"Ridiculous" segregated cycle lane under fire from club cyclists — but will it encourage more people to ride?

Agree.  (Thanks for the local knowledge BTW).  Can't think of a good alternate for the loaded "subservience" though without waffling about "convenience for all modes is important but especially for the most efficient".

I think Dutch drivers do have slightly more consciousness that there will be cyclists in the environment.  That's helped by how the infra handles conflict points but also them regularly encountering cyclists (because lots) and most drivers cycling at some point.  I doubt drivers there are on average "better".

I was like this chap - first time in NL I wasn't looking at the infra, it was all just foreign.  Second time I noticed it and found it confusing.  Third time I'd learned the rules and quickly just "got on with it" and soon wasn't thinking about it.

I still pick up nuances from the increasingly vast blogosphere about this.  One consistent thing is that - like here - most people within a system have hazy or incorrect notions of how it really works, or what's important.  It's not important to know and it's "normal".

It would...this scheme cost 10% of what a high quality cycle route would cost.

Well it's a matter of perspective, personally I'm fed up with the compromises, being made to feel grateful for rubbish infra & treated as a second class citizen.

Yet if we follow the now long established & successful Dutch design principles to this stuff, you automatically through design, deliver safe cycling routes for those less confident, those that just want to get A to B and the wielrenfiets, who actually just want to get out into the countryside and hate dealing with suburban traffic as much as all the other cyclists do.

But we dont we persist with this well something is a bit better than nothing, what do the less than confident riders do when this stuff just stops on the road, hop back into their cars ?

Well in many areas and on many roads you compromise or you demolish housing to cater for the ideal. The roads were designed for horse and cart and consist of old Victorian terraces.

I totally concur with you on new builds though. As around me there is a lot of new development where the infrastructure could've been built in, but instead we have shared paths.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Have to disagree. There will always be cases where compromise is necessary, particularly with old streets etc. The priority should always be to provide safe cycling for those less confident and for people wanting to get from A to B.

But there is a huge overlap on what different groups need, and invariably objections to complaints about a lane not being suitable are met with responses that it was designed for 'x' type of rider (conveniently not the questioner), despite it also not being suitable for 'x' because of the issue being complained about;

I get responses to stating that a lane isn't wide enough that it 'is built for leisure cyclists who are slower and just want to be away from cars" etc. They don't like me pointing out that if the lane isn't wide enough for a fit club rider to average 20mph safely (in absence of traffic), then it almost certainly isn't wide enough for my colleagues handcycle to use AT ALL. A narrow lane doesn't help children (who will make mistakes so need margin of error), parents (who need to be able to keep children in eyesight), active travel with cargo bikes that need space etc...

It isn't unusual to see arguments that 'we don't have space' while ignoring that there is space for 3-4 lanes of motor traffic (2 lanes + parking on both sides is relatively common)

One word...money.

We don't commit enough funding to cycle infrastructure.

Generally agree - just being pedantic: is it appropriate to describe a party-popper or cracker as a "boom"?  If you went for "fad", now ... I'm keen for this to happen but the champagne's on ice until we move from scraping along at a share of a few % of journeys (spot the boom here).  For the UK - for parts of the UK - 10% of journeys would be a real boom.  And elevate us up to join Helsinki!

Awavey wrote:

Impossible to judge without a decent map or video of the route, soundbites may make easier copy to publish but are in no way helpful to understanding if there are fundamental problems with this setup or not.

100% THIS

Our own IanMSpencer comes from this neck of the woods. I'm not sure if it was this section or another that comprised his first posts of good but flawed infra where the bike lane at an island entrance was regularly crossed. But he might be able to give a balanced view (even though he is a roadie) when he appears.

Edit: This is from Apr2022 so still under construction but the main parts are.

I wonder what happens to cyclists on the "wrong side of travel" when the lane finishes here
Bus stop pinch point?
Who has priority at this junction?
Hmmm, expect encroaching cars unfortunately.
Bikes going straight across can stay on the road (if confident enough), bikes coming the other way have to go on pavement and walk across crossing?

The route does continue the other side but streetview has not been updated since. Granted some of the parts here are nothing to moan about if consideration has been covered by both the council and lane users. The bus stop pinch points should not be too harsh with the ramps and have very good drainage to stop pools of water that normally collect near these. And should have signage stating the cyclists priority direction. However with others I can see their could be issues like the endings.

EddyBerckx wrote:

Why are they asking club cyclists about cycling for transport?

Because everyone's natural stereotype about cyclists is that of a club cyclist in full kit. Thus do we erase the experiences and invalidate anyone who doesn't ride a bicycle for recreational purposes.

FWIW, I've taken to commuting in lycra (it gets sweaty) but wearing a backpack, which to me at least seems like I'm not catering to that stereotype as much.

Agreed. Car enthusiasts (eg racing and rallying), wouldn't be consulted about roading for transport. The lycra brigade are similarly incongruous with regard to roading design that's not intended as a sports venue.
Imo, cyclists decked out in lycra and multi-coloured logos and cycling 'Tour de France-style' in great drafting pelotons having scant consideration for other users (including recreational riders) are what gives cycling a bad rap.
To avoid the stereotype, (now as a recreational rider) my preferred kit comprises a plain hi-vis shirt or vest and lycra cycle shorts UNDER regular shorts. Also, when riding in a group, we spread out enough to avoid being an obstructive peloton.
Recreational and commuting cyclists can get along in reasonable harmony for the most part whereas it seems to me that the swarms of elites in loud uniforms are the ones "being a dick about it".

Hooray, another first poster who doesn't like cyclists with their pesky "multicoloured logos" and "loud uniforms." What absolute drivel.

I wonder if they also disguise their bike as an SUV...?

Can't wait to hear you views on runners with their technical tops and bottoms and specialist shoes.
Not to mention their expensive Garmins.

I'm pleased to see some of the wide range of opinion out there expressed.  We've just had "bike advocates are 'dangerising cycling' " from one poster who I'd guess was an 'elitist' (vehicular cycling is the way?).  Now "the problem is those 'scortchers' - the conspicuous out-group, MAMILs in noisy colours".  Which would appear to be more common at least.

Sounds like Schroedinger's cyclists again - too fast and too slow.

Right now people are free to wear lycra, you can "cycle as a vehicle", you can cycle in any clothing. (It's great, I do all these sometimes).  Yet almost nobody cycles.  And "cyclists" of any kind are often the target of irritation / aggression.  Why?

Could a reason be because there aren't many cyclists they're viewed as strange out-group?  There aren't many because most people do not feel safe cycling on the roads?  And cycling is not really pleasant or convenient for the average person?  And that if you make it both it turns out that the "fast" can still go fast - indeed everyone goes faster overall.

Cartertonic wrote:

Also, when riding in a group, we spread out enough to avoid being an obstructive peloton.

Really because when I'm driving I prefer to overtake one group of cyclists where I only need one safe overtaking opportunity rather than meeting lots of individual cyclists where I need lots of safe overtaking opportunities

No doubt seeing some cyclists ignore the lane does and will grip driver's steering wheels.  But drivers don't refresh their misrememberings of the highway code.  Driving seems to put many people in a state of frustrated irritation. Plus a few people driving are ready to go full Travis Bickle at a second's notice.  So would any conceivable "education" change anything?

But why are we still making "cycle infra" which is incompatible with moving at a decent speed?  Higher average speed in urban areas being more effective than "I can keep up with the cars - until the next red light".

(I believe at the root of that is our primate in-group / out-group and fairness drives.  Civilised to "fair's fair - yes we gave you minorities some of the road.  But you're not even paying for it so you can't have it be convenient as well.  Or even worse for motorists (us) to see you going faster.")