Let's kick off Thursday with a good old social media discussion, live blog regular Bob From Accounts urging new Transport Secretary Louise Haigh to build more cycle lanes to increase safety and get more people on their bikes. The signs look good on that front, Haigh this week suggesting the Labour government would invest "unprecedented levels of funding" in cycling.
Bob From Accounts also addressed a commonly heard line... "cycling isn't a practical daily travel choice for most people", something you've probably read before online, or in certain newspapers. To which, he pointed out: "In 2022, 26 per cent of car trips in the UK were under one mile, and 71 per cent under five miles. Five miles by bike is approximately 30 minutes. Given a choice, many people would cycle if it was safer. More cycle lanes please."
"And for the usual excuses and quips about 'It's too cold', 'It's too wet'. We have a solution: coats."
Well, it works for the Netherlands and they get their fair share of rain... let's get some reaction because, as you probably guessed, this got quite a few people all riled up and tapping away furiously at their keyboards. To many of those people, no, nobody is saying that everyone in the world should be forced onto bikes... but hey, wouldn't the roads be much nicer for those who actually do need to drive if a decent chunk of the motor traffic was now using cycle lanes, walking or using public transport?
One reply asked: "How do I get a week's worth of shopping on a bike? What about two kids as well? One being a toddler?"
Bob From Accounts had an answer for that...
Another road.cc favourite, retired traffic cop Mark Hodson, who pioneered close pass operations during his career commented: "My shift once had 10 of its 12 officers cycling to work, the daily total commutes varied between 22 miles and 56 miles, with some extending rides to incorporate training routines, it's a case of making it work and providing the correct facilities so those that [people] 'could' give it a go."
Accepting that his experience was certainly at the extreme end of the spectrum and included several who would cycle for sport or leisure on top of commutes, Mark added: "Not everyone can or wants to, but if you enable those who can and want to you benefit all of society. Even if they just replace 25 per cent of their usual journeys by other means it's a hugely impactive for them and their communities.
Other reaction to the discussion included:
"Cargo bikes are an increasingly viable alternative for a second car that's mostly doing school runs etc."
"We have fantastic cycling routes where I live... currently massively overgrown. We need proper investment to make it work in the future."
"I used to leave my house 7am every day to catch the bus to work arrived 7.50 am. By bike 7.10am to arrive for 7.30 time for a cuppa and a chat before work. The ride home takes five to 10 mins longer... I lived on top of a hill."
Add new comment
59 comments
As I made the post so late last night I forgot add how sad, and disturbing, it is to see that the most common vehicle on American roads is the Ford F150, a blooming great big pickup truck! I know there are obviously swathes of the country which are entirely rural farmland etc, but even then... Of course, having seen many commercials for it, and similar vehicles, on US TV, it's at least 50% marketed towards those who never set foot on a farm - the USA's Range Rover.
I like a couple of Notjustbike's phrases from his excellent extended rant: they are designed for "transporting fragile egos" - "people have been upsold on these vehicles by auto makers looking to skirt regulations to make higher profits" and the shiny new flatbeds are mostly "status symbols for suburbanites with a cargo fetish".
Adapting my slogan for Range Rovers:
                              "Only got four inches? Get an F150."
?
(edit) Ah, right, I get it now...![](/sites/all/themes/rcc/images/smilies/3.gif)
Bet you feel a right **** for not getting it straight away! đ
Little bit, yeah...
Great video by Phil Gaimon. "If you're riding two abreast and someone drives into the back of you, then it's your fault", that's all you need to know about the motorbike cop.
Also interesting to see that the California passing distance is only 3 feet compared to the UK's much more sensible 1.5m. I suppose the real difference though is in which place actually enforces it.
Also that the "vehicle code" says you have to cycle as far to the right as practicable.
Surely a poorly worded rule. As if you're doing it wrong unless you're riding in the gutter. A rule written by the motoring lobby?
No doubt this will be popping up today (maybe missed it previously): Wales 20s plenty ruins cycle race - because apparently it's not safe because vehicles have to slow down (the support vehicles can't keep up / would get in the way presumably).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4glzl7e157o
*Failed* ... (road racing - it's not about the *bike* ...)
This "micro asphalt" as I've seen Edinburgh Council call it, isn't fit for purpose. When it was first proposed by tthe Council a few years ago, I contacted them and warned them that it had failed elsewhere and wouldn't last "several years" as they were claiming. They still went ahead and it needed remedial work within a week. Not only that, but the contractors had covered a couple of drain grills in the process!
Within a few weeks, the surface was breaking up through to the previous surface (as it is merely an additional layer, not a true resurfacing process) and often more dangerous to cye on than before the work was carried out, with the added 'bonus' of loose chips hurtling onto your legs, arms and eyewear (if you're wise enough to wear it).
Everywhere I have seen it since then around the city, the results have been the same - instead of 'several years' of good surface, it's a week of loose gravel followed by holes everywhere.
And now a similar process seems to be popular on the pavements. What looks like a rough surface to be covered with a layer of traditional asphalt and red chips is apparently the finished surface, with similar results of the surface breaking up within days.
Cheap now, but surely expensive in the long run.
Devon and Cornwall Police obviously fans of Beyond Paradise then! đđźđČ
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HYbzOmZYyVU
I'm still rolling my eyes about the Carrefour stage start. Typical Vuelta craziness - was the car park not a suitable place to begin? Supermarket floors aren't exactly renowned for being the grippiest of surfaces. Thank goodness there was no need for a "cleanup in aisle nine" as a GC contender or two slipped at 5kmh!
Phil Gaimon's experience least shows that the UK isn't alone in poorly-worded rules of the road, and even more poorly-educated officers badly interpretating them. đ He handled it all well by the looks of things and realised he was in a position of privilege compared to many others who might be similarly targeted. That particular officer should be ashamed that he's continuing to do the same thing after being educated by basically an ordinary member of the public. But maybe that's his problem... đ
You'll probably find that officer also thinks there's something in the US Constitution which allows nutters in buffalo hats to storm their CapitolâŠÂ![](/sites/all/themes/rcc/images/smilies/39.gif)
I'm not convinced. He didn't shoot Mr Gaimon or even pull a gun on him. Indeed he remained quite civil throughout the episode, which doesn't excuse his ignorance but does suggest he might not be a true maga.
<slaps forehead>Â You're so right:Â mea culpaÂ![](/sites/all/themes/rcc/images/smilies/29.gif)
TBF sounds like the last incident of shooting wasn't by a true MAGA either đ€.
I think a cycle-thru supermarket is a fantastic idea. Mid ride lacking water or a bit of food, cycle into Sainsburys, scan and pack, ride out from the self serve till.
Saves getting off the bike, locking it up, sliding down the aisles in cleats and strava can keep on logging. New segment? bakery to till.
Bakfiets or front rack, you don't even need a trolley!
Given the road and the setting, don't see anything wrong with what Norfolk council have proposed there. Shared use paths are allowed in LTN1/20, and it looks to provide a decent joined up route.
Considering their neighbours in the South will spend 4 times as much on some paint, signs and delivering a fraction of usable cycle routes, I'd rather have the Norfolk scheme.
I'm still not quite sure the exact extent / intent of the scheme. The comments from the local cycle campaign are here:
https://www.norwichcyclingcampaign.org/proposed-cycle-route-along-the-a1...
UK pragmatism - "we'll never get anything decent, so no point requesting it. It's rare to get anything at all - and often what we get is delayed by years, ends up being reduced for cost reasons, is usually unhelpful to both experienced cyclists and those less 'fit and brave' and sometimes actively dangerous."
LTN1/20 isn't ideal because unfortunately any "minimum" will likely be the maximum and "where this is appropriate" means "pick the cheapest / least effort"!
In general shared use paths only "work" because of the very low levels of active travel in the UK. Installing these is building in a very low level of ambition for active travel, and ensuring that if the numbers go up there will be increasing conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. It's basically just saying "cycle on the footway" - e.g. "non-motorised modes, fight over the scraps".
Just ask "what is this for"? If we don't have many journeys cycled, how is building "not very appealing / convenient" stuff going to create more? If people are a bit grumpy about cyclists, how is putting cyclists "in their space" going to help advance the plot? Do they do this in NL? (Yes - but only in the countryside / where there are few cyclists and very few pedestrians).
The crossing of the P&R car park worries me but on the whole in this location to provide a joined up route I don't see much wrong either, if its built to a good standard and not the adhoc converted footway that has happened too often in the past.
Edit: Looking at the link I'd be pushing for at least 3.5m and not 3.0m too.
Shared Use only works if there are very few pedestrians. I don't know the area, but there are bus stops so it seems likely there will be some conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.
Possibly this is the best they can do with the space / money available. It's better than nothing - I think you'd have to be very brave to cycle or walk on the existing infrastructure.
Â
"Given a choice, many people would cycle if it was safer"
One of the easiest ways of making it safer is to introduce an LTN, which was being discussed on LBC this morning, with a fact-equipped, calm, sensible advocate (John Burke) and an anecdote-equipped, excited, irrational denigrator (Ysenda Maxtone Graham) who incidentally happens to write for the Spectator, DM and Torygraph. The interesting bit starts at 2:05:00, and the denigrator at 2:11:00, I thought she was going to explode.Â
She speaks so fast it's difficult to understand, but highlights include "eerie enclaves of silence that are apparently quite dangerous for people to walk down" "taxis refusing to drop people off at their houses because they are terrified" "absolutely strangled" "appalling ridiculously slow pace"Â "it's a money-making scheme they're raking in our fines" and there's lots more.
https://www.globalplayer.com/catchup/lbc/uk/episodes/BUpuBNW3ejA5RjdQcu1...
EDIT: I've just looked at the stuff she's written for the Spectator, and calling it drivel would be a compliment.
Cycling in NL can be pretty hellish in general. Walking is even worse.
Wait 'till you find out how awful it is for drivers!
I think driving there is generally pretty relaxed. If you want real fun, try walking from Amsterdam ZO to the city centre.
Haven't tried that. Last time I was there (almost a decade) I was in Zuidoost, so just used the metro. Did try doing a bit of a stroll from there, no issues at all. Apart from it was at night and I realised I was quite likely to stroll into some dubious areas, or just get lost.
The centre was a bit stressful the first time I was there but a) so are many city centres with a mass of tourists (New York anyone?) and b) I wasn't used to cars, buses, people walking AND trams and bikes. It's just something you have to learn *. Once I'd figured it out, it was fine - for a busy city.
I think the "predicability" principle of "sustainable safety" is what facilitates that. And having "single function roads" e.g. not the UK's "it's a busy B-road, and also a residential street."
* If you're not used to it things like this probably seem like madness / chaos. (I remember being baffled by the "everyone for themselves" anarchy of Thai city centres many years back, with buses, cars, many motorbikes and even the odd elephant all weaving paths through each other). But (with some exceptions) the Dutch have a great road safety record given the number of "vulnerable road users" they've made it convenient for (and the fact that those cycling are of all ages).
Walking in Zuidoost itself is fairly unproblematic (assuming you don't get shot), but as soon as you get out of it the footpaths tend simply to stop, which can be frustrating.
Pages