Video of “busiest cycle path in the Netherlands” goes viral, where “private cars are not allowed”… and there’s “no congestion”; Police Scotland called out for “incorrect” cycling advice; Magistrate resigns over 20mph speed limits + more on the live blog

83 thoughts on “Video of “busiest cycle path in the Netherlands” goes viral, where “private cars are not allowed”… and there’s “no congestion”; Police Scotland called out for “incorrect” cycling advice; Magistrate resigns over 20mph speed limits + more on the live blog”

1. I’m shocked, simply shocked ,

   I’m shocked, simply shocked , to discover that the police don’t understand basic road laws or the Highway Code, as they apply to cyclists 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Quote:

     Never pass between the vehicle and kerb

     I am glad road.cc included that paragraph from the HWC. I remember reading it, but still have a little doubting voice when I pass between kerb and queue of vehicles.

     Does it feel like Police Social Media is sometimes run like it is a punishment for an officer?
     “Right Dave, you blasted your sirens at an 8 year old for not wearing a helmet, so you gotta handle X today”

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • My annoyance at this social

       My annoyance at this social media stuff is not just the (incorrect and dangerous) signal it sends to drivers, but more importantly how it shows up police knowledge and action. The officer that posted this may be the one that attends to you once someone has driven into you as you cycle along. And they will find a way to explain why it is your fault, irrespective of circumstances or law.

        

       With regards who posts this, I’m not sure who handles social media. I do know that often cycle camera video submissions are viewed not by specialist officers, but by ‘regular’ officers who are on desk duty that week, perhaps because of an injury sustained that week. So more like your regular neighbourhood cop than a traffic cop.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I’d like to think officers
         I’d like to think officers aren’t routinely employed to post stuff on social media, and its just some back office staff working for the police pr team, doing that classic they think it sounds right, so it must be, that we get hit with by drivers daily.

         Doesn’t mean the police aren’t as badly informed, see the recent WMP stop, just not sure we can blame them directly for the tweets.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • The only one I have seen

           The only one I have seen comment is surrey police where the sgt was a traffic cop and had to defend himself by stating he tweets in his on time.

         • I’ve seen individual coppers
           I’ve seen individual coppers with twitter accounts, which as you say they do on their own time,that’s fair enough, and they rarely make a mistake like this on law or the HC, but the main police force accounts, got to be somekind of clerical staff, hasn’t it ?

         • Maybe not but it hardly

           Maybe not but it hardly matters if they’re all as badly informed as each other.

2. TdF route reveal today…

   TdF route reveal today…

   Log In or Register to post comments

3. The Ghostface Killah is the

   The Ghostface Killah is the current best grand tour rider, I think it’s fair to say, but he doesn’t feature at all outside a few stage races unlike Pogi and MvdP so he’s not an all-rounder like they are. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • With the unstoppable

     With the unstoppable domestique team of the RZA, the GZA, Ol Dirty Bastard, Inspectah Deck and Method Man how could anyone come close to the performance of the Ghostface, no one could be iller. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I think the point is that in

     I think the point is that in stage races, which are indeed his priority, he features very heavily in every single one. 

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

4. Has anyone seen the Jeremy

   Has anyone seen the Jeremy Vine video yet where Jason Donovan nearly gets taken out by a TfL bus?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Do we have to watch it and

     Do we have to watch it and report back so you don’t have to watch the overlays ?

     Awful driving.

     At one point one of them says ‘great helmet’ but don’t say ‘you should wear it properly then’.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Hirsute wrote:

       Do we have to watch it and report back so you don’t have to watch the overlays ?

       — Hirsute

       

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • JV waves the bus driver past

     JV waves the bus driver past and JD stops pedalling whilst pulling over to the kerb!

     The bus driver should have ignored them both and just held back, but they didn’t really help the situation having a chummy chat in the middle of a junction.

     Now there’s nothing wrong with having a chat with someone else on a bike. It’s actually one of the nice things about active travel, the sort of interactions with other people that would never happen when driving. Proper cycling infrastructure would make this a totally safe thing to do. It’s perhaps not the best idea on a dark, wet, congested road though.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • brooksby wrote:

     Has anyone seen the Jeremy Vine video yet where Jason Donovan nearly gets taken out by a TfL bus?

     — brooksby

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • hawkinspeter wrote:

       Has anyone seen the Jeremy Vine video yet where Jason Donovan nearly gets taken out by a TfL bus?

       — hawkinspeter

       — brooksby

       You may want one of those after stocking up here.

       Log In or Register to post comments

5. The lead in to the ASL is a

   The lead in to the ASL is a bit of a tricky one as it is open to individual rider risk assessment.

   A lot depends on the traffic in front of me –
   1. if its mainly cars and if I can get ‘safely’ (as in intact, up-right and still alive) to the ASL.
   2. if there are trucks, busses and very large panel vans (such as the hi-topped, long-wheelbased ones that are almost but not quite 7.5tonners (you know the ones)), that depends on what my spidey senses tell me.

   For both 1 and 2 above, how long the light has been red for is a primary deciding factor in if I attempt to move up or not. If it’s just changed to red, then I’m likely to move up.
   If I’m not sure, or its been red for a while, then I’m more likely to stay put.

   For 2 above, if the light has just turned red, then I’ll move up on the off-side of the vehile, unless there is an empty lane to the nearside. I’ll move right up the ASL box and try to make eye contact with the driver so they know I am there. I might attempt to sign to the driver my intentions – especially if the lane is a combiend straigh-ahead/turn lane, so they have an idea of where I am going. This can have mixed reception, however, I get more thumbs up and smiles than shrugs of indifference and diliberate looks away (yes, I know they could be humouring me, but it shows that they have *seen* me).

   At any time, I will not sit alongside a bus, truck or large panel van on the inside, and would pass them on the offside, rather than the nearside unless there is a clear empty lane on the nearside.

    

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. I worry about all this

   I worry about all this coverage of heart attacks and deaths. Is it just better coverage, better screening, better health knowledge that is bringing this all to light, or are we seeing a greater frequency of occurence?

   If so, then the question needs to be asked, why? 

   I’m sure the anti-vax / covid conspiracy crowd will have an opinion, and then there will also be the doping cynic with their view. 

   I however fear a far darker (in my opinion anyway) potential cause, and that being the developments in cycling training in the past decade. 

   Use of power meters and greater understanding of sport physiology means that training has never been so qualified, and as such has evolved significantly. So much so, that youngsters are now achieving as a teenager, what previously took years of professional experience / development to obtain.

   And here’s the rub. With kids training more effectively than ever, those high responders (to training) are being identified earlier and earlier. The reason certain people respond more than others is primarily genetics, and sadly those genetic can include a tendency to overdevelop the heart muscle. This can lead to all sorts of trouble a little later down the line.

   However, when young, a big, well developed heart is a very useful tool, so are rac teams, in their quest for the next Remco, inadvertently prioritising athletes with potentially disfunctional hearts? 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I’m not anti-vax, but it is
     I’m not anti-vax, but it is undoubtedly true – given numerous well-done analyses by experience and reputable researchers of large data-sets – that the 2 most widely administered covid vaccines can cause heart issues above background rates in under 40s. It is well established that these issues occur at the highest rates in young males – Moderna being the highest. It is also well established that young, healthy males were at no noticeable risk of covid.

     It must be noted that these studies are based on observational data. Such data is, unfortunately, lower quality than RCT data. We do not have RCT data because these vaccines were fast-tracked through the regulatory processes and then most populations in western countries were heavily coerced into taking them. As a result, ability to do further RCTs in cohorts like, say, young people, is quite limited as nearly all the population has already had the medication.

     I am not trying to cause an argument here. I’m just stating what I think are well established facts, or obvious consequences thereof in the case of the very last claim. If they sit uncomfortably with some readers, it is – I would say – because on reflection these were not good acts/policies to have carried out (wrt younger cohorts most obviously – even “back then”).

     That this has given fuel to “anti-vaxxers” is the inevitable result. A number of eminent people warned about that risk before those policies were enacted, when the kites were being flown, and they were not heeded.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • And yet you spout anti-vax

       And yet you spout anti-vax tropes and dont provide any quantification of risks and highlight one (Vaccination risk) whilst downplaying another (Covid damage risk) without providing relative magnitudes between them.

       You are an anti-vaxxer and I claim my £5.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • In simple terms, fuck off.

       In simple terms, fuck off.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Yah I’m strongly pro-vax but
       Yah I’m strongly pro-vax but very suspicious and concerned (young asymptomatic male who experienced post-Moderna pericarditis) of the ones that haven’t gone through the proper process.
       Vaccines are medicines, that need testing, not a Messiah to be blindly followed: it’s like we’ve already forgot the lessons of thalidomide.

       Very disappointed in the comments that don’t realise the burden of proof lies on the pharmaceutical companies to prove their medicine works as intended, not on us to prove it doesn’t.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Car Delenda Est wrote:

         Yah I’m strongly pro-vax but very suspicious and concerned (young asymptomatic male who experienced post-Moderna pericarditis) of the ones that haven’t gone through the proper process. Vaccines are medicines, that need testing, not a Messiah to be blindly followed: it’s like we’ve already forgot the lessons of thalidomide. Very disappointed in the comments that don’t realise the burden of proof lies on the pharmaceutical companies to prove their medicine works as intended, not on us to prove it doesn’t.

         — Car Delenda Est

         The COVID vaccines were tested though – the speed of development made it seem like they were skipping safety procedures, but they instead skipped the waiting parts of getting the results and regulatory approval. The first vaccines were developed early in 2020 due to having the genetic makeup of SARS-CoV-2 and decades of previous research on coronaviruses. They also used the research into HIV vaccines so they could call upon a toolkit of safe weapons against various viruses – almost like assembling LEGO (probably a bit more complicated though).

         We have learned lessons from Thalidomide and safety/testing protocols have been vastly improved since then. As I understand it, the big problem with Thalidomide was that they didn’t test it on pregnant animals before testing it on pregnant humans. When they did test it on pregnant rats and rabbits, they found foetus deformities.

         Ultimately, as with a lot of health issues, it boils down to the statistics – are you more likely to encounter problems with catching COVID or encounter side effects of the vaccines. The rate of lingering side effects (i.e. not just a sore arm or feeling a bit tired for a week) for the vaccines have been very low, so there’s a very strong case for getting the protective effect as SARS-CoV-2 likes to go on an organ rampage and obviously can cause serious illness and death.

         You’re right that the burden of proof of safety lies with the pharmaceutical companies and that’s exactly what happened.

         Log In or Register to post comments

7. The creators of South Park

   The creators of South Park did an episode about distracted driving (phone use) in 2017…

   And regarding the magistrate who quit for refusing to punish people who speed.
   Good.
   Maybe they can replace him with someone willing to do the job and make people’s lives safer  by punishing dangerous drivers.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • It’s the whole “road crime

     It’s the whole “road crime isn’t real crime” argument.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • the little onion wrote:

       It’s the whole “road crime isn’t real crime” argument.

       — the little onion

       It’s a tough one. Is there any other category of law where the majority of people are willing to break it daily? The average person doesn’t just do “a little shoplifting” or “not many burglaries”, but almost all drivers speed. A significant portion go through amber lights when they could have safely stopped.

       Speaking of speeding, is there any other category of law where the “limit” is seen as “don’t go much over”. If a fishing licence says “maximum five” of a certain species, and the fisherman gets checked, is “what, I only caught six, that’s hardly over at all!” a defence?

       The real answer is to design roads where what feels like a safe speed to the driver is the speed you want. Then anyone speeding is seen by the vast majority as a miscreant deserving of actual punishment.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • andystow wrote:

         It’s a tough one. Is there any other category of law where the majority of people are willing to break it daily? The average person doesn’t just do “a little shoplifting” or “not many burglaries”, but almost all drivers speed. A significant portion go through amber lights when they could have safely stopped.

         — andystow

         Alcohol and other drugs.  Alcohol use by minors is illegal in some contexts, and alcohol purchase always, but both are common and tolerated.  And it seems to depend on degree – so an example of “it was only breaking the law a little”.  For other drugs people are prepared to take greater legal risks – however the law hasn’t changed despite a large minority breaking the law.  But I suspect that’s because public opinion on that is more polarised.

         I do think there is a popular idea of “if enough people disagree, it shouldn’t be law (or will be overturned soon enough)”.

         If “everyone else does it” (and visibly so) plus when you do it nothing bad happens, then you continue.  We’ve fixed it for driving (in large part through dedicated “driving infra”!) so that despite a high density of drivers and fast speeds people can continue to get away with breaking laws designed to protect without consequence.  (Also with very little enforcement).

         Driving is unique though for the potential consequences, the cost to society in general – and yet it being a commonplace activity hence carried out without much more thought than e.g. walking, cooking dinner etc.

         The real answer is to design roads where what feels like a safe speed to the driver is the speed you want. Then anyone speeding is seen by the vast majority as a miscreant deserving of actual punishment.

         — andystow

         True.  And I’d be against the 20mph sign change if it were shown that it had *no* effect – which you might expect.  However a) there is evidence shown that it does in fact bring speeds down and b) changing the car infra to make appropriate speeds self-reinforcing is the work of generations.  And right now “we’re on the side of the (bad / unnecessary) driver”.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • This is the best explination

         This is the best explination I’ve seen.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Isn’t the crux of the matter,

     Isn’t the crux of the matter, that this law is putting the prohibition onto the behaviour of those going much more sensible speeds and forcing the police to target them to the detriment of limits concentrating on those least likely to slow down when limits are lower and most likely to do harm?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • You said this before but

       You said this before but nowhere provided evidence that the police are “forced” to do anything.  Quite frankly “sensible” is a pretty subjective descriptor also!

       Log In or Register to post comments

8. However, the conservation

   However, the conservation group points to Sustrans’ involvement, as one of four organisations invited to help manage the project, as a further problem sparking cycle route fears. 

   They’ve obviously never tried to ride on a Sustrans route: difficult at a snail’s pace, let alone dangerously fast.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I think if I tried following

     I think if I tried following a Sustrans route I’d get lost.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I’ll defend Sustrans as

     I’ll defend Sustrans as making improvements very strategically, but limited by budget / capacity.

     eg last year they removed or redesigned 377 access barriers (see the annual report) on their network, and they have been pruning poorer quality paths.

     Remember other bodies own nearly all of it.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • mattw wrote:

       I’ll defend Sustrans as making improvements very strategically, but limited by budget / capacity.

       eg last year they removed or redesigned 377 access barriers (see the annual report) on their network, and they have been pruning poorer quality paths.

       Remember other bodies own nearly all of it.

       — mattw

       … but Sustrans signed it off, apparently to get their name on it / get money…

       I think the correct conclusion is the Sustrans of say 10 years back was massively overfunded!  However they do seem to have much improved their game on cycling (and accessibility) over the last x years.  People also confuse them (perhaps their fault) with a “cycling organisation” – no, they’re deffo “active travel” but again improving on what they write about cycling at least.

       Log In or Register to post comments

9. I’m not anti-vax

   I’m not anti-vax

   Oh dear, the nutters are back again! Rather as we all know what ‘I’m a cyclist myself’ means, we know that ‘I’m not anti-vax’ means the exact opposite. It’s a little more difficult to spot them in the absence of the post count, but the tell-tale signs are there.

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. Re: the busiest junction

    Re: the busiest junction footage.

    Love the bit at the 26 second mark where someone just calmly walks through the middle of the junction with no fear. 😀
    How many people would do the same if it was a normal junction anywhere else full of motor traffic…?

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • mitsky wrote:

      Re: the busiest junction footage.

      Love the bit at the 26 second mark where someone just calmly walks through the middle of the junction with no fear. 😀
      How many people would do the same if it was a normal junction anywhere else full of motor traffic…?

      — mitsky

      That’ll teach me to refresh the page more often!

      Yes – obviously agree 

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • Yep.  Something which many

      Yep.  Something which many people (especially in the UK) don’t know they don’t know is that not only are cycles not like cars, but pedestrians can interact with cyclists in a different way than they do with cars.

      So by having actual cycle infra (where there are lots of cyclists) compared to a road the width of space that pedestrians need to traverse to is shorter.  That, and the lower speeds, greater manoeuverability and possibilities for easier communication means that you don’t need traffic lights and formal pedestrian crossings in almost every case. (Probably this Utrecht street is one of the few in NL that might warrant a marked crossing).

      We’ve probably got a few generations of finding our way there from where we are in the UK (if we actually go in this direction…) but here’s how it can work.

      Note: I’m not saying that mixing pedestrians and cyclists on a shared use path is a good thing.  It’s not, because they’re not convenient for anyone in most cases.  Only suitable where there are very few of either mode.  (Probably that’s why we like ’em in the UK – there’s no intent to increase the number cycling and pedestrians are a secondary concern to those in cars anyway…)

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Shared routes can be fine; it

        Shared routes can be fine; it depends entirely on the ped / cycle traffic mix and volume, and the specificiton of the path. 

        The issue is when a Council declared a narrow (eg 1-1.3m) footway to be “shared” because they do not want to do it professionally.

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • mattw wrote:

          Shared routes can be fine; it depends entirely on the ped / cycle traffic mix and volume, and the specificiton of the path. 

          The issue is when a Council declared a narrow (eg 1-1.3m) footway to be “shared” because they do not want to do it professionally.— mattw

          Hmm… well I obviously agree that local authorities in the UK reach for this to “magically” make cycling provision on the cheap without needing to build anything.  And that actually sets back active travel.

          “Yes” they can be OK technically – in that traffic mix and volume is indeed critical.  Hence the usual Dutch solution to “routes for non-motorised traffic in the countryside” is effectively a shared-use path.  However (this sounds irrelevant but I think it’s important) it’s not actually to build a “shared use path” or a “footway that cyclists can use”.  It’s the opposite – build a cycle path only.  It’s always legal for pedestrians to use cycle paths and cycle paths will likely end up being a bit wider than a normal footway.  And the whole works because of very low volumes of both cyclists and pedestrians.  And likely most often far fewer pedestrians than cyclists (e.g. between more widely-separated places).

          And yes, I personally find some of the shared paths around Edinburgh still to be preferable over using the roads.  However … that is very dependent on volume of pedestrians.  They’re currently not very busy – there are plenty of quiet times.  And I’ll very rarely go on ones that are favoured by people strolling e.g. the canal, the Water of Leith path.  If I take the bike there it’s invariably for “leisure” and with no intent to go quickly.  And even then I’d not bother during high tourist season, or if it’s a non-working day and nice weather etc.  (Those two routes have other issues also e.g. they’re narrow – but widening them wouldn’t change things, because people walking spread out.)

          However I’d say the general answer is “No, shared routes are not fine”.  Stating that as an intent is setting up conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.  If “active travel” becomes more popular then the degree of conflict only increases.  It seems designing in conflict is a given in the UK.

          In general pedestrians and cyclists have quite different requirements.  A very small number of pedestrians can make using a shared use path inconvenient for cyclists.  Naturally people tend to travel in social groups of two or more, and will spread out to fill the available space (here’s a minimal illustration of this).  Start-stop cycling is very inefficient.

          Equally it feels significantly less relaxing if you’re strolling but listening out for bells / looking behind you, or you suddenly realise someone is passing by you quickly.  I don’t think having to listen for frequent ringing of bells is a good solution.  If you watch footage from the Netherlands you’ll notice that despite bells being a legal requirement they are almost never used, even when passing pedestrians where the two modes interact.

          Sustrans did a poll some time back clearly trying to assess “how many pedestrians are too many for comfort” on a cycle route, and I hope people indicated – as I did – “very few indeed”.

          Interesting paper on the subject.

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • In our Council Area afaik

            In our Council Area afaik they are nearly all shared footpaths (shared paths and cycle lanes being the two cheapest solutions from 1980-2020), which when newly built will be 2.5m wide usually.

            They work well on out of town roads where there are few pedestrians, and in some places there are line-down-the-middle pavements where both halves are 2m+. These also generally work OK, but we do not have mass cycling – increasing slowly, however. 

            We do have off road cycle tracks, but these universally have anti-access barriers.

          • mattw wrote:

            In our Council Area afaik they are nearly all shared footpaths (shared paths and cycle lanes being the two cheapest solutions from 1980-2020), which when newly built will be 2.5m wide usually.

            They work well on out of town roads where there are few pedestrians, and in some places there are line-down-the-middle pavements where both halves are 2m+. These also generally work OK, but we do not have mass cycling – increasing slowly, however. 

            We do have off road cycle tracks, but these universally have anti-access barriers.

            — mattw

            Yes – this is normally sadly how it is.  I’m fortunate in repeatedly picking places with an inheritance of “capital” in the form of former railways lines which have been repurposed as shared paths.  As you say, the width is crucial and – if you’re lucky – a former railway route may use more of the available space which can mean 4+ metres.

            Given the small amount of use often these come out as some of the better travel spaces* in the UK (because completely separated from motor vehicles, green environment etc).

            In Edinburgh we’re just starting to see things which look more like continental solutions in that we’ve built a cycle path along a main street, with a separate footway and where the cycle path is separate from the road.  The latest ones (e.g. CCWEL) aren’t like previous (ignoring Leith Walk, never give a cycle route design to tram designers…) and aren’t just hopeless “looky-likey” cargo-cult quality.  Albeit they still have issues – biggest is that almost without exception the UK hasn’t started to tackle junctions in a sensible way.

            * OTOH part of the reason for low use is exactly their “green and shady” nature.  I’ve heard quite a few folks say they’re not “socially safe” (either at night, or all the time) because they’re not overlooked by buildings / next to roads.   There can sections which seem “long” between possible access points, particularly for pedestrians.  Some are a favoured haunt of ne’er-do-well youth…

        • I’ve yet to ride on one I
          I’ve yet to ride on one I considered fine for shared cycle use. I usually encounter zombie pedestrians and dog walkers on extender leads on them who show no conceptual understanding they might encounter a cyclist.

          Let alone cyclists in the numbers on that video

          Log In or Register to post comments

        • Plenty of those around here.
          Plenty of those around here. A blue sign and a bit of paint does not make a cycle path.

          Log In or Register to post comments

11. The Netherlands “busiest

    The Netherlands “busiest cycle path”: what I really like about it, is all the pedestrians mingling with the cyclists. They are all happily sharing the space. It is an inspiring thing to watch.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • As my other reply – the

      As my other reply to mitsky – the important detail is pedestrians and cyclists are “happily sharing the space” only briefly (where they cross).  That works because both have their own clearly marked dedicated spaces e.g. cyclepath and footway.

      Pedestrians can relax on the footway as they don’t need to consider cyclists at all there.  They won’t have people ringing their bells or weaving around and past them.  When they want to cross the street they know where to expect cyclists (the cycle path).  They also don’t need to look out for cyclists filtering either side of motor vehicles on the main carriageway.

      In turn cyclists don’t need to keep slowing for groups of pedestrians (walking 2 abreast! or more!) or dogs etc.  They only have to watch for crossing pedestrians – and those know to expect cyclists in a cycle path so are more likely to look!  It doesn’t involve coming to a stop for people to cross either – just a small adjustment of your speed.

      There’s an article and video on this very space from BicycleDutch here.

      In fact – this place has so many cyclists that the city is looking at ways of improving other cycle access so less people are concentrated on one route.

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • I’m surprised by how little
      I’m surprised by how little cycle traffic there is. The busiest cycle path here is Paris is far busier and bit of a nightmare to be honest. At rush hour you can expect to queue for 2 or 3 changes of lights to get through each junction and there is a constant risk of getting hit by a bicycle coming the other way on the bidirectional path. To be fair it was built just before COVID. They are planning on changing it, hopefully it will be a bit like the one in the video 🙂

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • I suspect that the NL example

        I suspect that the NL example may have greater numbers but look “less busy” because the Dutch system is very efficient and (same as we expect from roads) runs everywhere.  They also try to avoid traffic lights for cyclists or manage the timing of these so there are fewer bottlenecks or delays [1] [2] [3].

        Interestingly Utrecht decided that there were too many people cycling on this route and are looking at ways of improving connections elsewhere to avoid funnelling so many people into this one space…

        Dunno numbers for the Paris one – do you have any info on that?  I know almost nothing about the detail of developments in Paris (NotJustBikes and a couple of other bloggers / articles) and while the overall numbers sound very impressive in the UK (15% of trips cycled, a couple of years back) it appears it’s definitely “early days” with the usual teething troubles (and here) of course.

        Log In or Register to post comments

      • PS There are some interesting

        PS Often when there are issues it’s most effective to look at the “big picture” e.g. the whole network.  There’s an article about Utrecht addressing long waits at a cycle crossing by altering the bus routes.

        There are also some interesting more localised “hacks” that have been applied to places with high maximum flow of cyclists in NL.  For speeding up crossing roads at signalised crossings two come to mind:

        All-ways-green phase for cyclists (this is not really a hack, think it’s pretty well established / tested)

        Utilising people’s natural “bunching” behaviour when waiting at crossing points (not sure there’s an “official” name for this – maybe “tapered crossing?”)

        Log In or Register to post comments

      • I think that is because Paris

        I think that is because Paris is doing it all in a confused rush; London by comparison is far more strategic.

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • mattw wrote:

          I think that is because Paris is doing it all in a confused rush; London by comparison is far more strategic.

          — mattw

          Perhaps it’s actually the opposite?  Again I’m not hot on the details but it seems Paris is actually trying to make it happen at scale, and make it work by building *networks*.  In London (possibly with the exception of the original superhypeway concept) I suspect it’s less a deliberate “strategic” slow pace but more the usual “we put one in here for a couple of miles, because we could”.  Followed by an indefinite wait until someone has a bright idea about another scheme.

          London has the issue of the different boroughs having more autonomy and is much bigger than Paris of course.  And there are boroughs which appear to be taking this on themselves – Hackney?

          Still – “What do we want?  Gradual change.  When do we want it?  In due course…”

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • Yes.

            Yes.

            From accounts I have read from recent visitors to Paris, it is very very good … then you fall of the edge of the new cyclnig infra and it is like former Paris.

            Perhaps that is an artefact of any transition process?

12. Today’s rage inducing

    Today’s rage inducing incident – watching the driver of a Transporter van drive through a pedestrian crossing and down the road with no hands on the wheel, while recording herself and her young daughter having a sing and dance in the cab. She then drove at me when I asked told her to put the phone down.

    Log In or Register to post comments

13. The whole of Wales knew about

    The whole of Wales knew about the reduction in urban speed limits.

    I don’t buy the whole “people drive at 60 regardless of whether it’s 20 or 30 limit”. That’s a minority of cases who would have been caught regardless of the reduction in the limit. Thise cases are a moot point to the argument.

    All it proves is that there is a near universal contempt amongst drivers for 20mph speed limits as no matter where they are, or what they are for, they WILL be ignored. ESPECIALLY the small zones outside schools.

    A lot of our built-up areas, especially inner cities, are not designed for high volumes of motor traffic, especially when you have cars getting ever bigger for no reason other than to build a safe crumple zone bigger than the passenger occupying space. There isn’t room for it. Especially when it’s in such close proximity to large volumes of pedestrians: School kids, office workers and the like.

    The courts have to persist in cracking down because too many people are KSI on our roads, and a huge volume of them are caused by someone speeding. To not persist, is to permit the crime only to see more people become victims of it. It is already too easy to “get away with it”. And the penalties are not enough of a deterrent when people are caught, especially when they are significantly above the limit.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • One of the reasons speed
      One of the reasons speed radar has been so effective at reducing deaths on roads is because of this attitude. If a radar catches you at 35 in town you have a conviction. This bloke would have let you off.

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • It’s because all to often the

      It’s because all to often the reasoning for dropping the speed limit is the behaviour of people already going above the speed limit or driving recklessly as a rationele for prohibiting the behaviour of those already going substantially below the current limits and forcing the police to target them.

      According to a DfT study. (circular roads 1/80)
      “It is a common but mistaken belief that drivers allow themselves a set margin over the prevailing speed limit, and that if a limit is raised by 10 mph, they will travel 10 mph faster. In fact, an increase in an unrealistic speed limit rarely brings an increase in traffic speeds. (“Unrealistic” is here used to mean “substantially below the 85 percentile speed”). It is much more likely that there will be no change, or even a fall. It seems that drivers relieved of the frustrations of too low a limit rarely abuse the higher one. Indeed it is not unusual for the accident rate to fall when a poorly-observed limit is raised.“

      Log In or Register to post comments

14. Quote:

    courts were sometimes facing 60-70 motoring cases a day

    Given how many motoring cases don’t appear to even make it to the courts, that factoid is TERRIFYING 

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • brooksby wrote:

      courts were sometimes facing 60-70 motoring cases a day

      — brooksby

      Given how many motoring cases don’t appear to even make it to the courts, that factoid is TERRIFYING 

      If they start punishing properly the 1 or 2 who derserve it that’ll probably fall to 6-7 motoring cases a day :-/

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • If they start punishing
        If they start punishing properly the 1 or 2 who deserve it that’ll probably fall to 6-7 motoring cases a day
        Unfortunately, such a dawning of consciousness is unavailable to those officers who have complied with the police employment requirements of: IQ 80 or less

        Log In or Register to post comments

15. Just seen that there’s been a

    Just seen that there’s been a nasty pedestrian(s)/cyclist collision in Nailsea

    https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/live-woman-collision-cyclist-suffers-8858328

    I hope she pulls through.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • hawkinspeter wrote:

      Just seen that there’s been a nasty pedestrian(s)/cyclist collision in Nailsea

      https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/live-woman-collision-cyclist-suffers-8858328

      I hope she pulls through.

      — hawkinspeter

      The comments BTL on that are appalling actually, are exactly what I’d expect from the Bristol Post crowd.

      However, I notice it’s unclear from the story whether the cyclist was (allegedly illegally) coming downhill on the (white-line divided between pedestrians and cyclists) cycle path, or whether the pedestrian was on the cycle path, or even whether this was a crossing-the-road incident.

      Apparently the woman is in a medically induced coma, which isn’t good  

      Log In or Register to post comments

16. https://www.thestar.co.uk

    https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/cyclist-in-life-threatening-condition-after-crash-on-sheffield-road-which-remains-closed-rivelin-valley-road-4354779

    3 weeks later, the victim has succumbed to his injuries, having never regained consciousness. He leaves a wife and 2 daughters.

    The driver is under investigation 

    Log In or Register to post comments

17. The Friends of Parkland Walk

    The Friends of Parkland Walk are right.

    It’s a beautiful path and it will lose it’s charm and nature character when they put a tarmac road there. not everything needs to be ‘improved’.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Friends of Parklands Walk

      Friends of Parklands Walk appear to be a bit of a kneejerking hate-mob of cycle-obsessed bigoted monomaniacs. Is Vincent Stops involved?

      Never mind the impact on disabled people, as long as we keep the cyclists out !!!

      Having read the results of the consultation at the link below, no mention has been made of a tarmac surface in the proposals, yet a large number of responses seem to be obsessed with it.

      As the analysis says:
      Given that no mention of tarmac surafacing or cycling was made in the information shared with the community it is highly unusual to have 725 consultation responses raising concerns about encouragement of cyclists and e-bike users and equally unexpected to have a further 1033 respondents under the impression that the council is proposing meaures which will have a negative impact on biodiversity.

      It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

      https://www.parkland-walk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Parkland-Walk-Data-Analysis-Final.pdf

      And I haevn’t even mentioned their defamation of Sustrans, who create a “walking, wheeling and cycling network”, not just cycling. That’s a common conspiracy theory amongst anti-LTN types, for example.

      Sustrans are doing fantastic work for accessibility.

       

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • mattw wrote:

        Sustrans are doing fantastic work for accessibility.

        — mattw

        Except when they allow A-frames on NCN paths… 

        Log In or Register to post comments

18. Nick Colbourne wrote:

    “We all accept 20mph outside schools, but I don’t think blanket coverage across Wales was the answer.”

    — Nick Colbourne

    Honestly, this is becoming the “I’m not racist but” of the pro-speeding movement. If you agree with a 20mph limit outside schools then you are agreeing that there should be a 20mph limit where there are vulnerable people. There are vulnerable people everywhere in the urban environment, therefore you agree that all towns should have 20mph limits. Children, disabled people and the elderly (and cyclists!) don’t only congregate around schools, making it safe to drive at 30mph everywhere else.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Maybe the government needs to
      Maybe the government needs to run some of those New Zealand anti-speeding adverts like
      
      Or
      
      (From Northern Ireland)

      Amd remind people *why* the speed limit exists.

      And don’t just put them on after the watershed either.. run them during the day, between the Sun Life insurance and the Gala Bingo adverts.

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • Precisely. From Welsh Gov

      Precisely. From Welsh Gov FAQs:

      Why can’t the 20mph limit be only used around schools?

      Introducing a 20mph default speed limit will make children safer from the moment they leave home – regardless of where they are going, and keeps them safe – inside and outside of school hours.

      A 20mph speed limit outside the school won’t protect children for the whole journey as they walk or cycle from home, it would only protect them near the school.

      But it won’t just protect children. This change is designed to make streets safer for all of us.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Isn’t this similar logic to

        Isn’t this similar logic to people saying, ‘Make the airplane out of the same material as the black box’?

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

          Isn’t this similar logic to people saying, ‘Make the airplane out of the same material as the black box’?

          — ajuk.uk@gmail.com

          No.

          Log In or Register to post comments

    • I like how some people will

      I like how some people use the loaded term ‘pro speeding’ when, in fact, it’s dropping the speed limit that massively increases incidents of speeding and helps to make exceeding the speed limit much more normal and socially acceptable. Advocates of these schemes claim to want the opposite and are some of the most vocal in asserting that limits should just be respected and obeyed.

      That’s exactly what happens when you use the 85th percentile speed to set limits. We’ve already seen non-compliance rates of over 99%. That’s what happens when posted limits don’t match the one implied by the design of the street. There’s probably a good reason for that and it’s not helpful to make hasty generalisations about people in cars as the answer.

      It’s partly down to how our brains function, and driving is a system 1 activity. People will drive to the road regardless of what the limit is. It’s also the Pygmalion effect; if you set rules that show people contempt, they won’t respect them.

      At that level, you have to drive dangerously if you don’t “speed” because you’re driving significantly slower than the mean flow of traffic, increasing accident risks. When you think of people speeding, it’s properly set limits that work to single these people out. When limits are set properly, the kind of people speeding will overwhelmingly also be the sort of drivers who run red lights, tailgate, close-pass cyclists, and generally are the most llikely to do harm and the police can just concentrate on them.

      The New Zealand adverts show people obviously driving way too fast. You can’t really say that about people going under 25 mph on roads designed for 40 mph limits, presuming prevailing conditions allow for it.

      There’s a good reason why speed limits haven’t always been set uniformly low, and you should look at traffic speeds in the context of setting speed limits. Exceptions to this need to be just that—exceptional.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • I wonder where all these
        I wonder where all these roads (clearly not *exceptional* ones – from what you’re saying) which perfectly and precisely signal “30mph” have been all my life?

        Many if not most of our roads aren’t really “designed” for a speed. There are roads designed to accommodate high speeds, and there are motorways (which drivers regularly demonstrate aren’t *designed* for 70mph – they are just for very high speed long- distance travel).

        Or could it be that 30mph is no more “natural” or logical than 20mph, it’s merely a default we settled on?

        Yet again, that doesn’t invalidate the criticism about not designing roads which might invite higher speeds. There is indeed a better way, but:

        a) the cheap hack 20mph change has been shown to work (to a useful degree) and

        b) perhaps drivers need to adapt to the concept of obeying the law – until we get all the money and time to fix it so it’s easier for them again*? Especially laws which have important safety implications.

        * The better road design way again is *for drivers* – it’s to guide them, to make their job more human-friendly. We have people driving faster than they can handle or is safe for the other people around because of our previous road designs. They invited drivers to have at it with wide roads and sweeping corners…

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • What you did there with point

          The speed limit should be the speed most sensible drivers would not exceed in the absence of a speed limit. However as conditions vary there is also the need for reckless driving laws etc. You never could barrel down a tight residential street lined with parked cars on either side, run over a kid then claim in court “I wasn’t speeding”. The emphesis used to be much more on positive driver behaviour rather than drive-by-numbers.

          What you did there with point B is use the hasty generalisation fallacy I already pointed out. If there’s 99% non-compliance is it a good idea to assume they’re all bad. Maybe it’s better to listen to an explination from a traffic engineer as to why that happens.
          It’s probably better to assume they’re not all bad and you’ll sleep better at night.

          Log In or Register to post comments

      • Of course what you’re really
        Are you not effectively saying we should just have another round of applying the percentile rule and generally increasing the speed limits? You don’t seem to be proposing some massive rebuilding programme…?

        Unfortunately we already tried that… and people still keep edging the speeds up. (Partly another human “design feature”, the anchoring effect).

        That also completely ignores a few reasons for having speed limits (lower ones in many places) like the effects on drivers (rate they crash into each other and buildings) and on everyone else (serious increase in danger to those outside vehicles, place becomes less pleasant because speeding vehicles and road noise, people are less keen to cycle or even cross the road…)

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • What you’re refering to is

          What you’re refering to is called ‘speed creep’ and it’s not real.
          I already posted this here but it’s worth reapting.
          According to a DfT study. (circular roads 1/80)
          “It is a common but mistaken belief that drivers allow themselves a set margin over the prevailing speed limit, and that if a limit is raised by 10 mph, they will travel 10 mph faster. In fact, an increase in an unrealistic speed limit rarely brings an increase in traffic speeds. (“Unrealistic” is here used to mean “substantially below the 85 percentile speed”). It is much more likely that there will be no change, or even a fall. It seems that drivers relieved of the frustrations of too low a limit rarely abuse the higher one. Indeed it is not unusual for the accident rate to fall when a poorly-observed limit is raised. This may mean that reduced frustration leads to changes in driving behaviour conducive to accident reduction
          A before and after study carried out at 20 locations through Kent, where the limit had been raised from 30 mph to 40 mph, showed a fall in speed, or no change, in 80% of the measurements taken.”

          This isn’t to say raising speed limits is always the safest thing to do, obviously not, this is refering to raising limits on higher standard roads where previously they had to be either 30 or derestricted. The introduction of 40 limits made no difference to speeds, the repeaters did more to warn pedestrains better of the road danger of those roads.
          Having the correct speed limit is the safest thing to do and 20mph limits have been shown to be effective on roads that lend themselve naturally to lower speeds, Wales are not doing that and including much higher standard and arterial roads, it’s important on those types of roads that pedesrians have a realistic expectation of the road danger and the actual speed of traffic.

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • Well, I think a good way to

            Well, I think a good way to evalute things is to see if/how they change things.

            This being the real world things clearly vary.  However:

            Apparently after the change, speeds did indeed reduce in Wales (here’s a BBC article noting a very recent review).  Sensibly it looks like there is a plan to actually keep a watch on this.  FWIW here’s some initial research commissioned by the Senedd – this is more a “what we hope to look at” and looking at the general position).

            After a wide rollout of this change in Edinburgh, speeds reduced.  A follow up some years later found a significant decrease in collisions and casualties.  (Now – to be fair in 3 years, other things may change – including a pandemic occurring…).

            Most of what you’ve mentioned is covered here, I think:

            https://www.20splenty.org/20_questions_about_20_s_plenty

            Are you confusing “this isn’t perfect / the best way of doing things” with “actually doesn’t work”?  I agree, there are better ways – but if it works, it works, no?

            I don’t think chasing “compliance” as a goal (why?) trumps “reduction in danger”.  Don’t forget that (by government stats – 2017 / 2022) while the majority of drivers break the law on 20mph roads the average is still less than 30mph (and indeed the speeds on 30mph roads).

          • Like I said, having the

            Like I said, having the correct speed limit is the safest thing to do, and lowering limits can be effective on roads that naturally lend themselves to lower speeds.
            Wales is including roads that don’t come close to that, and not only does that have the potential to undermine lower limits where they make more sense, but there are also other unintended consequences. For example, lowering speed limits on higher standard roads can lead to issues where Sat Nav systems no longer see main roads as faster routes, potentially sending more traffic along side streets. Also, having the speed limit set deliberately low with the expectation of non-compliance raises significant concerns about the long-term impact.
            It can make it much harder for the police to single out those most likely to cause harm. Additionally, it’s important to consider the sources of the studies that have been linked. While some sources may have a bias, a more measured and nuanced approach, like the one presented in the Atkins study, is more balanced.

          • If the “correct” (according

            If the “correct” (according to who?) speed is higher, how is that safer?

            I agree that the effect of Sat Navs on driving traffic flow may be important – surely a separate issue however (or one that can be addressed separately as required)?

            It can make it much harder for the police to single out those most likely to cause harm.

            — ajuk.uk@gmail.com

            Why?

            Additionally, it’s important to consider the sources of the studies that have been linked. While some sources may have a bias, a more measured and nuanced approach, like the one presented in the Atkins study, is more balanced.

            — ajuk.uk@gmail.com

            Well, I’m not familiar with that one so I better go look at some point.  I do note the 20’s plenty folks clearly think it’s a bit of a “Thompson, Rivara & Thompson” type.  They say: “It’s unconvincing. Case study samples were small (<20 casualties pa)[. Atkins did not consider other evidence where casualties HAVE reduced on 20mph roads and underplayed the significant benefits in Brighton where faster roads were included.”

            … but of course they wouldn’t find it convincing given that they are pushing for this change!

            Are you suggesting that the government’s own data is biased e.g. DfT Vehicle Speed Compliance Statistics – and if so how?

          • Why does it make it harder to

            Why does it make it harder to single people out? Because higher standard roads included in 20 limits frequently have non-compliance figures over well over 90%, Pennywell Road in Bristol it was 97.5% and in Rogiet it was 99.4%, that’s not targeting anyone and an example of limits being brought into contempt when they should be being taken seriously. When limits are set at a level to which most people adhear to naturally, people exceeding the limits will overwhelmingly also be the sort most likely to do harm.

            A couple of high-standard roads in Manchester even saw speeds increase after the limit was lowered, that’s the extent to which it’s the design of the road that dictates traffic speed. I’ve heard 20mph advocates in the past be critical of including high-standard roads as being unhelpful.
             

          • Again I think you have rather

            Again I think you have rather different concerns than I do so we may be talking at cross purposes.  TL/DR – I think reducing average speeds towards 20mph (seems a reasonable compromise for the UK ATM for areas with vulnerable road users) will improve safety.  The evidence for a couple of places – including Wales – is that this has indeed happened.  Thus “good enough” for me, for the moment.  Just as before there’s nothing to stop local authorities applying to make adjustments either.  It’s just that the default number (people tend to focus on numbers when one is given) has changed from 30 to 20.

            “Not targetting anyone” – as we discussed before the police are empowered and capable of stopping motorist for careless / dangerous driving on plenty of other grounds than “they were hooning it, so a guaranteed wrong’un”.  OTOH – if they are doing 30 in a 20 – why should they not stop people (or put up cameras etc.)?

            With this idea of “limits being brought into contempt” – as we discussed before perhaps you’re more concerned about people suddenly calling bluff on rules in general?  Obviously I can’t say that couldn’t happen – historically it has.  However in some places people commonly break certain laws (or even the majority do) but that doesn’t mean that that law is therefore pointless, or unenforceable, or not respected across a wider area.

            You may have questions as to whether it works in theory, or even whether it should work.  And I don’t disagree that (given enough time and resources) a better way is to fix our roads to work via the better mechanism.  As before that’s get road design to guide behaviour towards the desired speeds for a particular type of area (e.g. slower in areas with more people walking / cycling).

            However …. in Edinburgh and in Wales overall it seems that it has worked in practice.  “Worked” for me means it has brought the speed down closer to a reasonable compromise in places where there will be vulnerable road users around (“if you hit me at 20mph I’m more likely to survive” etc.).  I’m happy to call that a positive outcome – for an imperfect intervention.

            I guess I shouldn’t assume that anyone would consider that a safety measure, but perhaps I can assume many people would?

          • It’s interesting to see how

            It’s interesting to see how people believe in setting very low speed limits despite high non-compliance figures because they believe it should work.
            My perspective on this matter is rooted in the extensive data I’ve encountered over the years regarding the relationship between speeds and speed limits. I tend to separate the two.
            Properly set speed limits are not meant to rely on enforcement the guidelines state they should “encourage self-compliance” and be “largely self-enforcing” and that’s what happens on many roads where limits align with the road design and that’s contrary to VERY popular opinion, people still assume that most people travel X over the limit. I’ve spoken to driving examiners and police officers who’ve been surprised when I’ve shown them these charts.
            Well-designed roads naturally get drivers to follow the speed limit, and they’re not aggrieved or distracted by it.
            While it has indeed brought down overall average speeds, it’s worth noting that they have crept up slightly from the initial decrease of 2.8 mph. It would likely be more effective had more high-standard roads been exempted. According to the Atkins report, the average long-term drop was only 1.4 mph, that’s for a 10 mph reduction in the expected speed for vulnerable road users. It’s crucial that people are aware of the actual danger on a road so they can exercise caution when crossing it.
            I’ve seen a study that states roads are safer when limits are set slightly below engineering recommendations, however I’m still on the lookout for an academic study on setting speed limits that supports the idea of taking little or no account of existing traffic speeds when determining limits.

19. Re: Nick Colbourne. Good,
    Re: Nick Colbourne. Good, fuck off, and find another job. The fewer bigoted wankers we have like you, the better the justice system will be.

    Log In or Register to post comments