Would-be cyclists want more cycle lanes and better facilities, says Halfords survey

Leodis wrote:

I am totally against segregated lanes, it just encourages the numpties that cyclists have to use them. Nothing worse than been stuck behind a 5mph pootler with no way to over take them whilst they nod away.

You dont want safe infrastructure for everyone because it might inconvenience you?

Twat.

Leodis wrote:

I am totally against segregated lanes, it just encourages the numpties that cyclists have to use them. Nothing worse than been stuck behind a 5mph pootler with no way to over take them whilst they nod away.

Do you really mean to pretend segregated lanes are always going to be so narrow it's impossible to pass, or so segregated a person with your obvious speed and skill couldn't find the road from it.... seriously ?

Leodis wrote:

I am totally against segregated lanes, it just encourages the numpties that cyclists have to use them. Nothing worse than been stuck behind a 5mph pootler with no way to over take them whilst they nod away.

So you're saying these cyclists slow you down and you find them difficult to overtake. Where have I heard that sort of sentiment before...

Leodis wrote:

I am totally against segregated lanes, it just encourages the numpties that cyclists have to use them. Nothing worse than been stuck behind a 5mph pootler with no way to over take them whilst they nod away.

Completely agree with the numpty sentiment in the first sentence, shame about the second sentence...

The point about having to use cycle lanes, which on current experience are very poor, is a big thing for me too. Invariably current cycle lanes impede progress terribly and in may cases if you were to try to ride them at the speeds you would on a road your would be in an accident or on your backside pretty quickly. I've had motorists gesticulate towards cycle lands as they pass me. The fact that I might have been doing 25 mph in a 30 limit and would have been completely out of place on a shared footpath cycle way doesn't even enter their minds. The big fear is that provision of cycle lanes can quickly become compulsory cycle lanes and with the standard of cycle lanes in this country that is totally unworkable for many existing cyclists.

Roscoemck wrote:

The white line segregated cycle lanes that we currently have would be even better if they stopped people being allowed to park on them!

If they have a solid white line then, legally speaking, they do prevent people parking or driving on them.

But the reality is that is never going to be enforced 100% (or even 10%)

Proper physical segregation (like bollards or a kerb) is far more effective and requires much less enforcement.

bikebot wrote:

I wonder if the British Horse Society has members that speak out against bridleways, and think that using them make them less safe.

Not really a fair comment.

Look, I get the pro-segregation team's argument that segregation will help increase the modal share and all that good stuff. I will concede that point. But that still doesn't really tackle the original problem.

We won't ever have the situation that all drivers will also cycle and that this magically turns them into considerate people. Most drivers already are considerate. Very considerate. Even if they don't understand why the crazy lycra-clad person is doing this to him- or herself (sic), most of them will still give them a wide berth and pass safely. In my experience anyway, which consists of at least 60 km in traffic almost every day. It's the few psychopaths and really terrible drivers that make it unsafe, and we will have them regardless.

Now, personally I think those kind of people will be encouraged by segregation. The pro-segregation people disagree. Fine. Be that as it may, the fact remains that we will always have those kind of people, and once the increased numbers of cycling people start to want to use the roads as well as the nice segregated paths - perhaps because for some journeys they are more practical or perhaps because they want to go faster / have become more experienced / whatever reason any of us have to go road cycling - they will run into this problem.

"Lowering speed limits for cars" <-- It's sad that this only got 10% of the votes in that survey. It's also sad that it's the only item in the list quoted above that actually deals with the problem. What I would have liked to see is a safe passing distance made into a law, e.g. 1.5 metres like in some countries on the continent. Put a fine on it, accept helmet cams as evidence, crack down on offenders. That would send the right message - that would help a heck of a lot more than most of the other items on that list.

Because at the end of the day, a rather large number of people who cycle do cycle on the roads. And even those hypothetical wanne-be-but-are-afraid-to-try cyclists (I'll believe them when I see them on a bike) who segregationists claim will massively increase the modal share, a large number of them will eventually want to use the roads.

So we will keep coming back to this problem. And segregation doesn't solve it, it sidesteps it. At best. It's sort of kinda acknowledging the elephant in the room but refusing to call it an elephant.

userfriendly wrote:

So we will keep coming back to this problem. And segregation doesn't solve it, it sidesteps it. At best. It's sort of kinda acknowledging the elephant in the room but refusing to call it an elephant.

The groups which campaign for segregated infrastructure (which is basically every cycling charity) aren't ignoring anything, they campaign on multiple fronts. The position of the LCC is fairly straightforward, it should be possible to commute via high quality segregated infrastructure where it can be provided, and where it can't and roads have to be shared, they should be restricted to a 20mph speed limit.

The position is based on the reality that even with the best training, mixing large numbers of bicycles with HGVs on busy fast roads will remain fundamentally dangerous. Nor is it politically possible to restrict all roads in a large city to 20mph.

The policy is very simple, very clear, and at no point does it reduce the expectation that cyclists will also need to use the road, as the argument is also about allocating dedicated capacity for an ever increasing number of cyclists in the capital.

The thinking that traffic will be pacified as more and more cyclists use it, was behind the current design of the Elephant & Castle, and some other very dangerous junctions in London.

Okay. Maybe I am simply extrapolating here from the - as I mentioned, rather small - minority of dangerous drivers, and maybe I am wrong about them feeling encouraged in their beliefs by segregation. I doubt it, but let's suppose I am. Even if I'm not, I did say earlier that we will have those numpties regardless, so we can take that very line and make it work against my argument as well. So there.

I guess another reason why I'm against it is that segregation doesn't particularly help me personally. Which is selfish - but of course I want something that helps me, and the exact same thing is true for people that would prefer segregated infrastructure. So the line of "don't only think of yourself" holds true for both sides too.

It just seems to me - and again, maybe I'm wrong, so do feel free to point and shout at me - that the underlying cause is society's inherently sick relationship with a devastatingly toxic mode of transport. My goal when arguing for speed limits and other laws to protect the vulnerable and against segregation is to direct the main thrust of effort into directly reducing this toxicity.

I appreciate that segregation aims to do the same, but in a rather indirect way that will take a long, long time because it relies on a small shift to have a large effect.

Yes I know, segregation works, because Netherlands. But when bringing up the Netherlands, please keep the following in mind: it took them four decades to get where they are now. And they had a wee bit of help from a massive oil crisis to create the political will to jump-start this process.

How do we create that kind of political will in the UK? Is that even possible? Consider that it's two very different cultures, mainly in regards to how we look at transport, economy, and politics in general.

I also appreciate that the campaigns of the likes of the LCC are after both, segregation *and* measures to make the roads safer. But it's a bit like going on an anti-war demonstration where you have hundreds of different groups with different goals which at the end of the day will all be ignored entirely by the people in power.

The "cycling community" (if there is such a thing) doesn't have much weight to begin with. If we focussed our efforts on one thing wouldn't that be slightly more effective? And if we did that, shouldn't it be something that benefited all of society, including people that have no intention of ever riding a bicycle and who would consider this kind of talk navel gazing at best, with no relevance to them? Shouldn't it be less "Safer cycling for me!" and more "Hey, wouldn't it be great if we could vastly reduce the numbers of people killed and injured on our roads?" ...

userfriendly wrote:

bikebot wrote:

I wonder if the British Horse Society has members that speak out against bridleways, and think that using them make them less safe.

Not really a fair comment.

Look, I get the pro-segregation team's argument that segregation will help increase the modal share and all that good stuff. I will concede that point. But that still doesn't really tackle the original problem.

We won't ever have the situation that all drivers will also cycle and that this magically turns them into considerate people. Most drivers already are considerate. Very considerate. Even if they don't understand why the crazy lycra-clad person is doing this to him- or herself (sic), most of them will still give them a wide berth and pass safely. In my experience anyway, which consists of at least 60 km in traffic almost every day. It's the few psychopaths and really terrible drivers that make it unsafe, and we will have them regardless.

Now, personally I think those kind of people will be encouraged by segregation. The pro-segregation people disagree. Fine. Be that as it may, the fact remains that we will always have those kind of people, and once the increased numbers of cycling people start to want to use the roads as well as the nice segregated paths - perhaps because for some journeys they are more practical or perhaps because they want to go faster / have become more experienced / whatever reason any of us have to go road cycling - they will run into this problem.

"Lowering speed limits for cars" <-- It's sad that this only got 10% of the votes in that survey. It's also sad that it's the only item in the list quoted above that actually deals with the problem. What I would have liked to see is a safe passing distance made into a law, e.g. 1.5 metres like in some countries on the continent. Put a fine on it, accept helmet cams as evidence, crack down on offenders. That would send the right message - that would help a heck of a lot more than most of the other items on that list.

Because at the end of the day, a rather large number of people who cycle do cycle on the roads. And even those hypothetical wanne-be-but-are-afraid-to-try cyclists (I'll believe them when I see them on a bike) who segregationists claim will massively increase the modal share, a large number of them will eventually want to use the roads.

So we will keep coming back to this problem. And segregation doesn't solve it, it sidesteps it. At best. It's sort of kinda acknowledging the elephant in the room but refusing to call it an elephant.

Segregated cycle facilities are the answer in a crappy country with narrow roads where the car is king. Please, more dedicated SEPARATE cycle tracks and much harsher penalties for drivers who crash into injure or kill vulnerable road users! Period. This would massively improve conditions for cyclists.

Ps Pathetically low speed limits for cars are not the answer. I can cycle a lot faster than 20 mph and when in my car I don't want to be held up driving along at 20 just because some one has decided I am not able to avoid hitting a cyclist at 30, 40 or 50mph. The car is an integral and fundamental mode of transport of modern life even if you don't drive yourself. So many aspects of life are dependent on motorised vehicles to be able to do what we do in this modern world. To deny this is living in cloud cuckoo land. If you are fortunate enough to be able to get around by bicycle the whole time then you are the lucky one. I am 50/50 bicycle/car at the moment. To go 100% bicycle would mean sacrificing too much at this present time especially riding to and from work as it is simply too far.

userfriendly wrote:

bikebot wrote:

I wonder if the British Horse Society has members that speak out against bridleways, and think that using them make them less safe.

Not really a fair comment.

Look, I get the pro-segregation team's argument that segregation will help increase the modal share and all that good stuff. I will concede that point. But that still doesn't really tackle the original problem.

We won't ever have the situation that all drivers will also cycle and that this magically turns them into considerate people. Most drivers already are considerate. Very considerate. Even if they don't understand why the crazy lycra-clad person is doing this to him- or herself (sic), most of them will still give them a wide berth and pass safely. In my experience anyway, which consists of at least 60 km in traffic almost every day. It's the few psychopaths and really terrible drivers that make it unsafe, and we will have them regardless.

Now, personally I think those kind of people will be encouraged by segregation. The pro-segregation people disagree. Fine. Be that as it may, the fact remains that we will always have those kind of people, and once the increased numbers of cycling people start to want to use the roads as well as the nice segregated paths - perhaps because for some journeys they are more practical or perhaps because they want to go faster / have become more experienced / whatever reason any of us have to go road cycling - they will run into this problem.

"Lowering speed limits for cars" <-- It's sad that this only got 10% of the votes in that survey. It's also sad that it's the only item in the list quoted above that actually deals with the problem. What I would have liked to see is a safe passing distance made into a law, e.g. 1.5 metres like in some countries on the continent. Put a fine on it, accept helmet cams as evidence, crack down on offenders. That would send the right message - that would help a heck of a lot more than most of the other items on that list.

Because at the end of the day, a rather large number of people who cycle do cycle on the roads. And even those hypothetical wanne-be-but-are-afraid-to-try cyclists (I'll believe them when I see them on a bike) who segregationists claim will massively increase the modal share, a large number of them will eventually want to use the roads.

So we will keep coming back to this problem. And segregation doesn't solve it, it sidesteps it. At best. It's sort of kinda acknowledging the elephant in the room but refusing to call it an elephant.

Excellent comment. I totally agree - I do a 60km round trip through London each day. I make full use of bus lanes, and on some of the roads where there are two lanes I tend to use the left lane as though I am driving a car - ride right down the middle. Now before people get upset, I do move at the speed of the traffic - I don't typically filter in and out of traffic until it becomes stationary -. Forcing me to use a cycle path will not work - they are simply too slow and full of (less) experienced cyclists.

goggy wrote:

Excellent comment. I totally agree - I do a 60km round trip through London each day. I make full use of bus lanes, and on some of the roads where there are two lanes I tend to use the left lane as though I am driving a car - ride right down the middle. Now before people get upset, I do move at the speed of the traffic - I don't typically filter in and out of traffic until it becomes stationary -. Forcing me to use a cycle path will not work - they are simply too slow and full of (less) experienced cyclists.

So don't use them, you're not being forced to use them and no one is proposing that.

And by the same token, don't oppose new infrastructure for those that do want it, or expect everyday commuters to use dangerous roads to improve the conditions for the fast experienced cyclist who read this site.

Myself, I do around 15-20k (30-40 round trip) when I have to travel into town. When the fully segregated sections are opened around embankment and farringdon I'll happily use them, as the centre of town is usually so congested the argument is also about capacity. And I don't have a problem with trading a little speed for safety, not everywhere is a race and "sharing the road" includes compromise.

antigee wrote:

The reason people perceive more separated facilities are needed is because they can't see the possibility of changing drivers behaviour to share roads

No, it's because putting cyclists in a confined space with large numbers of massive lorries, buses and construction vehicles will always incur an unreasonable amount of danger no matter how careful and well trained the drivers. And those are the types of vehicles and conditions that commuters who ride in our cities encounter.