[JLasTSR]

Currently where I tend to cycle there is little or no cycling-specific infrastructure. There is a shared path for about a mile. Most of the roads I cycle on are a mixture of 30mph 40mph and the national speed limit. I would not by any means say that they are perfect but they work and I can go wherever I like. 

In an idle moment, I was thinking that if, sometime in the future, we see a huge increase in cycle routes and segregated cycle paths in towns is there a danger that cycling on the main road between towns becomes more hazardous than it currently is because motorists become unaccustomed to sharing the road with cyclists?

Then I wondered If councils would seek to move cyclists and other vulnerable road users away from using roads completely and force them to only use specific infrastructure where it was provided. 

Perhaps I should have fewer idle moments!

Topic

[Rendel Harris]

Not sure what he’d be doing

Not sure what he’d be doing in Wandsworth but looks exceptionally like Sir James Dyson.

[Andrewbanshee]

“The roads are excellent for
“The roads are excellent for cycling. They go everywhere you might want to go on a bike, unlike cycle paths which seem often to go from nowhere much to anther example of such a place.”
Reminds me of the time I was a member of a cycling advocacy group who seemed to be more involved in agreeable conversations with politicians or formulating back street cycling routes. I said in one meeting that we already have the infrastructure that can get people on a bike wherever they want to go. Roads.
I was met with a lot of disagreement. Obviously not allowed to change existing road design.

[chrisonabike]

I shall certainly not!  If I

I shall certainly not!  If I see that man I will avoid him, as being as a person who’s so deep in his misconceptions that he feels compelled to foist them upon strangers.

Also there are few things that people dislike more than if you have a different view from them AND are nearer the truth.

[Pub bike]

Since pedestrians don’t yet

Since pedestrians don’t yet have to wear number plates perhaps I need to get some signs made up with his face on them and zip tie them to the lamp-posts along Armoury Way to educate him and others?

“WANTED for ill-informed comments made to cyclists etc”?

[hawkinspeter]

Pub bike wrote:

Had a strange one on Sunday.   I was cycling on the shared use cycle path and a pedestrian told me I should have been cycling on the road, and that I was cycling too fast.  I explained that it was a shared use path as you can see from the multiple signs behind his head in the picture.  I have checked my speed and I was doing 17kmh which is less than the 12mph “speed limit” in the nearby Wandsworth park.

If you see this man please tell him:

– There is no legal speed limit for cyclists on cycle paths or anywhere else on public roads

– There is no requirement for cyclists to have speedometers

– There is no specific speed limit on this shared use path for cyclists

– if he has problems with shared use paths to complain to Wandsworth Council

Why do people feel compelled to demonstrate their cluelessness to cyclists? It’s the same with those motorists who feel compelled to shout made up rules about where and how cyclists should get about.

[Pub bike]

Had a strange one on Sunday. 

Had a strange one on Sunday.   I was cycling on the shared use cycle path and a pedestrian told me I should have been cycling on the road, and that I was cycling too fast.  I explained that it was a shared use path as you can see from the multiple signs behind his head in the picture.  I have checked my speed and I was doing 17kmh which is less than the 12mph “speed limit” in the nearby Wandsworth park.

If you see this man please tell him:

– There is no legal speed limit for cyclists on cycle paths or anywhere else on public roads

– There is no requirement for cyclists to have speedometers

– There is no specific speed limit on this shared use path for cyclists

– if he has problems with shared use paths to complain to Wandsworth Council

[chrisonabike]

Sriracha wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

I think the ingredient missing from our situation is only the determination to make it work! In NL they have plugged away doggedly over 27 years, on the basis that if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Whereas over here we give it a few months, then rip it all out and return to the conviction that it can (or even, must) never work.

Yes.

There’s a PhD or several in examining why this is. People say “culture” but in truth the range of different countries which have moved further – and recently – than the UK – suggests that this is not simply that and indeed transport culture is not immutable. Perhaps once a few made the political choices – way back when – this has somehow become a political “given” / absolute?

However as some on here will no doubt recall – *some* have been plugging away for longer than that. Indeed – a couple of years back we had the quarter-century anniversary of a major government plan for more cycling – and found we were right back at the start.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/national-cycling-strategys-25th-anniversary-lessons-today

[Sriracha]

I think the ingredient
I think the ingredient missing from our situation is only the determination to make it work! In NL they have plugged away doggedly over 27 years, on the basis that if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Whereas over here we give it a few months, then rip it all out and return to the conviction that it can (or even, must) never work.

[chrisonabike]

On compromise – instead of
On compromise – instead of “we’ll allow some specific (painted!) space for cycling – as long as drivers aren’t actually affected” we can do a bit better but still find middle ground. Here’s an example – a street in NL where it was judged “our street is too narrow for cycle paths”. So instead – they made a cycle street.

The catch is – this was 27 years ago – and even in NL there were probably too many people driving. The layout was not right but perhaps it just wasn’t possible with car usage at the time. Is this the case in some UK situations?

Of course – this is now fixed. Once again it’s a cycle street, and it works because there are far more people cycling than driving. There are still compromises – there are (marked) spaces to park cars *on the pavement* and also loading bays (specific times). But it’s good *enough* – and miles better than a couple of decades ago.

[Sriracha]

chrisonatrike wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

It is almost always possible to do something.  BUT we may have to relax the constraint of “accessible by motor vehicles”.  That might not be “ban cars!”.  It could be “single lane each direction”, or “no longer accessible in both directions” or no longer a through-route”.  It might be “speeds need to come right down” or “not accessible all the time”, “less / no parking” etc.

Another classic is where an entire centre-lane’s worth of road space crossed-hatched out, simply to create right-turn refuges so that motorists are not inconvenienced by their mutual lack of consideration and road manners.

See also my post above about pavement parking.

[chrisonabike]

Also – exemption for
Also – exemption for deliveries – I expect that to be broadly interpreted.

However finally as you say a commitment to close a loophole (as it’s illegal to drive there).

I’ll see if I notice a difference.

Totally agree that a big issue is that “we can’t see the space for the cars”. It’s “but our streets are too narrow”. And what is banned but not effectively enforced (and now not at all, say the police) becomes normal. Then if you try to backtrack everyone says “we’re being persecuted! How can I access my house / the shops / the clinic / where can I put my car now?”

[Sriracha]

Edinburgh bans pavement
Edinburgh bans pavement parking!

Somewhat tangential to the topic; I’m often struck that where pavements are amply wide enough that they could be reconfigured to accommodate the installation of a cycle path, before that ever happens the space becomes taken over by parked cars. In time this becomes the norm, and the residents come to see it as part of their amenity, creating an inertia against any change. It creates the illusion that there is no room for a cycle path. It cements the opposition to a cycle path.

In my street it is no longer possible even to walk along the pavement on one side – residents park across the full width of the pavement.

So the news that Edinburgh has decided to outlaw pavement parking is a glimmer of hope. Although, of course, tempered by the fact that nothing will probably change:

…no additional parking staff are being recruited to enforce the ban…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-67381938

[andystow]

chrisonatrike wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

I mean all credit to people in the US – that’s pretty much the world benchmark for King Car (bar maybe some bits of the middle east oil states) … in a lot of places the notion of adding *pedestrian* infra in towns and residential areas is a bit of a new thing…

True for a lot of areas, but this is in an early 1900s neighbourhood / first ring suburb, so most of it does have pavements.

[Backladder]

HoarseMann wrote:

But you need not worry, more cycle infrastructure will mean more cyclists, which means a greater proportion of drivers will cycle or know someone who does and this will increase empathy towards cyclists.

I’m not convinced that the graph of cyclist numbers vs driver empathy is a straight line, I think there will be a horrible dip in it!

[hawkinspeter]

Cugel wrote:

Coo – is this an attempt by the boy to engage in a dialogue?

Don’t be shy, now! Perhaps you could make clear what you agree with and what you find hyperbolic. I admit to hyperbolising when approaching then entering rant mode.  🙂

Careful now, he’s easily startled. I think he’s worried about the Guadrian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati pouncing on him and his comments.

[Author]

Replies