Why we need bike paths.

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:05:57 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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?

No cite, just an example: Holland.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 11:30:03 +0100, "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>And he accepts that his proposal may result in banning cyclists from more
>roads. Unintended consequences - bad things.

There is no suggestion that a road with cycle track alongside would
cease to be a public right of way, open to pedestrian and cycle
traffic. Indeed, to remove a public right of way takes about two
years and even then rarely succeeds.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 11:36:57 +0100, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
>
>Would it not be better to offer new and returning cyclists some training to
>give them the necessary skills and confidence to be able to interact with
>the motor traffic rather than fear it?

Cycle training is an excellent idea. I don't see that cycle training
would make a trip along a busy road to the swimming pool preferable to
a motor traffic free route.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:05:06 +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?
>No cite, just an example: Holland.

As far as I understand, the Dutch were always a nation of cyclists
even before the Germans built cyclepaths. Which is chicken, and
which egg? Or might it just be that Holland is fairly flat?

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

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 16:13:46 +0100, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>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?
>
>I guess not, but is that because of, or in spite of the cycle facilities? Is
>it not because Dutch and Danish drivers are much more accustomed to dealing
>with cyclists, and there isn't the transport heirachy assumption that there
>is in the UK?

My guess is that a *good* cycle network would mean increased use of
the road for cycling, so long as the road network remains more
extensive than the cycle network.

>>>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.
>
>The point being made by others is that the provision of facilities may
>result in cyclists being forced to use them as opposed to having the choice
>of using them, so that using the road would not be an option.

The A90 in Edinburgh is the only example I know of a road where the
public right of way has been removed. I don't belive that the same
could happen to existing roads under English law with ease.

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

 

[naked_draughtsman]

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:52:09 -0700, Mastuna wrote:

> Your opinion?

The one built along the promenade at Colwyn Bay is a apalling -
particularly in the summer months. Last time I went along there the part
under the pier was still fenced off (just fence, no signs or brightly
coloured barriers) and had been for well over a year.
There are a lot of small problems such as potholes that could be resolved
quickly and cheaply but the council have chosen not to do anything about
it.

But, a *lot* of people ride along there, and there was a noticeable
increase in people cycling along the roads in the area once it
opened. I think that particular cycle path puts off a lot of
people who 'try' it, but not as many who stick with it or
switch to the road which is a good thing.

peter

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:28:18 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:05:06 +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?
>>No cite, just an example: Holland.
>
>As far as I understand, the Dutch were always a nation of cyclists
>even before the Germans built cyclepaths. Which is chicken, and
>which egg? Or might it just be that Holland is fairly flat?

I expect it's a combination of things which makes Holland attractive
for cycling. Continuous good quality motor traffic free routes with
cyclist priority at many junctions must surely be a contribuatry
factor.

 

[Roger Merriman]

Mastuna <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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_administra
> tive_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.

there is a lot more to London than just central london. by the time
you've got the rivers the railwaylines the motorways and roads as good
as. plus the various parks and what not, the layout tends to make narrow
roads and quite often with various pinch points.

thats not to say that at best the cycle lanes etc, are still in a could
do better, the other problem is they are only intended for low speeds
for folk who commute a fair distance by bike bike paths simply don't cut
it.


>
> > And where would all the cars magically go?
>
> Some would go to private parking. Some would be replaced by bikes.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Pete Biggs]

Tom Crispin wrote:
>
> 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.

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 (?).

~PB

 

[Martin]

GoogleUser Mastuna wrote:
>> 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:

I don't know about other towns and cities, but Bristol definitely does
not have enough room. Currently the WEP are trying to turn some of the
few off road cycle paths into BRT schemes. e.g. the B2B path, the
chocolate path, the Malago Greenway to name just a few.

http://tinyurl.com/5zyod7
leads to
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/disp...tentPK=20806074&folderPk=83726&pNodeId=144922

The real problem with Bristol is the quantity of cars, especially at
rush hour. If the amount of car traffic could be reduced, it would make
it more pleasant to cycle here, and the amount of cycling would increase.

 

[Mike the unimaginative]

[email protected] (Neil Williams) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 06:24:12 -0700 (PDT), Mastuna
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Milton Keynes ... yeah right. **** city planning right from the start.
>>The problem is that those redways were designed purely for
>>recreational purposes and not with commuters in mind.
>
> This may be true, but I certainly prefer riding on them over 70mph
> dual carriageways (or worse 60mph single carriageways).
>
> They'd be improved no end if they would simply put some road markings
> on them in order to get people in the mindset that they are
> effectively motor-vehicle-free country lanes.
>
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).
But even in the utopias of MK and Stevenage (as was) the dual issues of
maintanance and foul-weather clearance are forgotten. Within maintanance
I include regular sweeping and signpost maintenance; within foul-weather
clearance I include maling sure that the drainage is adaquate (and
clear) and the clearing of snow, ice and wet leaves.
I regualarly use part of NCN6 through central LEicester as it is
effectively a car-free parellel route to a main commuter thrombus (the
Narborough Road) - but I won't (never, say, never!) use shared pavements
- they are the work of stan.
Cycle lanes anywhere near roads (on-road lanes, shared use pavements
etc) are but a very short hop to banning cycling from the public
highway. As another poster has said - be careful what you wish for!
The key is - again to use anther poster's point - a change in motorist
behaviour, as has happenend in France. When a car driver tells me it's
too dangerous to cycle - I generally ask them if that's because of they
way they are driving?

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 21:12:09 +0200, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>> 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
still welcome on the bits which existed before the A12 (M11 extension)
was built.

>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 (?).

I think that it would be very difficult for any Government to force
through such legislation. Just look at the fierce opposition to the
re-wording of the Highway Code, suggesting that cyclists should use
cycle facilities where they exist.

Attempts to make the use of cycle lanes compulsory, other than
segregated lanes alongside sections of motorway such as the Severn
Bridge, would surely fail.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <c5331202-81b6-40a7-b9fe-78190eccd264@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Mastuna 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.

You presume wrong, which is consistent with the rest of your argument.

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>Does anyone have an example of an existing road *in England or Wales*
>>which has had its right of way removed?

A40, when it stopped being A40(M). It didn't take them long.

It costs about about as much effort to ban cycling as to ban anything
else: draw up a traffic order, advertise it, wait a month for
objections, record why you're ignoring the objections, paint the lines
and put up the signs.

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

> 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 (?).

What happens a lot more is that road lanes are narrowed to get more of
them in. Since drivers are lousy at changing lanes to pass cyclists,
this makes them unpleasant enough to cycle on that most people don't.

The designers take the presence of an off-road cycle facility, of any
quality, as giving them carte blanche to make the road as
cycle-hostile as they like.

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.

 

[Richard Fairhurst]

On Jun 6, 11:14 pm, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Oh for goodness' sake, this is an utterly dispiriting argument and one
which comes round again and again with people just rehearsing their
own timeworn positions.

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.

Where there is demand for new cycle paths (as there undoubtedly is),
there are organisations lobbying for it. Where there is demand for
"the right to ride" on the road (as there undoubtedly is), there are
organisations lobbying for it. And so both exist and thrive.

What is the f--king problem? Why do some people have to witter on
endlessly about "Sustrans are teh evil because they occasionally
promote paths THIS IS MY ROAD TOO" (er, never mind that two-thirds of
the NCN is on-road)? If you think that either is in danger, join the
relevant organisation, get your **** in gear and do some lobbying.

I think of this occasionally on my daily commute to work, which within
one mile encompasses a busy main road roundabout, a bit of NCN, a
local council cycle path (which no doubt would be deemed a "farcility"
by the ooh-aren't-we-funny brigade), and some contraflow cycle
provision as part of a new housing estate. If I were to follow the
logic of the purists of any persuasion, I'd end up cycling over a
steep, tall and dangerously narrow railway bridge to avoid the path,
or five miles out of my way to avoid the roundabout. No-one, apart
from the jihadists who post to froups and forums, would actually do
either. Get over it.

Richard

 

[Pete Biggs]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Oh for goodness' sake, this is an utterly dispiriting argument and one
> which comes round again and again with people just rehearsing their
> own timeworn positions.

If youre bored of arguments like this, you're bored of uk.rec.cycling.

Feel free to bugger off.

~PB

 

[Terry Duckmanton]

Mastuna wrote:
>> 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).
>
>
I regard myself as 'normal people'. I am married with two children and I
enjoy cycling to and from work. I don't race, but I am enthusiastic
about cycling as a means of maintaining fitness, so I don't pootle either.

I have never felt the need for special provision for my kind of cycling
since the roads which are already there seem to serve my purposes quite
well. None of the cycling facilities which have been installed in my
area even come near to improving my commute so I don't use them. I do
live in constant fear of being forced to use them by government dictat.

I appreciate that many would-be cyclists find the prospect of cycling on
normal roads somewhat daunting, but so do most would-be car drivers.
All learners would prefer to learn in an environment in which there is
no other traffic, but this is not going to happen for the average person.

Thank you for including me in the young, male cycling enthusiasts group,
at 60 years of age I find this flattering.

Terry Duckmanton

 

[Pete Biggs]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> What is the f--king problem? Why do some people have to witter on
> endlessly about "Sustrans are teh evil because they occasionally
> promote paths THIS IS MY ROAD TOO" (er, never mind that two-thirds of
> the NCN is on-road)? If you think that either is in danger, join the
> relevant organisation, get your **** in gear and do some lobbying.

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!

~PB

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:01:40 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Pete Biggs wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>Does anyone have an example of an existing road *in England or Wales*
>>>which has had its right of way removed?
>
>A40, when it stopped being A40(M). It didn't take them long.

Was there a time when cycling was allowed on that bit of road? The
same happened to the A102(M) when it became the A102 - but the ban on
cycling was continuous.

>It costs about about as much effort to ban cycling as to ban anything
>else: draw up a traffic order, advertise it, wait a month for
>objections, record why you're ignoring the objections, paint the lines
>and put up the signs.
>
>> Some of the bits of the A406 where underpasses and overpasses were put in.
>
>> 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 (?).
>
>What happens a lot more is that road lanes are narrowed to get more of
>them in. Since drivers are lousy at changing lanes to pass cyclists,
>this makes them unpleasant enough to cycle on that most people don't.
>
>The designers take the presence of an off-road cycle facility, of any
>quality, as giving them carte blanche to make the road as
>cycle-hostile as they like.

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.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:53:02 +0100, Terry Duckmanton
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I do live in constant fear of being forced to use them by government dictat.

Really!? Things have certainly improved in the past 30 years. There
was a time when people lived in constant fear of a nuclear attack from
the Soviet Union.