To get cyclists off the pavement, build better bike lanes, Washington DC finds

mrmo wrote:

http://road.cc/content/news/126208-sharp-jump-number-cyclists-killed-or-seriously-injured-britain’s-roads

something is obviously not working.

Yes, I agree. It's still horrible. Mind, reading that article something is jumping out at me once again. The way the campaigners are framing their demands (or coy wishes, as it were) is possibly one of the main reasons why they're being ignored:

British Cycling wrote:

"Without adequate and sustained funding for cycling of at least £10 per head, coupled with real political leadership and national targets, Britain will continue to fall far short of great cycling countries like Holland, Germany and Denmark."

Emphasis added. Most people don't give a flying toss about Britain becoming a "great cycling country". The problem we're having is that we're being perceived as a fringe group with a massively distorted sense of entitlement.

What is being overlooked are the numerous - and, apparently only to us, obvious - benefits more cycling would have for all of society, even those who would never consider taking up cycling and those who fervently hate cyclists. This needs more banging on about.

userfriendly wrote:

Emphasis added. Most people don't give a flying toss about Britain becoming a "great cycling country". The problem we're having is that we're being perceived as a fringe group with a massively distorted sense of entitlement.

Because the huge subsidy that vehicular traffic receives is never mentioned.

userfriendly wrote:

What is being overlooked are the numerous - and, apparently only to us, obvious - benefits more cycling would have for all of society, even those who would never consider taking up cycling and those who fervently hate cyclists. This needs more banging on about.

Its not even cycling but not driving for any journey under 5kms, which the vast majority are, that is causing the current public health epidemic of obesity and its associated diseases.

I keep banging on about this book but this guy nailed it: http://www.roadpeace.org/involved/support_us/the_energy_glut/

If you want to spare 30 mins, watch the video but the book is better.

zanf wrote:

How is a usually crappy, debris strewn shared path to be considered 'segregated'? Its just 'tapped on as an after thought' provisioning.

Even a crappy debris strewn path is more acceptable to a 'pootler' than the road with cars whizzing past them. They're riding at 10 MPH or less, and with fat knobbly MTB tyres.

userfriendly wrote:

plenty of motorists buzzing me while pointing at the pavement, or shared use path if there happens to be one.

zanf wrote:

That there is nothing to do with segregation but everything to do with the perception of vehicular self entitlement and aggressive driving, which is covered by various pieces of legislation.

Building segregated cycle lanes, or not, isnt going to change the arsehole attitudes of those kinds of drivers.

I realise that! The problem is that they themselves don't! It gives them a reason, nonsensical as this reason is (you expect them to have sense?), and it gives them an excuse to slip into dangerous arsehole mode.

There isn't a black/white partition of road users into responsible adults and aggressive numpties. Most people fall somewhere in between, and the spectrum is wide. The fewer excuses they have the fewer of them will slip into behaving this way. The more excuses they have, the more of them. We could go on and on about behaviourism, but this is what it boils down to.

zanf wrote:

The only way to break that culture is by permanently revoking the licenses of those who break road traffic regulations to the point of endanger others, by removing all subsidisation of vehicular traffic and by re-enforcing the basic premise of the rights of access to public highways (vehicles can only do so under license).

You're dreaming. It's okay, I like to dream too. May I point you to the latest Chris Boardman article's comment section on here where I'm essentially arguing for an authoritarian government that revokes the majority of private driving licences on the grounds of most people not actually needing a car and pumps billions into public transport instead? Because that is what it would take.

A society that gives a party like UKIP most of their votes for the EU parliament and keeps voting Tory, neo-liberals and used-to-be-Labour governments into office is not going to democratically make the changes that you and I want. Because most people simply don't give a shit. They want theirs, theirs alone, and are too stupid to realise that they're not even getting that much. It's hopeless.

It seems to me you may have misunderstood part of my post above - I'm not against segregated, *proper* infrastructure. I explained why I *used* to be against it, and that people who argue the way I did are not in fact doing so "on the basis that slower, more vulnerable road users are holding them up and so should sacrifice safety for their convenience" as you put it.

That comment was uncalled for, unfair, misrepresents my (and other people's) point of view, and as such furthers the divide between the two sides of the argument. It's not helping.

The way I see it nowadays is that I shouldn't frown on people who prefer even the crappy paths over the road, instead we should lobby for more infrastructure, then make a fuzz about it not being up to standards when it does get built.

I completely agree about the "shitty inadequate nonsense that Sustrans or car-centric councils roll out", but it's better having that - and building on it by not being happy about it and demanding more and better - than dreaming about what an ideal world would look like where arsehole drivers get what they deserve (hint, arsehole drivers: I'm not talking about cyclists 'getting out of the way', sorry - I'm talking about jail).

zanf wrote:

userfriendly wrote:

Most people don't give a flying toss about Britain becoming a "great cycling country". The problem we're having is that we're being perceived as a fringe group with a massively distorted sense of entitlement.

Because the huge subsidy that vehicular traffic receives is never mentioned.

Precisely my point.

zanf wrote:

I keep banging on about this book but this guy nailed it: http://www.roadpeace.org/involved/support_us/the_energy_glut/

If you want to spare 30 mins, watch the video but the book is better.

Cheers, will have a look when I get home. Completely soaked, by the looks of the sky right now.

userfriendly wrote:

It seems to me you may have misunderstood part of my post above - I'm not against segregated, *proper* infrastructure. I explained why I *used* to be against it, and that people who argue the way I did are not in fact doing so "on the basis that slower, more vulnerable road users are holding them up and so should sacrifice safety for their convenience" as you put it.

That comment was uncalled for, unfair, misrepresents my (and other people's) point of view, and as such furthers the divide between the two sides of the argument. It's not helping.

While that comment was not directed at you specifically, I have seen on this site comments from people that expresses an utter disdain for non-sporty cyclists to the degree that you wonder what kind of people they really are.

zanf wrote:

I keep banging on about this book but this guy nailed it: http://www.roadpeace.org/involved/support_us/the_energy_glut/

If you want to spare 30 mins, watch the video but the book is better.

Cheers, will have a look when I get home. Completely soaked, by the looks of the sky right now.[/quote]

Out of choice, I live about 2.5km from where I work so managed to escape it!

Enjoy Ian Roberts video!

zanf wrote:

Enjoy Ian Roberts video!

Loved it!

I may buy several copies of his book and send them to not-so-skinny friends who will probably respond with a pained smile and not read them.

userfriendly wrote:

I completely agree with what you're saying, mrmo, but you're talking about what we would want ideally. Look at this society, look at our government. It's pointless to refuse what little they're willing to give in favour of something we won't get. Ideally, I would be dictator, and do away with private motorised traffic. It's not going to happen. Luckily, you might add, because I can come up with a lot more things I would do away with in that case ...

IMO I would say a bad path is actually worse than no path, and we do need to be idealistic in this, the sustrans nicey nicey approach has failed, year after year we get the same crap provision. The same excuses and more and more reviews.

A bad path just gives idiot drivers another stick to beat cyclists with.

We can say that the crumbs are a step in the right direction, but the paths that are built don't even meet the DfT's own guidance! and this is without considering whether they are actually good paths.

To go forward it has to be done right, if the current approach was working we would see rising numbers using bikes for transport, and outside London it isn't happening.

mrmo wrote:

IMO I would say a bad path is actually worse than no path, and we do need to be idealistic in this, the sustrans nicey nicey approach has failed, year after year we get the same crap provision. The same excuses and more and more reviews.

But we - or at least potential new cyclists - are getting *something*, and honestly it doesn't look like we would get anything else. I disagree that 'getting nothing' would be better, because that won't help increase our numbers. And no matter which side of the argument regarding segregated infrastructure you're on, we all want that increase.

mrmo wrote:

A bad path just gives idiot drivers another stick to beat cyclists with.

Again, this is my concern as well. No disagreement from me there. But I keep telling myself that the increased danger might at least be partially mitigated by the increased number of drivers who take up cycling and, while thinking I'm crazy for doing it on the road, may have gained at least a bit more empathy for me.

mrmo wrote:

We can say that the crumbs are a step in the right direction, but the paths that are built don't even meet the DfT's own guidance! and this is without considering whether they are actually good paths.

Yes. More beak gaping required here.

mrmo wrote:

To go forward it has to be done right, if the current approach was working we would see rising numbers using bikes for transport, and outside London it isn't happening.

Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm not in London, and I don't have statistics at hand, I only have anecdote: more of my friends have taken up cycling recently, and they all favour the (crappy) segregated infrastructure over riding on the road with me. When we're out on a wee jolly I tend to indulge them while sometimes carefully sneaking a bit of road riding in there to get them used to it.

The approach is *working*, just not very well. IMO that beats something that would work much better but isn't going to happen, ever.

Quote:

A bad path just gives idiot drivers another stick to beat cyclists with.

We can say that the crumbs are a step in the right direction, but the paths that are built don't even meet the DfT's own guidance! and this is without considering whether they are actually good paths.

To go forward it has to be done right, if the current approach was working we would see rising numbers using bikes for transport

This is the answer to any arguments that "surely something is better than nothing". It's not. Sometimes what is proffered to cyclists is actually worse than the existing conditions, and it's all drummed in under "think of the children" type arguments while pearls are clutched with horror.

"Safety" is often used as an emotive stick with which to push cyclists off the road. An awful recent example of this comes from Montreal where two high profile deaths of public-bike riders (one in an underpass) resulted in some cyclists being scared into riding the sidewalk/pavement under the underpass. When some of them received tickets from the police for doing this, they (and the otherwise usually sane Velo Quebec) lobbied the local council to be be allowed to ride on the sidewalk in this situation. This was granted by the local authority (which is legally dubious).

Result?

Well, it now seems that the same police service is busy issuing tickets to all cyclists that are NOT on the sidewalk now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-police-warn-cyclists-to-...

Be very careful and accurate what you wish for.

In this case I wish that the bicycle activist types had lobbied for a 10 mph speed limit enforced in these situations.

Quote:

Police are warning cyclists using a dangerous St-Denis Street underpass to stick to the sidewalk or face a ticket.

Montreal Police confirmed they have threatened to ticket cyclists who use the road that runs underneath the Des Carrières railroard overpass.

The borough of Rosemont-La Petite Patrie put up signs to indicate that cyclists and pedestrians can share the sidewalk, after a cyclist was struck and killed by a truck there last spring.

CBC reporter Kate McKenna went to the underpass on Friday morning and noticed most of the cyclists were using the road, despite the new signage.

Many of them told her they disagree with the police interpretation that they must use the sidewalk, seeing it more as an optional route.

"What we actually need is police officers helping us be more secure, not police officers giving us tickets," said cyclist, Normand Landry.

Leodis wrote:

Current cyclists needs should be first and foremost in any investment, that means sorting the effin roads out.

Why? You're already cycling. What further benefit can you bring?

HKCambridge wrote:

Leodis wrote:

Current cyclists needs should be first and foremost in any investment, that means sorting the effin roads out.

Why? You're already cycling. What further benefit can you bring?

Not stopping would be one of them. If we're forced into crap infrastructure then our cycling lives become: 1) less fun; 2) less safe.

Either one of those is enough to put me off.

duc888 wrote:

oh well thats life

Or death. As it were.

Leodis wrote:

Current cyclists needs should be first and foremost in any investment, that means sorting the effin roads out.

I am fed up of hearing about segregated cycle lanes, if someone is that weak they refuse to get on a bike because of this made up danger then they really have no chance of getting on a bike. Current cyclists on the roads need protection by the law and that means presumed liability and tougher laws on drivers and cyclists who break it. If we create an environment where drivers are more cautious around cyclists we then have safer roads at a fraction of the cost.

I used to think that too. Two things have brought me to the other side of the argument.

1) As it turns out it's more realistic to get the occasional crumbs thrown at us in the form of a bit of infrastructure than it is to create proper law and have it enforced. The pragmatic approach seems to be to take what we can get while still gaping our beaks to get more.

2) You are right, a lot of the danger is 'perceived' but that doesn't make it any less real for those perceiving it - i.e. those who might want to take up cycling but for that reason won't. And they're more numerous than the people already cycling (which admittedly isn't a huge challenge).

Leodis wrote:

Current cyclists needs should be first and foremost in any investment, that means sorting the effin roads out.

I am fed up of hearing about segregated cycle lanes, if someone is that weak they refuse to get on a bike because of this made up danger then they really have no chance of getting on a bike. Current cyclists on the roads need protection by the law and that means presumed liability and tougher laws on drivers and cyclists who break it. If we create an environment where drivers are more cautious around cyclists we then have safer roads at a fraction of the cost.

No, Leodis, they should not. That is firstly because as a current cyclist, you cycle despite, rather than because of the conditions. They don't need to do anything for you.

The purpose of agitating for improved conditions is to get a lot more people using bikes for transport. That is what is beneficial to the common weal, in terms of reduced congestion, pollution, ill health and road deaths/injuries, and it is that benefit which justifies paying for the investment.

And as for your dismissal of people who are "that weak", reflect on the fact that they quite probably include your daughter, and your mother, and your wife. Are you really writing off their right to cycle quite so glibly?

Paul M wrote:

And as for your dismissal of people who are "that weak", reflect on the fact that they quite probably include your daughter, and your mother, and your wife. Are you really writing off their right to cycle quite so glibly?

Me and probably many other cyclists, women and men, throw dirt from our tyres onto your crassly sexist and hetero-assumptive eyes.

Apologies if you actually know Leodis plus daughter, mother and wife, but it looks like it's just an assumption.

Leodis wrote:

Current cyclists needs should be first and foremost in any investment, that means sorting the effin roads out.

I am fed up of hearing about segregated cycle lanes, if someone is that weak they refuse to get on a bike because of this made up danger then they really have no chance of getting on a bike. Current cyclists on the roads need protection by the law and that means presumed liability and tougher laws on drivers and cyclists who break it. If we create an environment where drivers are more cautious around cyclists we then have safer roads at a fraction of the cost.

Cycling modal share in this country lies at around 2%, as opposed to over 30% in the Netherlands. Either the Dutch are raised as Spartans, or... well, go figure.

Quince wrote:

Cycling modal share in this country lies at around 2%, as opposed to over 30% in the Netherlands. Either the Dutch are raised as Spartans, or... well, go figure.

Well the Nervii did control lands that are currently in southern Netherlands.
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Families/Family/4711

I'll get my anorak

If done right segregated lanes are the right move but not shared lanes (bike/footpath).

Why? Simply because different modes of transport have different needs. If you do not address these needs the transportation system will be inefficient. We can talk about health and all the rest of it but frankly most people don't care and the gov certainly doesn't. The bottom line is getting from A to B. Just look at all the 'paths' that get created across verges etc by pedestrians, that mentality carries over when they drive. What seems to escape the UK is that Dutch Engineers do not just design a roundabout or a cycle path on it's own , they look at a area as a whole and consider all modes of transport. There is no car vs bike vs pedestrian.

I'll happily bet that if a similar infrastructure was in place more cycling would be down in the UK but I also happily bet that in the finest British tradition it would be half arsed.

duc888 wrote:

The lanes should not be segregated, no kerbs between bikes and traffic, the thick white line system of the London CSH routes works fine, giving faster riders space to overtake.

And perfect access for cars to park and block the road!

There is a very good reason why we need segregation, there are two types of cyclist. Sport and transport the needs are different. I may see myself as the former but the system needs to cater for the later far more than it does. I don't really give a **** about provision, as long as it gets more people on bikes, to do this you have to make people feel safe, you have to make the routes usable, direct and fast. Current provision is almost always shit!

duc888 wrote:

The lanes should not be segregated, no kerbs between bikes and traffic, the thick white line system of the London CSH routes works fine, giving faster riders space to overtake.

Doesn't work so well for the people who have been killed and injured by encroaching motor vehicles.

oh well thats life

duc888 wrote:

oh well thats life

What a remarkably callous attitude. With friends like you on bikes, who needs enemies?

dp24 wrote:

duc888 wrote:

The lanes should not be segregated, no kerbs between bikes and traffic, the thick white line system of the London CSH routes works fine, giving faster riders space to overtake.

Doesn't work so well for the people who have been killed and injured by encroaching motor vehicles.

And mixing segregation with painted lines (without making it impossible for vehicles to enter) is not such a great idea either as demonstrated here: http://youtu.be/z1lp_Jnv3L8

A simple trick to make drivers more aware that they are cutting across a cycle lane, is to elevate it slightly as is common practice in the Netherlands

How anyone can genuinely argue a case for an integrationist/vehicular cycling solution in the UK is beyond me. It hasnt worked for the last 30 years, nor will it work no matter how much paint or signage you erect.

It comes as no surprise that those who do argue for it do so on the basis that slower, more vulnerable road users are holding them up and so should sacrifice safety for their convenience.

zanf wrote:

How anyone can genuinely argue a case for an integrationist/vehicular cycling solution in the UK is beyond me. It hasnt worked for the last 30 years, nor will it work no matter how much paint or signage you erect.

It comes as no surprise that those who do argue for it do so on the basis that slower, more vulnerable road users are holding them up and so should sacrifice safety for their convenience.

Please put the broad brush away, it's not helping anyone. When I argued against segregated infrastructure I did this solely out of concern for the safety of those cyclists using the roads instead. I still think that more segregation means more conflict for them, as evidenced by plenty of motorists buzzing me while pointing at the pavement, or shared use path if there happens to be one.

Despite my reservations about this aspect, I have come around to supporting segregated infrastructure precisely "for the sake of pootlers" as Leodis puts it. We want to include the pootlers, as well as the the would-be pootlers, and therefore their concerns - whether about actual or perceived danger - are to be taken into account.

Because eventually, a large number of the pootlers will want to go on the road, and with increased numbers of road cyclists we might finally have the numbers for actually getting what I and others who have argued against segregation want to see - better laws against bad driving and more enforcement of them.

I prefer the road - I don't like shared use paths (unless they're in a good condition and empty, in which case they're kind of like a road without cars). However, since we're not likely to get anything else anytime soon, I'll happily take them if only to increase the numbers of people who will want what I actually want - safer cycling on the roads.

userfriendly wrote:

Please put the broad brush away, it's not helping anyone. When I argued against segregated infrastructure I did this solely out of concern for the safety of those cyclists using the roads instead. I still think that more segregation means more conflict for them, as evidenced by plenty of motorists buzzing me while pointing at the pavement, or shared use path if there happens to be one.

Which is why that path has to either not exist or be fit for purpose. No half way house, no bodging, no painting lines and claiming that is enough.

How often do you see telephone boxes planted in the middle of a motorway? But that is acceptable on a cycle path....

userfriendly wrote:

When I argued against segregated infrastructure I did this solely out of concern for the safety of those cyclists using the roads instead. I still think that more segregation means more conflict for them,..

How is a usually crappy, debris strewn shared path to be considered 'segregated'? Its just 'tapped on as an after thought' provisioning.

userfriendly wrote:

..as evidenced by plenty of motorists buzzing me while pointing at the pavement, or shared use path if there happens to be one.

That there is nothing to do with segregation but everything to do with the perception of vehicular self entitlement and aggressive driving, which is covered by various pieces of legislation.

Building segregated cycle lanes, or not, isnt going to change the arsehole attitudes of those kinds of drivers. The only way to break that culture is by permanently revoking the licenses of those who break road traffic regulations to the point of endanger others, by removing all subsidisation of vehicular traffic and by re-enforcing the basic premise of the rights of access to public highways (vehicles can only do so under license).

userfriendly wrote:

Despite my reservations about this aspect, I have come around to supporting segregated infrastructure precisely "for the sake of pootlers" as Leodis puts it. We want to include the pootlers, as well as the the would-be pootlers, and therefore their concerns - whether about actual or perceived danger - are to be taken into account.

Your reservations are based on the shitty inadequate nonsense that Sustrans or car-centric councils roll out, which are always from the perspective that towns and cities are for cars, not people so are based on convenience to vehicles, not about sustainable transport systems that put vulnerable road users first.

userfriendly wrote:

Because eventually, a large number of the pootlers will want to go on the road, and with increased numbers of road cyclists we might finally have the numbers for actually getting what I and others who have argued against segregation want to see - better laws against bad driving and more enforcement of them.

You seem to have a mindset that is shared with a vast amount of people and shows a lack of imagination or any kind of prescience: Once our town and city infrastructures are designed so that people come first, private vehicles will be (designed to be) the least convenient form of transport and so car usage will fall, as will ownership. As a direct consequence, roads will have less traffic, therefore less congestion, less pollution and more space for those who wish to not use segregated cycle ways (and once the above paradigm shift happens with infra design, the cycle ways will be very busy!).

userfriendly wrote:

I prefer the road - I don't like shared use paths (unless they're in a good condition and empty, in which case they're kind of like a road without cars).

So you do get it! No-one likes using inadequate shared paths that are a less convenient way to get to where you're going.

userfriendly wrote:

However, since we're not likely to get anything else anytime soon

Keep saying that and it wont.

userfriendly wrote:

..I'll happily take them if only to increase the numbers of people who will want what I actually want - safer cycling on the roads.

If it gets the next generation of kids cycling to school, etc, rather than being driven, that the vast amount of car journeys that are less than 5km are stopped and the encroaching obesity epidemic doesnt burden, overwhelm and finally destroy the NHS, then all the better.

I am very aware that its going to take more than segregated cycle paths to get people cycling and healthy but as the saying goes, "build it and they will come"

You will see (again) with the RideLondon Saturday event of the 10 mile loop, there is such a suppressed demand that its not really a case of people saying "oh, I might take up cycling" but more a case of "finally, we can get those bikes out of the shed and ride safely".