Why we need bike paths.

[Matt]

>
> 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 in the Netherlands VenW.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

 

[Colin McKenzie]

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.

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 8, 12:24 am, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:44:07 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

 

[David Hansen]

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

>> 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

 

[David Hansen]

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

>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

 

[David Hansen]

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

>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

 

[Pete Biggs]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> On Jun 8, 12:24 am, "Pete Biggs"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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

 

[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.
>
> 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"?

> 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

 

[Colin Reed]

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

 

[Neil Williams]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:42:08 -0500, Mike the unimaginative
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:44:07 +0100, Colin McKenzie
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>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!

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]

Tom Crispin wrote:

[A406]
> 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

 

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 01:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 8, 12:24 am, "Pete Biggs"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 11:50:26 +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
>
>Is that a typo and you meant "that is a new road"?
>
>> 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

>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.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:46:35 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:44:07 +0100, Colin McKenzie
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>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.

 

[Nick Kew]

On 07 Jun 2008 22:06:15 +0100 (BST)
[email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote:

> 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.

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

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 14:16:08 +0200, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>[A406]
>> 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.

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

Mastuna wrote:
>> 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.
>
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.

 

[Martin]

Nick Kew wrote:
> On 07 Jun 2008 22:06:15 +0100 (BST)
> [email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.