Why we need bike paths.

[Pete Biggs]

Mastuna wrote:
> I have heard all the arguments against bike paths.
>
> "They are more dangerous". "They are only there to take cyclists off
> the road". "They slow cyclists down". etc.
>
> The truth of the matter is that all those criticisms is irrelevant.

No to me, they're not. *I* don't want to be banned from cycling on the
roads. The more cycle paths there are, the more likely that is.

> This country needs bike paths for one reason only: Because they will
> get people to cycle. All else is secondary.
>
> You see, it doesn't really matter if using a bike path is more or less
> safe than cycling on the road. What matters is that bike paths are
> *perceived* to be safe, and if they get the masses to cycle, the
> overall societal benefit will far outweigh any marginal safety (or
> other) disadvantages they may have.

Very alturistic, but it's not the only way to be. Making the roads seem
safer would also encourage more people to cycle.

> And of course I mean *good* bike paths; the kind they have in Holland.
> Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
> safety and high throughput, and that give priority to cyclists at
> junctions. Not the sorry excuses for bike paths British town planners
> spew out.

That's all very well where there is room for wide paths, and if ever there
is the will and skill to make them truly good. Dream on.

~PB

 

[Mastuna]

I have heard all the arguments against bike paths.

"They are more dangerous". "They are only there to take cyclists off
the road". "They slow cyclists down". etc.

The truth of the matter is that all those criticisms is irrelevant.

This country needs bike paths for one reason only: Because they will
get people to cycle. All else is secondary.

You see, it doesn't really matter if using a bike path is more or less
safe than cycling on the road. What matters is that bike paths are
*perceived* to be safe, and if they get the masses to cycle, the
overall societal benefit will far outweigh any marginal safety (or
other) disadvantages they may have.

And of course I mean *good* bike paths; the kind they have in Holland.
Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
safety and high throughput, and that give priority to cyclists at
junctions. Not the sorry excuses for bike paths British town planners
spew out.

Your opinion?

 

[Mastuna]

The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.

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.

You think there is a lack of space? Have you seen how much public
space is devoted to free parking in British cities? If only a third of
that space was converted to bike paths there would be more than enough
space.

 

[Martin]

GoogleUser Mastuna wrote:
>
> The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
> for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.

The more people that cycle, the better, but I don't think paths are the
answer. With the exception of about one cycle lane and one path in
Bristol, all the local cycle lanes and paths are useless.

> 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.

I regularly cycle on A-roads. I could not get to work if I did not.
On one road, it takes twice as long to cycle on the adjacent path, as it
takes using the road.
Also we simply do not have the room in this country to create lots of
extra paths.


> You think there is a lack of space? Have you seen how much public
> space is devoted to free parking in British cities? If only a third of
> that space was converted to bike paths there would be more than enough
> space.

And where would all the cars magically go?

 

[Martin]

GoogleUser Mastuna wrote:
> I have heard all the arguments against bike paths.
>
> "They are more dangerous". "They are only there to take cyclists off
> the road". "They slow cyclists down". etc.
>
> The truth of the matter is that all those criticisms is irrelevant.

No they are not.

A cycle lane/path is about twice as dangerous (for distance) as cycling
on the road.
It would take a huge amount of extra cyclists to negate that.

A cycle path doubles the time it takes me to ride down the road.
When I am going to work I don't want that delay.
When I am cycling for fitness I want to be able to pick up speed, and
get a good workout, not keep slowing when I would not need to in the road.

> This country needs bike paths for one reason only: Because they will
> get people to cycle. All else is secondary.

People cycle because they want to.

> You see, it doesn't really matter if using a bike path is more or less
> safe than cycling on the road.

Yes it does.

> What matters is that bike paths are
> *perceived* to be safe, and if they get the masses to cycle, the
> overall societal benefit will far outweigh any marginal safety (or
> other) disadvantages they may have.

I don't like being lied to by governments. And claiming cycle lanes are
safer is like claiming cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries.

> And of course I mean *good* bike paths; the kind they have in Holland.
> Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
> safety and high throughput, and that give priority to cyclists at
> junctions. Not the sorry excuses for bike paths British town planners
> spew out.
>
> Your opinion?

 

[Clive George]

"Mastuna" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c5331202-81b6-40a7-b9fe-78190eccd264@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
> for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.
>
> As for being completely banned from the road, this is unlikely, as
> there will always be racing bikers who need to use them.

I'm not a racing biker, but I'm pretty sure I'd find any cycling facilities
provided under your scheme to be slow and irritating.

> Maybe it
> could happen on some A-roads, but I presume few of us ever feel the
> desire to cycle on those.

I cycle on A-roads daily.

One of them is even a trunk road. Remove that option, and quite a lot of
routes round here become rather hard.

As the saying goes, beware what you wish for - you might just get it. And if
we get what you're wishing for, life as a cyclist will get very tedious.

clive

 

[Pete Biggs]

Mastuna wrote:
> The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
> for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.

The conditions for the kind of cycling I mostly enjoy - road - won't improve
if I'm not allowed on the road.

I also enjoy cycing on quiet paths for a short while occasionally.
Conditions won't improve on them for me if there are millions of cyclists
clogging them up

Seriously, yes I would like more people to cycle, but I don't get this
religion that all that's important in life is the total number of people
cycling and that anything should be done to maximise it.

> As for being completely banned from the road, this is unlikely, as
> there will always be racing bikers who need to use them.

As if the authorities give a **** about racing bikers!

> Maybe it
> could happen on some A-roads, but I presume few of us ever feel the
> desire to cycle on those.

I predict that it will happen on many ordinary main roads if there is a
significant increase in cycle paths and lanes in the area.

I also want to continue to be allowed to cycle on dual-carriageways - which
I guess you are calling "A-roads". In fact A-roads include many ordinary
single-carriageway roads as well.

> You think there is a lack of space? Have you seen how much public
> space is devoted to free parking in British cities? If only a third of
> that space was converted to bike paths there would be more than enough
> space.

Car parks tend to be square and rectangular things that don't go anywhere.
Bike paths would have to go everywhere if they are going to be a substantial
alternative to cycling on the road. Yes I think there is a lack of space
for that.

~PB

 

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
Mastuna <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

What a bizarre assumption.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:13:04 +0100, Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>GoogleUser Mastuna wrote:
>>
>> The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
>> for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.
>
>The more people that cycle, the better, but I don't think paths are the
>answer. With the exception of about one cycle lane and one path in
>Bristol, all the local cycle lanes and paths are useless.

That's Mastuna's point. Where *good* cycle paths are provided more
people cycle.

>Also we simply do not have the room in this country to create lots of
>extra paths.

That may be more of an issue in towns and cities than between towns
and cities.

I think that the problem is more that in this country we do not have
the *will* to create good cycle paths.

Perhaps when fuel reaches the same price as beer people will start to
use their bikes.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 01:47:26 +0100, "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mastuna" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:c5331202-81b6-40a7-b9fe-78190eccd264@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
>> for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.
>>
>> As for being completely banned from the road, this is unlikely, as
>> there will always be racing bikers who need to use them.
>
>I'm not a racing biker, but I'm pretty sure I'd find any cycling facilities
>provided under your scheme to be slow and irritating.

Would that route be slow and irritating to someone travelling to the
loacl library - or school children on their way to school?

>> Maybe it
>> could happen on some A-roads, but I presume few of us ever feel the
>> desire to cycle on those.
>
>I cycle on A-roads daily.
>
>One of them is even a trunk road. Remove that option, and quite a lot of
>routes round here become rather hard.

Mastuna's proposal is not to ban cyclists from more roads, just to
give new and returning cyclists a motor traffic free option.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:21:51 +0100, Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>GoogleUser Mastuna wrote:
>> I have heard all the arguments against bike paths.
>>
>> "They are more dangerous". "They are only there to take cyclists off
>> the road". "They slow cyclists down". etc.
>>
>> The truth of the matter is that all those criticisms is irrelevant.
>
>No they are not.
>
>A cycle lane/path is about twice as dangerous (for distance) as cycling
>on the road.

!?

Is cycling in Holland or Denmark, which both have excellent motor
traffic free provision for cyclists, more dangerous than cycling in
the UK?

>It would take a huge amount of extra cyclists to negate that.

That's a good aim.

>A cycle path doubles the time it takes me to ride down the road.
>When I am going to work I don't want that delay.

Use the road, then.

>When I am cycling for fitness I want to be able to pick up speed, and
>get a good workout, not keep slowing when I would not need to in the road.

Use the road, then.

>> This country needs bike paths for one reason only: Because they will
>> get people to cycle. All else is secondary.
>
>People cycle because they want to.

But they can be encouraged to want to.

>> You see, it doesn't really matter if using a bike path is more or less
>> safe than cycling on the road.
>
>Yes it does.
>
>> What matters is that bike paths are
>> *perceived* to be safe, and if they get the masses to cycle, the
>> overall societal benefit will far outweigh any marginal safety (or
>> other) disadvantages they may have.
>
>I don't like being lied to by governments. And claiming cycle lanes are
>safer is like claiming cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries.
>
>> And of course I mean *good* bike paths; the kind they have in Holland.
>> Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
>> safety and high throughput, and that give priority to cyclists at
>> junctions. Not the sorry excuses for bike paths British town planners
>> spew out.
>>
>> Your opinion?

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

Mastuna wrote:
> I have heard all the arguments against bike paths.
>
> "They are more dangerous". "They are only there to take cyclists off
> the road". "They slow cyclists down". etc.
>
> The truth of the matter is that all those criticisms is irrelevant.
>
> This country needs bike paths for one reason only: Because they will
> get people to cycle. All else is secondary.
>
> You see, it doesn't really matter if using a bike path is more or less
> safe than cycling on the road. What matters is that bike paths are
> *perceived* to be safe, and if they get the masses to cycle, the
> overall societal benefit will far outweigh any marginal safety (or
> other) disadvantages they may have.
>
> And of course I mean *good* bike paths; the kind they have in Holland.
> Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
> safety and high throughput, and that give priority to cyclists at
> junctions. Not the sorry excuses for bike paths British town planners
> spew out.
>
> Your opinion?

We need to stop people and dogs walking on them and smashing glass
bottles on them, which is what causes 95% of my punctures. They need to
be salted when it's icy and regularly swept. They need to maintain
priority at side roads. 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.

Deliver all that, and I'll use them.

 

[vernon]

"Mastuna" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cfbdd7ca-3ff4-4a7a-b55d-36e41cc8ab20@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>I have heard all the arguments against bike paths.
>
> "They are more dangerous". "They are only there to take cyclists off
> the road". "They slow cyclists down". etc.
>
> The truth of the matter is that all those criticisms is irrelevant.
>
> This country needs bike paths for one reason only: Because they will
> get people to cycle. All else is secondary.
>
> You see, it doesn't really matter if using a bike path is more or less
> safe than cycling on the road. What matters is that bike paths are
> *perceived* to be safe, and if they get the masses to cycle, the
> overall societal benefit will far outweigh any marginal safety (or
> other) disadvantages they may have.
>
> And of course I mean *good* bike paths; the kind they have in Holland.
> Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
> safety and high throughput, and that give priority to cyclists at
> junctions. Not the sorry excuses for bike paths British town planners
> spew out.
>
> Your opinion?

A poorly presented set of poorly thought out arguments.

 

[Mastuna]

> I regularly cycle on A-roads. I could not get to work if I did not.
> On one road, it takes twice as long to cycle on the adjacent path, as it
> takes using the road.

It's because the path is badly designed.

> Also we simply do not have the room in this country to create lots of
> extra paths.

It's a common myth that Britain has "no room". Most bike paths would
be built in urban areas. Though the country as a whole has a high
population density, British *cities* often have some of the lowest
population densities in Europe. Have a look at this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_densely_populated_administrative_units_in_the_world

You won't find any place in Britain on that list. How come some Paris
arrondissements, which are among the most crowded places in the world,
have no problem finding space for bike paths, while London
neighbourhoods do? It has more to do with policy than urban density, I
think. Cities like Copenhagen, Munich, Zurich, and Stockholm have
managed to build excellend bike path networks, even though their urban
cores are just as dense, if not more dense, than central London. If
they can do it there is no technical reason why London can't.

> And where would all the cars magically go?

Some would go to private parking. Some would be replaced by bikes.

 

[Mastuna]

> People cycle because they want to.

Many people in Britain want to cycle, or would consider cycling, but
they don't because they think it's too dangerous.

I am talking about "normal people" here. Families with children,
middle aged women, etc. The bulk of the population. Not a minority of
young, male cycling enthusiasts (who will cycle no matter what).

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:59:13 -0700 (PDT), Mastuna
<[email protected]> said in
<c5331202-81b6-40a7-b9fe-78190eccd264@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:

>The more people cycle, the better cycling conditions will become, also
>for you and me. So I am not being purely altruistic.

And you think creating bicycle Bantustans, effectively stating that
the roads are too dangerous, will help with that? I am unconvinced.

>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.

There have been attempts to ban cyclists from public roads where
facilities exist, since about the 1930s. At the risk of invoking
Godwin's Law, the Nazis were the most successful in making this
happen, motivated primarily by the desire to promote car use rather
than improve cycling.

Your idea of racing cyclists banished to A roads and the rest of us
confined to the narrow glass-strewn potholed apologies for cycle
routes that are promoted instead of the public roads, fills me with
dismay. I sincerely hope it will never happen. I ride the A1203
rather than the bike "facility" along Cable Street because it is
vastly better, and I also think safer due to massively reduced
conflicts with half-asleep drivers.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 07:32:14 +0100, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>That's Mastuna's point. Where *good* cycle paths are provided more
>people cycle.

Really? Got a good cite for that?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mastuna]

> 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.

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

agreed

> They need to maintain
> priority at side roads.

agreed

> 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.

 

[Rob Morley]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 01:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Mastuna <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's a common myth that Britain has "no room". Most bike paths would
> be built in urban areas. Though the country as a whole has a high
> population density, British *cities* often have some of the lowest
> population densities in Europe.

Newsflash - office and retail premises don't dematerialise just because
nobody lives in them.

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Mastuna wrote:
> You see, it doesn't really matter if using a bike path is more or less
> safe than cycling on the road. What matters is that bike paths are
> *perceived* to be safe,

So change the perception.
- it's not that dangerous to cycle on the road
- it's no safer, and usually more hazardous, to cycle on a parallel
cycle path.

But every time you create a cycle path, you reinforce those
misperceptions.

> And of course I mean *good* bike paths; the kind they have in Holland.
> Wide, continuous, straight, easy-to-use bike networks, designed for
> safety and high throughput, and that give priority to cyclists at
> junctions.

And which, IIRC, are compulsory for cyclists, like those in Germany.

On-road cycling came to be perceived as dangerous because of driver
behaviour. It will be, and will be seen to be safe if the driving
culture is improved. France has shown what can be done, with radical
casualty reduction following a decision to enforce existing laws better.

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.