for more cycle paths.  Disuade
these people from lobbying and I won't need to lobby!

But this is entirely the point. They are not "the opposition". They
are a set of people who enjoy a different type of cycling to you.

Richard

Colin McKenzie said:

Tom Crispin said:

I can understand why a road with a cycle track alongside may have a
cycle lane removed. The on-road cyclist needs to cycle in primary
position.

Well, yes. But what if they reduce the uphill direction from two lanes
to 1, at a width of about 3.2 metres, and then stick a busy
unsignalled junction at the top of the hill, with poor sightlines and
no room to set the cycle crossing back from the junction.

Imagine taking primary position in that lane for about 500 uphill
metres - but somehow you have to be on carriageway before the junction.

Perhaps you'd care to post a grid reference, post code or pointer to a
Google Earth image.

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 16:09:22 +0100 someone who may be "Adam Lea"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Being banned from the roads is a real possibility, especially where
there is an "alternative" cycle "facility". The "alternative" to the
A90 is NCN 1, which one might think would be a showcase but in
reality is only for the brave/foolhardy as a year round route.

Are there any alternative country lane routes that could be used?

If one wishes to increase the distance travelled by about 50% and
increase the number of hills to be traversed. No great problem for
someone on holiday and travelling that way once or twice a year, but
useless for those making transport trips.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:25:10 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Richard
Fairhurst <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Some people like cycling on roads no matter what. Some people like
cycling on paths no matter what. Some people will choose between the
two.

Funnily enough - ta-da - we have both roads and paths, so you can do
both the above.

That choice only exists if one has not been banned from the road
after the construction/improvement of the path. I have already
provided one example of that choice being removed, at the behest of
organisations which expend a considerable amount of hot air claiming
to be cycle friendly.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 21:12:09 +0200 someone who may be "Pete Biggs"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

If road lanes are narrowed to make way for cycle paths then there will be an
excuse to prohibit cycles from them. I feel there is a danger of this
happening even if an Act of Parliament would be required (?).

Not needed and counterproductive. They will pick cyclists off one
route at a time. There are now at least three roads in the City of
Edinburgh Council area which cyclists are banned from. I have my
suspicions about which road they have their eye on for this modal
cleansing next.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Richard Fairhurst said:

Pete Biggs said:

Arguing with the opposition may encourage them to temper their views.

I don't think the right to cycle on the road needs lobbying to
defend at the moment, but may do in future if others lobby for more
cycle paths. Disuade these people from lobbying and I won't need to
lobby!

But this is entirely the point. They are not "the opposition". They
are a set of people who enjoy a different type of cycling to you.

Naturally I want to disuade people from lobbying for something that may
damage what I enjoy. That's all I mean by "the opposition".

I am concerned that the main type of cycling I enjoy may be banned in
certain places if there are a great many cycle paths built where they don't
need to be - ie. besides or near roads that can be cycled on.

I appreciate your logic, but please don't tell me who I should and should
not be arguing with. That's my choice, frankly.

~PB

Tom Crispin said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does anyone have an example of an existing road *in England or
Wales* which has had its right of way removed?

Some of the bits of the A406 where underpasses and overpasses were
put in.

The same is true on the A12 - but that is not a new road; cyclists are

Is that a typo and you meant "that is a new road"?

Quoted message said:

still welcome on the bits which existed before the A12 (M11 extension)
was built.

What about the sections towards the east of the A406 where cycles are not
permitted on any part of the carriageway? Cyclists have to take a detour
completely away from the A406.

I'm not old enough to remember what was there before. Was there no road at
all? If there was a road then I bet cycling was allowed on it. If that's
correct then that's an example where a right of way that was completely
removed in England.

~PB

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I appreciate your logic, but please don't tell me who I should and should
not be arguing with. That's my choice, frankly.

At the moment it looks like choosing to argue with everyone, just in case
you miss someone by accident. Feel free to disagree though.

Mike the unimaginative said:

Absolutely - I've ridden in MK a few times and, like you, prefer the
redways to the psuedo-motorways. But they are slowly being bastardised
into the sort of bad cycle routes in the rest of the country - where
entrances into industrial estates and driveways have priority over the
traffic (cycles).

Which is the big difference between cycle paths in the Netherlands and
in the UK (even in relatively enlightened places like MK). In the
Netherlands, the cycle path has priority over the road in almost every
case. This makes them so much easier and more convenient to use.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Tom Crispin said:

Colin McKenzie said:

Tom Crispin said:

I can understand why a road with a cycle track alongside may have a
cycle lane removed. The on-road cyclist needs to cycle in primary
position.

Well, yes. But what if they reduce the uphill direction from two lanes
to 1, at a width of about 3.2 metres, and then stick a busy
unsignalled junction at the top of the hill, with poor sightlines and
no room to set the cycle crossing back from the junction.

Imagine taking primary position in that lane for about 500 uphill
metres - but somehow you have to be on carriageway before the junction.

Perhaps you'd care to post a grid reference, post code or pointer to a
Google Earth image.

W5, Hanger Lane, about the middle of the stretch between Uxbridge Road
and Hanger Lane Gyratory.

The gradient won't show on Google Earth!

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Tom Crispin wrote:

[A406]

Quoted message said:

Is that the section between the Redbridge Roundabout and the A13?

I think that was one of the ones I was thinking of. There are better
examples west of there:

Coming from Chigwell Road from the south, turning left into the westbound
side of the A406, just as you approach the slip road, if you're lucky, you
will notice a small sign with a bike in a red circle. The is no legal way
to cycle onto the A406 in this direction from this junction.

Same thing from Woodford New Road going west. Shame because it's a lovely
fast downhill section. Actually, it's so good that I can't resist using it.
Embarrassingly, it took me a number of years to even notice the signs -
assuming they were always there (?).

These bits are not elevated sections.

~PB

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 01:08:34 -0700 (PDT)

Richard Fairhurst said:

Pete Biggs said:

Arguing with the opposition may encourage them to temper their
views.

I don't think the right to cycle on the road needs lobbying to
defend at the moment, but may do in future if others lobby for more
cycle paths.  Disuade these people from lobbying and I won't need
to lobby!

But this is entirely the point. They are not "the opposition". They
are a set of people who enjoy a different type of cycling to you.

Effectively they are the opposition - they are claiming (sometimes quite
loudly) that the road is no place for cyclists. While they have their
own (IMO erroneous) reasons for saying this, there are others who will
gladly take up the cry for altogether different reasons.

Pete Biggs said:

Tom Crispin said:

Quoted message said:

> Does anyone have an example of an existing road *in England or
> Wales* which has had its right of way removed?

Some of the bits of the A406 where underpasses and overpasses were
put in.

The same is true on the A12 - but that is not a new road; cyclists are

Is that a typo and you meant "that is a new road"?

Quoted message said:

still welcome on the bits which existed before the A12 (M11 extension)
was built.

What about the sections towards the east of the A406 where cycles are not
permitted on any part of the carriageway? Cyclists have to take a detour
completely away from the A406.

Is that the section between the Redbridge Roundabout and the A13?

I do remember that section being built - though like you I cannot
recall what was there before. I have always understood that it was a
collection of roads, rather like most of the A205

Quoted message said:

I'm not old enough to remember what was there before. Was there no road at
all? If there was a road then I bet cycling was allowed on it. If that's
correct then that's an example where a right of way that was completely
removed in England.

That section, if we are talking about the same section, is an elevated
section of 3 lanes in each direction, reducing to 2 lanes between
junctions. It is a new road, built at the same time as London's
Dockland's was being transformed into a financial district.

I would happily support lobbying to allow cycling on *all* A roads -
including the Limehouse Link and Blackwall Tunnel.

Colin McKenzie said:

Tom Crispin said:

Colin McKenzie said:

Tom Crispin wrote:
>I can understand why a road with a cycle track alongside may have a
>cycle lane removed. The on-road cyclist needs to cycle in primary
>position.

Well, yes. But what if they reduce the uphill direction from two lanes
to 1, at a width of about 3.2 metres, and then stick a busy
unsignalled junction at the top of the hill, with poor sightlines and
no room to set the cycle crossing back from the junction.

Imagine taking primary position in that lane for about 500 uphill
metres - but somehow you have to be on carriageway before the junction.

Perhaps you'd care to post a grid reference, post code or pointer to a
Google Earth image.

W5, Hanger Lane, about the middle of the stretch between Uxbridge Road
and Hanger Lane Gyratory.

The gradient won't show on Google Earth!

Hillcrest Road identifies the summit.

My advice remains. Cycle in primary position unless you are happy
with motor vehicles overtaking you.

On 07 Jun 2008 22:06:15 +0100 (BST)

(Alan Braggins) said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Mastuna said:

As for being completely banned from the road, this is unlikely, as
there will always be racing bikers who need to use them. Maybe it
could happen on some A-roads, but I presume few of us ever feel the
desire to cycle on those.

The whole point of A-roads is that they're commonly (much of)
the quickest way to get from one place to another. Particularly
when the places in question are somewhere people are interested
in going, such as home and work.

For many of us, it's only leisure rides where you can afford to
avoid long stretches on A-roads.

--
not me guv

Pete Biggs said:

Tom Crispin wrote:

[A406]

Quoted message said:

Is that the section between the Redbridge Roundabout and the A13?

I think that was one of the ones I was thinking of. There are better
examples west of there:

Coming from Chigwell Road from the south, turning left into the westbound
side of the A406, just as you approach the slip road, if you're lucky, you
will notice a small sign with a bike in a red circle. The is no legal way
to cycle onto the A406 in this direction from this junction.

Same thing from Woodford New Road going west. Shame because it's a lovely
fast downhill section. Actually, it's so good that I can't resist using it.
Embarrassingly, it took me a number of years to even notice the signs -
assuming they were always there (?).

These bits are not elevated sections.

I do not agree with the banning of cyclists from any A road, however,
I am fairly sure that the section of the NCR is new.

Mastuna said:

Quoted message said:

We need to stop people and dogs walking on them and smashing glass
bottles on them, which is what causes 95% of my punctures.

If they are well designed people won't walk on them just like they
don't walk on roads.

I personally find puncture resistant tyres useful. I used to cycle
through a high street pub area every day and I got a puncture every 2
weeks on average. I haven't had any problems since I replaced the
tyres.

Quoted message said:

They need to
be salted when it's icy and regularly swept.

agreed

Quoted message said:

They need to maintain
priority at side roads.

agreed

Quoted message said:

They need to avoid sharp 90 degree turns, blind
spots, overhanging trees that make you kiss the handlebars and private
driveways where you face certain death from emerging cars. Finally,
they need to have a design speed of 20mph or more to be competitive with
the road.

Yep. not to mention continuity, and no constant merging in and out of
a trunk road. And they need to have a constant width, and not send you
to the gutter when the road becomes narrow.

Oh, and anyone who parks their car on a bike path should get the same
treatment as someone who parks their car in the middle of a road.

Another thing I forgot (and remembered when using a path yesterday) -
they must not have road signs which straddle them, or lamp-posts on
opposite sides. "Washing line" attempted decapitations are fairly
common, recently recommended by the despicable Matthew Parris. It
happened here in Swindon two years ago - woman badly scarred for life.

Nick Kew said:

On 07 Jun 2008 22:06:15 +0100 (BST)

(Alan Braggins) said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Mastuna said:

As for being completely banned from the road, this is unlikely, as
there will always be racing bikers who need to use them. Maybe it
could happen on some A-roads, but I presume few of us ever feel the
desire to cycle on those.

The whole point of A-roads is that they're commonly (much of)
the quickest way to get from one place to another. Particularly
when the places in question are somewhere people are interested
in going, such as home and work.

For many of us, it's only leisure rides where you can afford to
avoid long stretches on A-roads.

Many people live on A-roads. I have two within a few hundred yards, I
could not travel further than 1 mile without meeting one.

Just in case you are thinking about dual carriage ways, I lived on a
busy dual carriage way for many years.