The new Aberdeen Western Peripheral Road (AWPR) is to host a “Go North East Road Festival” before it is opened to traffic in September. The event will offer cyclists an opportunity to “wobble or weave” on the road to promote active travel. However, people will not be allowed to bring their own bikes “for everyone’s safety” and cyclists will be banned from the road forever once the event is over.
The Community Weekend has been scheduled for Saturday September 8 and Sunday September 9. It is described as a free public event to celebrate “the opening of one of the largest infrastructure projects in Scotland, part of Transport Scotland’s commitment to improving travel in the north east.”
However, the Press and Journal reports that participants won’t be able to bring their own bikes for the cycling element of those celebrations.
The event website states: “During both event days, we are planning to have a selection of bikes for use in a ‘come and try’ arena.
“This will give an opportunity for novices and the more experienced to cycle a short section of AWPR B-T. Cyclists of all levels can wiz [sic], wobble or weave on the closed road, promoting active travel and greener transport.”
Access to the event is only by free shuttle bus and the website states: “Please note, for everyone’s safety visitors will not be able to bring their own bikes on site.”
If you’re wondering how the AWPR will be of benefit to cyclists long-term, the answer is that local roads will be relieved of “strategic traffic” (whatever that is).
“The AWPR/B-T will be a Special Road, and, similar to a motorway, cyclists will be prohibited from using it for their own safety.
“However, the benefits to cyclists and pedestrians of the project are to be found in the local road networks which will be relieved of strategic traffic, with all the environmental and safety benefits this will bring.”
In an open letter to event organisers Transport Scotland, the chairman of Ride the North (a two-day cycling event which takes place later this month in Aberdeenshire and Moray) said: “I noticed yesterday the information presented online has been amended to state that cyclists cannot access with their own bicycles – but are invited to ‘wobble and weave’ on provided bikes for reasons of health and safety.
“I write to urge you to take soundings from local cyclists to gauge whether the proposals outlined will engage them as you would wish.”
A Transport Scotland spokesman said: “The event organising team has consulted with a number of local cycling groups to understand and meet their aspirations while also maintaining the safety of all visitors and the security of the site.
“More details about the festival will be announced next week but we can confirm there will be opportunities to cycle on a lengthy section of the road.
“There has been no change to any information previously provided in June and at no time has a mass participation cycling event been envisaged, given the project remains largely a construction site at this time.
“The ethos of the Go North East Road Festival is to be as inclusive as possible so that anyone can take up the opportunity to cycle on the road before it opens to traffic, regardless of ability.
“It has always been necessary to ensure that entry to the event arena is controlled for security reasons.
“This means that rather than encouraging people to bring their own bikes, we will make bikes available for people of all ages and abilities to borrow and ride on a lengthy section of the road.”
64 thoughts on “Is this the worst cycling event EVER?”
Perhaps they should have some
Perhaps they should have some demonstrations of how to overtake a cyclist in a car.
Plus a few close passes for good measure.
What is the point of the event?
Quote:
I think that I’m the best judge of what is good or not for my own safety, it what us adults do. In terms of personal safety, please don’t ever try and meet me as I might just shove the nanny state up your arse! How’s that for “own safety”?
don simon wrote:
I think that I’m the best judge of what is good or not for my own safety, it what us adults do. In terms of personal safety, please don’t ever try and meet me as I might just shove the nanny state up your arse! How’s that for “own safety”?
While I appreciate your sentiment re your reaction to the specific case here, your comment has a number of glaring issues.
Firstly, some people have for ever an a day been fairly poor when it comes to judging what is best for their own safety. A person tends to judge how safe something is or how safe the way they are doing it is by their past experiences or past training, which may not take into account all likely possibilities.
Secondly, in this particularly scenario (and whether their final descision is right or not can be very much open for debate), the ‘own safety’ is I suspect more a question of ‘general safety of all participating’. i.e. even if it is achnowledged that you are responsible for your own safety, the moment others are around you, your actions could impact on the safety of others.
So, take speeding in a car example. It may be that a person speeding has huge experience, is on a deserted road, and they are only person they are putting at danger because no-one else is around. In that scenario, your argument above could stand up. However, if others are on that road then your actions could be putting others at danger, and so what you call the ‘nanny state’ has quite rightly decided to put a speed limit on the road in order to try and deal with those people who are for whatever reason unable to judge correctly the safe speed.
There’s a whole debate that my comments there could spark, but my point is that you need to be careful using the arguement you are using, because I’m sure if you came accross someone using it to justify driving at 50 in a 20 zone, you’d quite rightly take issue with them.
joules1975 wrote:
Whatever…
What a load of bollocks.
What a load of bollocks.
“This what you could have won
“This what you could have won”. Tell ’em to shove it, patronising b*****ds.
*checks date*
*checks date*
So, whose idea was this and are they allowed out in public without an adult?
Fucktardary of monumental
Fucktardary of monumental proportions.
Surely dreamt up by someone on monkey dust
This was always going to be a
This was always going to be a cr*p event. It was not going to be an opportunity to access all 27 or so miles of the new road by bike for one day (and enjoy the nice new smooth surface), it was just going to be a small section of it.
What is really annoying is that even that meagre event was massively downgraded (from a cyclists viewpoint) very recently.
The FAQ on the website has changed in past few weeks.
I had copied and pasted the text from there and posted on Aberdeen Cycle Forum FB and also a Scottish Cycling Grampian FB page when the site went up (c. 8 weeks ago).
Here is what it said back then (I’ve made some bits bold) :
“The Sunday morning will offer a unique opportunity for cyclists to access the new AWPR road with options being finalised to link in with the pre-existing National Cycle Network.
During both event days, we are planning to have a selection of bikes for use in a “come and try” arena. This will give an opportunity for novices and the more experienced to cycle a short section of AWPR B-T. Cyclists of all levels can wiz, wobble or weave on the closed road, promoting active travel and greener transport.“
“Options are being finalised to make use of the National Cycle Route providing access to the section of road being used for the event and will be advertised to encourage cyclists to enjoy a ‘day out’ cycling to visit the event and reduce pressure on transport provisions while promoting active travel and greener transport.
For the Sunday morning cycling additional transport will be arranged from a designated departure site to bring cyclists and their bikes to the event site, this will be arranged by our events team. No personal cars will be permitted to the event arena.”
P.S. Sorry I didn’t take a screen cap, but the text quoted above is the original text straight off the old FAQ.
What would happen in a bunch
What would happen in a bunch of MTBers rode some of the country tracks to get to the route and just turned up? Would some officious do-gooder in high viz chase them down?
If I lived in the area, I’d be tempted to cut across country and ride the route on a muddy MTB. It might even be worth encouraging some locals to do so!
🙂
OldRidgeback wrote:
From the stories I have heard from some local strava segment chasers then yes that officious do gooder would chase them down (in his pick up truck) and try to take thier photographs to send to who knows who.
I believe the site has been expemt from the “Right to roam” legislation because it is covered seperatly as a construction site for the last couple of years
OldRidgeback wrote:
Exactly what I was thinking, though unfortunately I live in Devon
Theres a few few Strava
Theres a few few Strava segments on the AWPR where the KoM and Qom could reign supreme once the road is opened
The status of special road (Not a motorway but no bikes or tractors) has been applied to a few dual carriageways over the years in Scotland, as far as I am aware they have all been in place from when the road was opened having been built on greenfield sites and thus not closing any existing routes (Edinburgh city by pass and Glasgow Southern Orbital). not sure about the Edinburgh By Pass but in the case of the GSO the old routes are very quiet and I believe accptable. However in the case of the long awaited AWPR there has long been a demand for cycling facilities to the South of the city and I believe an opportunity has been ignored.
Further to that the Deeside way (well used old railway tarmaced cycle track 6 miles direct from Peterculter into city) has now been crossed by the AWPR and the originally promised bridge quietly forgotten so users now need to cross a dual carriageway with NSL (70mph)
Bear in mind that this is not a missing link in the motorway network (the nearest Motorway is nearly 100 miles away), perhaps if it had been built to MWay standards the cycling facilities would ironically have been better
And the answer to your headline question YES it does sound like one of the worst events ever
Shame it’s in Aberdeen.
Shame it’s in Aberdeen. Somewhere with a larger local population could feasibly support an act of large scale civil disobedience. Would be amusing to see the faces of the hi-viz not-police trying to stop a few thousand bikes descending on the road.
Just a waste of space.
Just a waste of space.
The “never ride it again” bit is just click bait from this website. So what? There are other routes that are prohibited to cyclists. Would there be moans about this element if it was a new motorway link? Nope. Just whinging here.
Only use provided bikes. Well its their ball so they decide the rules.
Shuttle access only. Is there any other way? No one is mentioning that just moaning. Perhaps there is no other way if the road has no cyclist and its not open yet.
None of this is worthy of complaint. If you don’t like it you don’t have to go.
Havings said all that , is a bit bloody daft to have the latter 2 restrictions if they want to promote cycling in the area isn’t it?
Possibly even dafter is doing it in the first place. Who the hell will really bother?
“Strategic traffic….”: a
“Strategic traffic….”: a well-used phrase without meaning used by traffic engineers (guilty…..).
What it means is that estimates/guestimates of motorised traffic volumes and types (private car, HGV, etc) going from points A, B, C, etc to A, B, C, etc have been plugged into a model. They’ve then plonked a massive new link in the middle of the network and after even more assumptions and guesswork come up with a reduction in average travel time for these important people. None of it is real, it’s all done for the business case to support the funding bid, which was probably done 10 years ago, and any link to the current real-world driving patterns in the area were lost long ago. It would be interesting to see where the original traffic flows were derived from – sometimes from previous models with as little link to reality.
This explains why, when a new route is finished and open, the change to traffic flows is absolutely nothing like predicted. But, by then, it doesn’t matter as it’s too late to do anything other than build another one. Perfect for the next local elections.
Then it’s back to the strategic model again….
PS – I quit this shambles of an industry a year ago. It really is all bollocks, sadly.
Zermattjohn is bang on it’s a
Zermattjohn is bang on it’s a load of bollocks.
Contractors hate cyclists, they don’t give a monkeys about anything except their bottom line and hitting the programme. Exemplified by this joke quality half arsed “community event”.
roadmanshaq wrote:
There’s probably some guff about how this route will encourage “active travel” in their bid docs. They may even have been given some cash from an active travel budget to build the thing, and after years of quietly ignoring that they’ve remembered at the last minute and some poor sod has come up with this. Tick the box, job done.
And I complain about events
And I complain about events where I have to wear the jersey of the event!
I would just show up a day early for this one and sneak a few km of riding in.
However, people will not be
Oh dear, they seem to have forgotten that not all cyclists are on two wheels or, for that matter, cycle using their legs…
I wonder, what provision have they made for disabled cyclists using, for example, Handcycles…?
Pah. In the Netherlands,
Pah. In the Netherlands, this would be the cycle path!
(So I’ve been led to believe…might be over-egging the Dutch pudding slightly)
It’s a non event and a non
It’s a non event and a non story. The real issue for me is that they are building miles of roads without decent cycle routes (with proper solutions at slip roads). The only reason they build roads without segregated cycle paths to the side is cost. Unless they do something to improve the ‘non strategic’ roads- it wont make any difference to the safety of cyclists. What will actually happen is the maintenance regime on the other routes will be downgraded (as they are seen as secondary routes) and they will deteriorate…
“The event organising team
“The event organising team has consulted with a number of local cycling groups…..” That number being one person from one group who told them where to shove it.
“However, the benefits to cyclists and pedestrians of the project are to be found in the local road networks which will be relieved of strategic traffic, with all the environmental and safety benefits this will bring.” It won’t. Anyone who has even briefly looked at the evidence from the past 60 years will know that new roads don’t reduce levels of traffic on other roads, they merely induce extra traffic, thus creating more traffic on those roads. Unless absolutely draconian measures are taken to reduce local traffic, exclusion zones, stopping up roads etc, local traffic will increase.
As the best quote I’ve ever heard about this says “Curing congestion by building more roads is like loosening your belt to cure obesity.”
This has to be the saddest “cycling” event ever, and to add injury to insult, cyclists will be banned from it when they should have constructed wide, segregated parallel cycle routes.
How about turning up with black armbands and riding off with their bikes?
If i was a local, i wouldn’t
If i was a local, i wouldn’t waste time turning up at such an event. Same way I dont go to my own office parties because its full of managers circlejerking and slapping each other on the back for who can treat their staff the worst.
RoubaixCube wrote:
that sounds quite challenging, like rubbing your tummy and patting your head at the same time.
I’m going to propose to HR that they use that as an aptitude test for the management trainee programme.
RoubaixCube wrote:
If I were slightly more local, I’d show up with my wheelchair, sans bike, and make a huge scene; I’d bet money that the minibuses aren’t going to be accessible, and seeing as they’ve made zero mention of disabled cyclists or adaptive gear, I’d also bet that they’ve completely failed to discharge their legal duties under the Equality Act, and in doing so placed a defacto ban on disabled persons participating in their event – Which would be a potentially actionable scenario.
Of course, I’m a cynic, but still….
Crippledbiker wrote:
If i was a local, i wouldn’t waste time turning up at such an event. Same way I dont go to my own office parties because its full of managers circlejerking and slapping each other on the back for who can treat their staff the worst.
— Crippledbiker If I were slightly more local, I’d show up with my wheelchair, sans bike, and make a huge scene; I’d bet money that the minibuses aren’t going to be accessible, and seeing as they’ve made zero mention of disabled cyclists or adaptive gear, I’d also bet that they’ve completely failed to discharge their legal duties under the Equality Act, and in doing so placed a defacto ban on disabled persons participating in their event – Which would be a potentially actionable scenario. Of course, I’m a cynic, but still….— RoubaixCube
Now that sounds like it’d cause a very amusing fuss!
🙂
Cock and Wombles spring to
Cock and Wombles spring to mind, I really hope not one person turns up, people should black ball this crud.
Disgraceful waste of money and the local roads will still be a load of shite to ride on. They should stop up these roads to motorvehicles and only allow passage through for pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians, after all ‘they’ have their motorway so should bloody well be forced to use it.
I’m going to take a very wild
I’m going to take a very wild guess that helmets are compulsory for this “event”.
ChairRDRF wrote:
Given the knowledge shown by the organisers about cycling, a helmet rule is pretty well inevitable, and hi-viz and elbow and knee pads. And a speed limit. And the bikes they provide will have stabilisers.
To be fair here, they couldn
To be fair here, they couldn’t open the entire length of the road for cyclists for the weekend without closing parts that are already open. (Where possible sections have been opened ahead of the official opening for better local access in areas) This road should have been open early 2018, but with various delays, not least the collapse of Carrillion group, it’s WAY behind schedule. In view of this they are working to get the road open, but had promised an “event ” before opening. I would have thought they might have managed to open a stratch between 2 junctions to let people have a ride on their own bikes, but I guess that’s not going to happen.
For those wondering why the road is not open ti bikes after, that’s easy, it’s an urban bypass to get traffic past Aberdeen, and for those of us who have to get from Aberdeen Airport to the Dundee road when we land “back home” periodically it’s going to make a huge difference. A huge amount of traffic currently stops and starts it’s way through about 165 (well it feels like it) small roundabout and traffic light junctions to get around Aberdeen centre.
Once the road opens, and the traffic on the “old” road drops, then there might be possibilities to improve cycling facilites there, but until the new road opens there is simply not space to do so.
StuInNorway wrote:
All the evidence from the past 60 years shows that traffic on local roads won’t drop, but that suppressed demand will be released and because of the traffic induced by the new road, local traffic will increase. The assumption that new roads will reduce traffic on existing roads is wrong and has been proved wrong every time, but it is still trotted out by the road builders and developers, who are as honest as the politicians who support them.
If local roads were made cyclist/pedestrian only with emergency vehicles exempt, you might be right, but the chances of that happening are slightly less than winning the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket.
burtthebike wrote:
All the evidence from the past 60 years shows that traffic on local roads won’t drop, but that suppressed demand will be released and because of the traffic induced by the new road, local traffic will increase. The assumption that new roads will reduce traffic on existing roads is wrong and has been proved wrong every time, but it is still trotted out by the road builders and developers, who are as honest as the politicians who support them.
If local roads were made cyclist/pedestrian only with emergency vehicles exempt, you might be right, but the chances of that happening are slightly less than winning the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket.— StuInNorway
Lets face it though they have been promising this by pass since before most of that information was available
burtthebike wrote:
I think in this case it might. Aberdeen is so isolated that there is a finite amount of traffic, which is probably already clogging up the existing roads. An example I know very well is the Broughton bypass just north of Preston. The traffic through Broughton has practically stopped, as they have actually made it awkward NOT to use the bypass. It’s made a huge difference to what was a 20 minute jam at busy times on the Broughton crossroads. They’ve even made a good job of providing an alternative route for cyclists round what would be a nightmare roundabout. As for cycling on the bypass, you CAN but you’d have to be the most insane, self obsessed idiot to try.
Just because it’s your right to ride on a road doesn’t mean you should. It can’t be pleasant riding on a 70mph dual carriageway with nowhere to go. I see it on the A590 near levens. Lovely quiet road running parallel to the dual carriageway, but some cyclists insist on using the main road. Why? Had a discussion with as colleague about cyclists on the snake pass. That would terrify me as the speed differential uphill would be so huge, yet it’s too narrow and twisting for a safe pass. Though on the counter side, I’m perfectly happy riding up the A6 to Shap. Because it’s wide, pretty straight and, for an A road, very quiet. That’s because the M6 takes the load, much like the Aberdeen road will do.
Guanajuato wrote:
I think in this case it might.— burtthebike
Well, in my experience as a professional transport planner with an MSc in transport planning and a keen observer of transport, I disagree. You think that the traffic is finite, but have no evidence to show that it is, and that there isn’t massive suppressed demand from people who don’t drive because of the existing congestion.
Thanks for your input, but I’ll go with my opinion based on my knowledge, experience and the evidence.
Taking the opening of
Taking the opening of Inverness West Link as an example – a major selling point by the Council was that it would reduce city centre congestion.
The opponents of this scheme argued that this would be negligible (and that the primary motive was to open up development land)
The West Link opened a year ago, and guess what? We now have a busy West Link – ie lots of traffic is using it, but the town appears just as busy as ever (ie, there might be some reduction, but not so much anyone would notice)
If you look at the models they used to predict traffic flow what is striking is
1) The ‘experts’ don’t know how the models work – they stick numbers in, and come out with comments like ‘it just works’
2) There is no statistical accuracy output for their predicted local traffic reduction
3) There is no consideration of seasonal local factors (eg, tourist traffic, in the case of Inverness – not so applicable to Aberdeen)
4) There is no factor to take into account ‘suppressed demand’
5) There is no factor to take into account long-term future planned building developments / residential areas / retail areas – and the influence they will have on ‘city centre congestion’
burtthebike wrote:
Although I agree with you, I know of a counterexample:
The Norwich Southern bypass. It took several years for drivers to start using it, but eventually the numbers of cars on the southern part of the outer ring road did drop. Now, 26 years later, the ring road is once again congested, but that will be accounted for by the enormous growth in car ownership rather than suppressed demand. There are still downsides:
1. Cyclists find it harder to cycle out of Norwich, because small road crossings have been shut and no bike pathways were been built* under the road.
2. Unlike the immediate post-war bypasses, no provision was made for cyclists who also want to ride all or part of the route.
3. Cars and lorries travelling around Norwich on the A47 travel more miles, at high speed, thus contributing even more to global warming.
So the assumption hasn’t been “proved wrong every time”. I’ll vote for your suggestion that local roads should only be for cyclists, pedestrians and ambulances, with the proviso that the ambulances will be lightweight pedelec long johns and that people with walking difficulties are also allowed ultralight electric transport. When we need a car, we could use our own or a car club car, kept in the out of town underground car park with a field of rape on top.
New roads would reduce traffic if they were made strictly for non motorised traffic and segregated pedestrians from cyclists and runners and all from animal riders. We’ve run out of land, so it’s time to consider building multistorey roads or reducing our population.
*Correction, there was one near Bawburgh but, menacingly, motor vehicles are now allowed to use it too.
janusz0 wrote:
Got any figures to support that?
burtthebike wrote:
Yeah! Figures, ‘coz figures never lie, they are never misread and certainly not misrepresented. So, get the bloody figures now!
burtthebike wrote:
Sorry Burt, no, Just years of riding* in the area before and after 1992. There are permanent cameras (Trafficmaster/Teltrac) counting and timing cars on the bypass, but I don’t think that there are equivalent counts on the ring road.
*bicycles, motos and the occasional car trip
janusz0 wrote:
Got any figures to support that?
[/quote]
Sorry Burt, no, Just years of riding* in the area before and after 1992. There are permanent cameras (Trafficmaster/Teltrac) counting and timing cars on the bypass, but I don’t think that there are equivalent counts on the ring road.
*bicycles, motos and the occasional car trip
[/quote]
That is the pattern; very temporary reduction in local traffic, but this quickly vanishes and congestion returns to previous levels and then gets worse, leading to demands for a by-pass for the by-pass in a never ending spiral of futility.
We know what works, we’ve known for years, so why do we keep doing the exact opposite?
StuInNorway wrote:
No, to be fair this is in the same week that Edinburgh announced bike only routes periodically. One part of Scotland seems to get cycling the other …
Quote:
Absolutely, 100% this, was my first thought as soon as I read it also.
You wonder why they bother
You wonder why they bother really. Its going to be a non-event anyway. Lets hope they do the same “No bikes” policy at the pru ride. I’d love to see 20,000+ riders scrabbling over a few knackered loaners. What a joke.
“If you’re wondering how the
“If you’re wondering how the AWPR will be of benefit to cyclists long-term, the answer is that it won’t
local roads will be relieved of “strategic traffic” (whatever that is).““Is this the worst cycling
“Is this the worst cycling event EVER?”
Could we not have whip round and give them some sort of award? Wouldn’t have to cost much, a gift wrapped puncture tube perhaps, or a BSO from the local supermarket.
burtthebike wrote:
perhaps a “Cyclists Dismount” sign to put up at the start of the ride.
Why is your own bike
Why is your own bike considered less safe than some BSO they’re going to let you ride at the event? I know my bike better than their’s, thank you very much!
brooksby wrote:
Because on your own bike you may go at “excessive” speeds (i.e. above walking pace) and crash into someone in hi-vis and a construction hard-hat with so much kinetic energy that they suffer
nothing more serious than a bruise or scratchhorrific life changing injuries.Will nobody think of the navvies?
brooksby wrote:
That was my first thought – I’m much more wobbly and unsafe on a cycle I’ve never used before than the one I do 30km a day on!
To answer the headline
To answer the headline question – yes, probably. However honourable mention needs to go to this effort in Manchester last year to celebrate £15m spent to go a whole half a mile, and for huge swathes of green belt to be given over to car parks and office units. The muppets at British Cycling even got involved.
http://www.airportcity.co.uk/media-hub/airport-city-to-host-community-cycle-ride-with-british-cycling-114197/
Much better idea to go to a
Much better idea to go to a great event at nearby Alford: http://ktbikerun.org.uk
I can confirm that the
I can confirm that the original details about this event had made it clear that you could bring your own bike – but not cycle to the event – bikes would have to be transported in.
You are also not allowed to walk to the event. Locals have been complaining that despite the event being less than a mile from their house, they would have to drive to a pickup point, and then get bussed in.
As an Aberdonian, I was planning on going with my kids, but now I’m just thinking they should finally open this road.
More concerning is the failure of either the Council or Transport Scotland to take ownership of the issue where the new road cuts across the Deeside Way. There was initially supposed to be a bridge, but this was dropped from the plans. Part of the path has not been completed
Details here – http://www.aberdeencycleforum.org.uk/?page_id=19
But this is the gist of the issue (quoted from above link)
“At the west [Peterculter] end of the bridge the dual use path is offset from the Deeside way by approximately 30 meters, the current entrance to the dual use path is in the path of oncoming traffic. Pedestrians and particularly cyclists have to go into the path of oncoming traffic on the bridge to access the path.”
TheHungryGhost wrote:
This is the nearest smiley I can find describing my reaction to what you describe
As a non-Aberdonian, it looks to me like the event the Council have designed is simply insane.
TheHungryGhost wrote:
Is that some special by law?
How does that work with ‘freedom to roam’?
The Deeside Way thing sounds
The Deeside Way thing sounds utterly piss-poor. Has anyone nearby involved the local MP/MSP?
Rode the Deeside Way last
Rode the Deeside Way last Thursday out to Drumoak and back. There is a bridge, but it’s reached by a diversion on to Station Road, then Milltimber Brae. After that, it’s across a normal two lane road then up a climb reached through quite a narrow chicane.
To my mind, that was one of the better features of the Deeside Way. Going along a very narrow dirt path with my arms getting snagged by the overgrown vegatation and then being glad I was on a gravel bike due to the appaling rocky rough surface made a small diversion over a bridge a minor inconvenience.
Event does sound appalling. The GSO and M74 events down here were ticketed, but with massive entries. Did make it quite scary at times with huge variation in levels of cycling abilities and speeds.
There is a pretty long and steep climb at the Milltimber/Peterculter section – don’t fancy that at all in winter with ice or snow even if I fit a set of winters to the car. Would be a good bit of fun just now dropping down it on a bike though!
Oh, I know what we’ll do.
Oh, I know what we’ll do.
Teach people who don’t ride that wobbling and weaving is okay to do on the road.
This is absolutely stupid and the people who set this up should be ashamed.
Being able to ride on a closed road, awesome! Everything after that, terrible!
It would be laughable if it
It would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic and shameful. This could have been a great showcase for Aberdeen – which needs to attract new people and business – and at virtually no cost. But it’s been turned into a complete farce.
Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory or what?
What SHOULD happen with a
What SHOULD happen with a bypass like this is that immediatly it opens, the diggers move into the city at key locations to begin a massive program of road reconfiguration (reducing motor traffic lanes, re-priortising junction design to be pedestrian and cycle first) to absolutely ensure that strategic traffic (which in this case means traffic from eg Peterhead, Fraserborough and Inverurie to Stonehaven, Dundee and beyond) uses the new road and that even traffic from one side of Aberdeen to the other) finds it easier to use the new road (or buses, cycles). Rather than the restricted A road designation, it should just be classified as a motorway- but of course that would mean having no at-grade crossings of a 70mph road, they would actually have to put in the lost bridges.
Hell, the entire A90 south of Aberdeen really should be upgraded and designated Motorway, with all the remaining right turns taken out and a high quality cycleway roughly paralleling it. But because the UK does half measures, even with facilities for cars, it won’t be.
In most cases, all cycling gets is insults like this event.
On the plus side, is this a
On the plus side, is this a chance to try out lots of different saddles?
Eribiste wrote:
Pervert!
I find it so sad that this
I find it so sad that this was the perfect opportunity to have a really high quality cycle lane alongside roads like this, especially with it being a new build. But yet again it’s just short sighted nonsense.
Generally, ring roads and
Generally, ring roads and bypasses can reduce traffic in the urban areas they bypass, but won’t unless deliberate measures are taken to do so, such as town centre road closures (whether “filtered permeability” or total closures), removal of parking, etc.