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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.