Cyclist explains why riders "aren't very grateful for tiny painted cycle lane" on notorious route where council ripped out segregated bike lane; Pothole "roads emergency"; The incredible lengths London bike thieves will go to steal + more on the live blog

IME the council is pretty rapid at fixing a pothole when I report it (usually with a picture of my bike wheel in said hole to demonstrate the danger). The problem is how they fix it, and how long it lasts. I actually think I notice the road surface more when driving, as you don't always have the ability to go around a hole like you can on a bike.

Tbf, motorists also complain about potholes. £billions lost to economy due to tyre and shock absorbers wear from state of our roads. The larger wheels on soft roader SUVs do reduce the impact to occupants compared to, eg Nissan Micra a friend has, and the immediate cost to individual owner isn't as obvious as snakebite puncture for bike, but cost to nation is vast

I recently advised a friend who wants to move on from the urban bike he bought and used a lot for a few years. He asked about second hand road bike. After a few suggestions, I ended by advising to jump to a new fat tyre gravel or all-road bike to cater for bad roads. I mentioned narrow wheels getting into ruts, especially at junctions while signalling with one arm out. Also, if fat tyres, go shorter cranks. Then suggested a bike fit. He can afford it very easily but not a bike snob or show-off

If I recall, there was a study recently that showed a 30% greater risk of KSIs on a A-road with a painted lane than a comparable lane without a painted lane.

In other words, painted lanes are more dangerous than no lane at all.

the little onion wrote:

If I recall, there was a study recently that showed a 30% greater risk of KSIs on a A-road with a painted lane than a comparable lane without a painted lane.

 

In other words, painted lanes are more dangerous than no lane at all.

Iirc, mandatory painted white lines (ie solid white lines) make no difference to cyclists' safety, but advisory (dashed) lines make it more dangerous.

Been saying that for years. Encouraging to know there's evidence, now I'll look it up. It helps win over drivers who are surprised to hear me deplore many (most?) bike lanes as spending-performance target box tickers that are more dangerous, for several reasons, than no bike lane and better layout

Not what drivers want to hear though because what they're saying is "needs protection" not "no bike infra". So if we are throwing away - sorry, spending - so much money on the roads that we "can't afford" proper separate cycle infra where needed, take a bit more space and plonk down eg. concrete Jersey barrier blocks to protect the cycle lane.

Of course that's still "too cheap" as it doesn't help much at junctions and gets in the way of pedestrians somewhat. But does at least keep vehicles out of the lane.

("Cycle lanes" really aren't the way, properly designed cycle *networks* are - which will have some separate cycle paths and some "very quiet streets".)

Ultimate solution is drivers and those providing for driving realising that the best solution to help people driving is ... having far fewer journeys driven.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k

Rendel Harris wrote:

Much as I share Ryan's despair at RBKC's "Yes we stole a pound but here's a penny" approach to cycling infrastructure, pedantry obliges me to point out that not only is the road in question called Kensington High Street - only the tube station, for unknown (to me) reasons, is called High Street Kensington – but also the road in question doesn't actually begin until about 100 m after his video ends, what his video actually shows is Kensington Road.

It reminds me of the fact that although there is a Bond Street Tube Station and a square on the Monopoly board called Bond Street, there is no Bond Street in central London.  (Rather, there are two roads, New Bond Street and Old Bond Street.)

Well obviously that's because of the War on the Motorist, wokeness and ... er ... cycling.

Could this be another case where (although they'll privately understand) politicians just can't say the obvious?  e.g. that as well as looking at supply (of sufficiently maintained road surface) we can - and indeed should - also look at demand (for journeys driven, including road freight)?

EDIT - also demand for more roads (because more buildings / houses - apparently an increase in this coming soon because "need").  And demands by more utilities companies for digging up roads (and shoddy repairs)?  There are economic drivers for this (and then political approval) because if you do it cheap you can get volume sales, and then repeat business as things you build / repair don't last so have to be redone...

No doubt we have been under-maintaining, but the demand - and wear and tear - has been increasing and our politicians have nodded along to that.  Or indeed encouraged it - "on the side of the motorist" and "growth" (which currently always means more driving).

The roads may end up as bad as the rails got in 1945 - what we need is a major change of direction, rather than throwing good money after bad. 

Apart from UK long history of making and maintaining roads on cheap and our climate being particularly hard on roads, I remember sitting in on an analysis of road repairs and safety: apparently, funding approvals for such works are made such that the actual on site work usually has to be done at worst time of year. With our annual lose it or lose it funding cycle, it makes for unhappy local authority road management teams as they have to do a worse job than they know that they could do for the same money. They'd far prefer to do a much better job for a bit more well-timed money

Road management and maintenance is a giant rabbit hole of a topic and I'm not a civil engineer... but it does seem to me the UK has a "laissez-faire" approach to private works and (private) utilities digging the streets up, plus as you say "potlach" funding (it appears then grab it before it's gone). At least the planning for things is such a muddle we end up leaving some roads to get trashed for decades but others get dug up eg. for utilities as soon as they've been refurbished, then have to be redone again (Have seen this happen in England and here in Edinburgh).

The other thing is this isn't "inevitable" - in NL at least they seem to have a different system of batching together road resurfacing and street improvements together with utilities works. I don't know exactly how it works in NL - but I do know the local government organisation, laws and responsibilities are different. Which might mean "can't get there from here".

Rachel Reeves' black potHole in the economy.

Unicyclists can be an elusive bunch, but I'll bet a squirrel will ride round in a bit

I love my bike wrote:

Unicyclists can be an elusive bunch, but I'll bet a squirrel will ride round in a bit

Never without handlebars on a safety style bicycle with two wheels 

brooksby wrote:

Never without handlebars on a safety style bicycle with two wheels 

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Never without handlebars on a safety style bicycle with two wheels 

Or if you actually meant a safety style bicycle with two wheels only,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU1pRjqsRgQ

I'll get my coat… 

Finally something that isn't a Brompton that has a fighting chance of being able to meet Eurostar's ridiculous 85x85 size requirement for bikes on their trains (in a bag)!   Where can I get one?

PS: The "bike" in pic seems to have 3 wheels??

Meet Guiliano Calore, who descended the Stelvio on a bike with no brakes or handlebars...

"Foot braking" - still mind-blowing though (not least ... why??)

Watch here (this one with handlebars, not that they're used...):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV4MJok1_2o

Wore through toes of bike shoes in 1980. Tight turn in a peak District into a short steep down slope that had tight turn at bottom. Teeming rain, side pull brakes on chrome steel rims, riding fast back to rest of the group to take some of their luggage after dropping mine at Youth Hostel.