‘Cycling Fallacies’ website launches

oldstrath wrote:

Quote:

Where there is good segregated bike infra, few cyclists with any sense will choose to use the accompanying road anyway, so the problem is kind of moot (how many choose to cycle on dual-carriageways and fast A-roads, now, even in the current situation where the alternatives are often much longer routes? Most people just choose not to cycle at all rather than cycle on those roads [or they cycle on the pavement, if they are anti-social enough], so why would it be different if there was decent infrastructure?). 

It would be fine if there were 'decent infrastructure'. But, certainly where I ride, there isn't. There are joke paths: badly surfaced, badly maintained, indirect, gate and barrier strewn rubbish, bummed up by Sustrans and the Central Belt Nationalist Party as some sort of fantastic provision for cycling. They are not noticeably 'safe', in part because they give way at every side road, and generally involve crossing and recrossing main roads, often in completely unexpected places. Their main function, apart from giving the arses who run Sustrans something to crow about, but not ride on, is to get me out of the way of the precious motorists.

Frankly, I hear and read a lot from 'cycling campaigners' about infrastructure, with lots of dreamland stuff about how wonderful it will be. Fine, when they've persuaded someone to build a usable path paralleling the A9, properly surfaced, not stupidly indirect, and without vast numbers of obstructions, I'll believe in the dream and use it. Until then, I'd rather take my chances, and encourage other people to learn to ride properly in traffic as well, without the polycyclists making riding on the best surfaces even bloody harder.

One of the reasons that there isn't decent infrastructure in your area is probably linked to lack of campaigning, lack of political will, and lack of asking. The goal of the cycling fallacies site was not to tell you not to ride on the road, it is to support those who want to campaign for somehwhere nice and safe to cycle, that might appeal to more people than cycling appeals to, today. 

If there's something specific you  don't like about the site, please let us know - all constructive feedback is welcome. 

timlennon wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

Quote:

Where there is good segregated bike infra, few cyclists with any sense will choose to use the accompanying road anyway, so the problem is kind of moot (how many choose to cycle on dual-carriageways and fast A-roads, now, even in the current situation where the alternatives are often much longer routes? Most people just choose not to cycle at all rather than cycle on those roads [or they cycle on the pavement, if they are anti-social enough], so why would it be different if there was decent infrastructure?). 

It would be fine if there were 'decent infrastructure'. But, certainly where I ride, there isn't. There are joke paths: badly surfaced, badly maintained, indirect, gate and barrier strewn rubbish, bummed up by Sustrans and the Central Belt Nationalist Party as some sort of fantastic provision for cycling. They are not noticeably 'safe', in part because they give way at every side road, and generally involve crossing and recrossing main roads, often in completely unexpected places. Their main function, apart from giving the arses who run Sustrans something to crow about, but not ride on, is to get me out of the way of the precious motorists.

Frankly, I hear and read a lot from 'cycling campaigners' about infrastructure, with lots of dreamland stuff about how wonderful it will be. Fine, when they've persuaded someone to build a usable path paralleling the A9, properly surfaced, not stupidly indirect, and without vast numbers of obstructions, I'll believe in the dream and use it. Until then, I'd rather take my chances, and encourage other people to learn to ride properly in traffic as well, without the polycyclists making riding on the best surfaces even bloody harder.

One of the reasons that there isn't decent infrastructure in your area is probably linked to lack of campaigning, lack of political will, and lack of asking. The goal of the cycling fallacies site was not to tell you not to ride on the road, it is to support those who want to campaign for somehwhere nice and safe to cycle, that might appeal to more people than cycling appeals to, today. 

If there's something specific you  don't like about the site, please let us know - all constructive feedback is welcome. 

No, it's linked to the 'facilities' so far provided being completely and utterly useless for commuting or training. There's a 2 km stretch of path that I might use on my commute home. To do so would involve crossing the road twice, giving way to seven minor roads or entrances, negotiating 2 wiggle barriers and enduring two climbs and a stretch of hairpins that are absent from the road. On most summer days I have to go slowly to avoid the walkers, cycling kids and dogs. On winter days it's unrideable because of ice or mud.

Or, I could ride in a sensible position on the road, with good sightlines, clearly visible and in the place drivers are actually looking, and ride at whatever speed my legs will deliver. No serious choice really.

Yes, the path I despise may  feel safer to families. I'm not convinced that it it is actually safer, and when its existence encourages drivers to expect me not to be on the road, that is beyond annoying.

Yes, I know you will claim that you aren't campaigning for rubbish such as this, but that is what the campaigns actually deliver, so why should I want to support them, especially since the actual effect is to push cyclists off the roads and onto the 'facilities'?

oldstrath wrote:

Until then, I'd rather take my chances, and encourage other people to learn to ride properly in traffic as well, without the polycyclists making riding on the best surfaces even bloody harder.

So how's that going? I'd say that approach has had at least forty years, must be making good progress by now, yes?

PennineRider wrote:

Quote:

Or you could give your answer.

I have.

I've banned myself from having long arguments with people on the internet. We have each made our points. Have a good one. 

Well not really in the context it was asked but fair enough. Have a good day yourself.

PennineRider wrote:

Quote:

can you reasonably expect to have a bike route from which cars are excluded but still expect to be able to use the accompanying road as well?

The most polite thing I can say to this is that you are extremely misguided.

 

Or you could give your answer.

PennineRider wrote:

Quote:

It's saddening that some people would rather cycling remained an exclusive minority activity for the fit and brave rather than face any
compromise to their own speed for the wider benefit.

That's a huge (and incorrect) mental leap to make from mine and others' comments.

Your anecdote in which you sneer at some cyclists you saw, because they weren't using the cycle path,  hugely reinforces my point, that a shift in attitudes is underway (and you are part of that shift) that cyclists do not belong on the road.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

 

I'm with you 100% on this Pennine. There are a huge number of incorrect assumptions and assertions in this thread.

Supporting improved safety on road is crucial as there is no way that every cycle route in the country is ever getting segregated infrastructure.
Paths are fine, but when the mentality of many drivers remains that cyclists shouldn't be on "their" roads they will become closer to being compulsory... if only by perception...and therefor make cycling on the road even more dangerous.
It must be therefore, a two proved approach - 1. improve cycling infrastructure. Even if this is solely making the current stuff fully useable.
2. Take action to modulate societal opinion towards cyclists.

Neither is cheap nor easy.

PennineRider wrote:

Quote:

It's saddening that some people would rather cycling remained an exclusive minority activity for the fit and brave rather than face any compromise to their own speed for the wider benefit.

That's a huge (and incorrect) mental leap to make from mine and others' comments.

Your anecdote in which you sneer at some cyclists you saw, because they weren't using the cycle path,  hugely reinforces my point, that a shift in attitudes is underway (and you are part of that shift) that cyclists do not belong on the road.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

 

Note that I removed your quote from the post because it wasn't intended to be directly aimed at you since I don't think that's the point you are trying to make. You have however shown that your view is based on an assertion - that there is a 'shift' in attitudes taking place. If anything I'd say it's the opposite, that bikes are becoming more accepted on the road but there is resistance to segregated infra and some of it comes from cyclists who are happy with the status quo and fearful of what compromise would mean to them.

I never said that cyclists don't belong on the road - that's a straw man of your making, the anecdote I provided is an illustration of a certain attitude that no matter how good the bike infra is, some people will not use it, even if its as fast and safer. There is a potential problem there because - let's imagine a utopian future where the government actually starts providing decent segregated bike infra - can you reasonably expect to have a bike route from which cars are excluded but still expect to be able to use the accompanying road as well?

If we really want transport cycling to be a safe and normal activity then it's going to take some compromise from all sides. 

joemmo wrote:

- can you reasonably expect to have a bike route from which cars are excluded but still expect to be able to use the accompanying road as well?

Well, at present we have routes from which all but motorised vehicles are excluded, with no provision at all for other forms of vehicle (in some cases, with no provision for pedestrians either).

Some of that space urgently needs to be reappropriated for less space-hungry modes of transport, because there just isn't enough room for cars (which are a hugely inefficient use of space) on our congested city streets.

Where there is good segregated bike infra, few cyclists with any sense will choose to use the accompanying road anyway, so the problem is kind of moot (how many choose to cycle on dual-carriageways and fast A-roads, now, even in the current situation where the alternatives are often much longer routes? Most people just choose not to cycle at all rather than cycle on those roads [or they cycle on the pavement, if they are anti-social enough], so why would it be different if there was decent infrastructure?).

Where there isn't such infrastructure, the road will need to be traffic-reduced to a point where its safe to cycle on and where 'sharing' actually means sharing.

Yes it requires compromise - from those who currently have almost all the road-space.

Compromise doesn't always have to be 'from all sides', not if the starting point is a position where one side has almost everything.

You have a point about the difficulty in getting there, but starting off by compromising when you are already getting a bad deal is, in many situations, tantamount to surrender.

(Edit - I have to say pretty much all my opinions on the topic relate entirely to cities, I don't feel entitled to say what should happen outside such areas).

joemmo wrote:

...  can you reasonably expect to have a bike route from which cars are excluded but still expect to be able to use the accompanying road as well?

Yes.

joemmo wrote:

...  can you reasonably expect to have a bike route from which cars are excluded but still expect to be able to use the accompanying road as well?

No you cannot. Quite reasonably tax payers will say what is the point of spending millions of pounds building segregated pathways, because we have been repeatedly told that this is what cyclists want, only for some of them to ignore the provision.

It is unsustainable. It will take a handful of cyclists to get killed riding outside of the provision before it becomes compulsory to use the infrastructure wherever it has been provided.

Book it.

fluffy_mike wrote:

"road maintenance, driver education and serious enforcement" = sure, there are three things that are nice to have, but are also three things that have *never* alone created conditions for mass cycling anywhere in the world, and never will without serious infrastructure change.

True, 'segregation' doesn't always mean kerbed cycle tracks - it can also mean filtering out heavy traffic from smaller roads. However, kerbed tracks are essential on main roads if 'normal' people are to be given the choice to cycle.

I would be delighted if my daughters chose sports cycling as a hobby, but this is a trivial concern compared to their being able to ride safely to school / work / visit friends / family. To do these normal things every day without risk of death or injury

Having ridden in Holland frequently, I have seen both thousands of young kids cycling to school in the morning, and numerous sports cyclists riding on the same segregated facilities at the weekend. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Instead of fighting new cycling infra from a position of ignorance - why not go to the NL and see what can be done, and then fight for it here?

I'm not sure anyone is 'fighting' infrastructure, providing it's done properly. What I, at least, object to is the shambolic rubbish offered up as 'infrastructure' by the only available provider, at least outside of London. Infrastructure that is not fit for commuting, not fit for touring, and frequently only marginally ridable on anything other than a full suspension MTB. 

We don't have a 'Dutch or Danish' model here - arguably we should, but we don't, and encouraging the continued provision of rubbish helps nothing.

fukawitribe wrote:

So the takeaway message I'm getting from the last few comments is that we should fight to get these dangerous new cycling infrastructures removed from London ? This place gets stranger and stranger.. .

Don't know about London, where the infrastructure may be better than the standard Sustrans mud and ground glass crap the rest of us have inflicted on us, but in general:

i) cycle paths, at best, don't remove all the conflict points with cars, and can introduce new conflicts with pedestrians and horsists

ii) Since cycle paths don't go everywhere we might reasonably wish to go, using the road is still necessary for most cyclists

iii) even the best (non-London) infrastructure is ridiculously indirect compared to roads - generally less suited to commuting than to leisure riding

iv) the presence of badly designed, constructed, and maintained paths is seen by some motorists as giving them permission to demand our absence from 'their road'.

So no, my 'takeaway message' is not to get rid of the infrastructure in London, but to recognise that , at least in the absence of very substantial investment and much better design, segregated infrastructure is not the panacea for most cyclists, and focussing on it at the expense of road maintenance, driver education and serious enforcement is unhelpful to most cyclists.

fukawitribe wrote:

So the takeaway message I'm getting from the last few comments is that we should fight to get this dangerous new cycling infrastructure removed from London ? This place gets stranger and stranger.. .

no, we should fight to get the motor traffic traffic removed, so that separate infrastructure isn't a consideration.

PennineRider wrote:

Quote:

Then you are the enemy of mass cycling

Oh behave with the hyperbole.

There is no way that any but a small percentage of roads in Britain can be segregated. If your daughters want the freedom to cycle, they will have to take to the road more often than not.

Would you really prefer your daughters to cycle on this facility, expected to yield at side turnings and mix it with pedestrians, dogs and broken glass, or would you like them to have the choice to take the most convenient and direct route, like a user of any other mode of transport would?

Would you like your daughters to join a cycling club? To use cycling to train for fitness? To race? Because if so, cycle paths aren't going to much use to them, are they?

Probably about the same percentage as are segregated in the Netherlands, which is about 20%. Good cycle infrastructure doesn't always demand segregation, but a holistic view of what a road is FOR - is it a "street" or a "road"?  Cycling countries like Netherlands and Denmark analyse the speeds and volumes of motor traffic on each road and work out the correct solution from that information. They also determine that certain types of road are primarily for mass movement of motors, makes it as easy as possible for them to do so, and then structures the rest to discourage their use as through roads - or "rat runs" as we would call them. If you have ever driven on a Dutch motorway you will know that they are generally of a far higher standard than our own. Meanwhile, at a local access level they make cars go all the way around via the main roads while pedestrians and cyclists can pass straight through filter systems.

Hackney, for all its faults and blind refusal to implement dedicated cycle lanes on major routes, has promoted the other element of the equation quite strongly - filtered permeability which allows residential streets to be accesssed throughout but not passed straight through by motorists who have no connection with the street. We need to see more of this as well as more segregation on major routes.

Paul M wrote:

Good cycle infrastructure doesn't always demand segregation, but a holistic view of what a road is FOR - is it a "street" or a "road"?  Cycling countries like Netherlands and Denmark analyse the speeds and volumes of motor traffic on each road and work out the correct solution from that information. They also determine that certain types of road are primarily for mass movement of motors, makes it as easy as possible for them to do so, and then structures the rest to discourage their use as through roads - or "rat runs" as we would call them. If you have ever driven on a Dutch motorway you will know that they are generally of a far higher standard than our own. Meanwhile, at a local access level they make cars go all the way around via the main roads while pedestrians and cyclists can pass straight through filter systems.

Hackney, for all its faults and blind refusal to implement dedicated cycle lanes on major routes, has promoted the other element of the equation quite strongly - filtered permeability which allows residential streets to be accesssed throughout but not passed straight through by motorists who have no connection with the street. We need to see more of this as well as more segregation on major routes.

I can largely get behind this sort of thinking.   Was looking at this piece about Barcelona the other day which is apparently doing something similar:   http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/17/superblocks-rescue-barcelo...

The problem is that everywhere that I have cycled I am not seeing anything remotely approaching Dutch cycling:  it's all painted strips of paint leading up onto sidewalks,  get off your bike and push a pedestrian button to cross,  wait extra long at the intersection while the rest of the traffic procedes.

So there's a vast gulf between what "cycle campaigns" dream of and what is delivered.  And so far *I* am much better off when they don't deliver and I'd argue so is my child.

PennineRider wrote:

Would you like your daughters to join a cycling club? To use cycling to train for fitness? To race? Because if so, cycle paths aren't going to much use to them, are they?

No a Watt Bike, Velodrome or closed circuit is the sociable option. Anyone who still thinks it is appropriate in 2016 to use the open roads for 'sport' wants their head examining.

Anyone whether on two wheels or four whose primary consideration is getting from A to B as quickly as possible, not as safely as possible is an enemy of all decent road users.

L.Willo wrote:

No a Watt Bike, Velodrome or closed circuit is the sociable option. Anyone who still thinks it is appropriate in 2016 to use the open roads for 'sport' wants their head examining.

This is my personal favourite. "In 2016" 

Can people also stop jogging on pavements and rowing in rivers please!

PennineRider wrote:

This website is partisan and absolutely does not speak for me.  

I'm concerned by the shift in culture in cycling advocacy towards separate infrastructure. I do not want to be expected to "get off the road" and onto a cycle path. I want my right to the road to be enforced.

Agreed.