Thief jailed after stealing bike … from police; Swedish Road Champs cancelled as transport chiefs say race should use bike paths; Close pass coach firm loses licence; Shoppers say they’d wait longer for bike delivery + more on the live blog

borosilicate wrote:

Quote:

Commentator Brian Nygaard asks if this monstrosity that Johan Museeuw was made to ride at the 1994 Paris-Roubaix is the biggest bike fail of all time... we wouldn't exactly disagree!

Unless I'm missing some subtle detail, isn't this just a forerunner to the Niner MCR and other full suss gravel bikes? Whilst they're not to my taste it seems a bit harsh to call them fails!

That particular bike had its issues, but it did alright despite being constructed against the designers wishes (leading to a crack that ultimately didn't effect anything) - top 15 something (?) mainly due to tyre failure. IIRC that year was won on a bike with a RockShox front end, along with previous two years - so not entirely bad ideas.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Safe, convenient cycle infra as part of a complete network is the way forward. That means segregated lanes (with priority over side roads) on busy roads.

Hear, hear. I don't mind mixing it on my commute but when my little girl's ready to venture outside of our local parks I'd be roughly a million per cent happier to see segregated options for school / town runs etc.

ktache wrote:

It's not that drivers in Glasgow are any more likely to run a red light, but I'm guessing that there is more enforcement, probably a few cameras, and that they are just much more likely to be caught.

I'm guessing, maybe they are really that bad...

I am with you on the enforcement being the difference.

Sniffer wrote:

ktache wrote:

It's not that drivers in Glasgow are any more likely to run a red light, but I'm guessing that there is more enforcement, probably a few cameras, and that they are just much more likely to be caught.

I'm guessing, maybe they are really that bad...

I am with you on the enforcement being the difference.

Nah, they really are that bad though too. There's only a couple of red light cameras I can think of in the city centre so I'm not sure there's more than other places. I think there is just some herd mentality where everyone does it so everyone assumes it's fine and you'll never get caught.
It could also be a by-product of the US style grid layout we have in the city centre, which I imagine results in more sets of lights than other street layouts.

ChasP wrote:

While I can see segragation may be appropriate in some situations I really don't think its the solution as it re enforces the idea that roads are for cars. Appropriate policing and sentancing of the significant minority of dangerous drivers leading to a change in the mindset that cyclists have no right to be on the roads should be the first priority.

By that logic you wouldn't have pavements either. Or bus lanes or pedestrianised streets. You'd just have a massive free-for-all where might wins out. While YOU may be the world's best bike rider, quite happy and confident mixing it with trucks and buses and cars on a daily basis, not everyone is like that and you simply won't get any modal shift away from cars if you just tell people to ride bikes and deal with the traffic.

Segregated cycle lanes (properly done, unlike this example) are an easy win. You give people space to cycle, you simultaneously remove (some) space from motor vehicles and you sort of "prompt" the modal shift.

There's a similar bit of "cycle lane" HERE just around the corner from that demo where the painted cycle lane directs cyclists right down to the point where buses swing their front left corner across it as they come out of Piccadilly Gardens. Needs segregation there as well because what has been put in is MORE dangerous than having nothing.

crazy-legs wrote:

ChasP wrote:

While I can see segragation may be appropriate in some situations I really don't think its the solution as it re enforces the idea that roads are for cars. Appropriate policing and sentancing of the significant minority of dangerous drivers leading to a change in the mindset that cyclists have no right to be on the roads should be the first priority.

By that logic you wouldn't have pavements either. Or bus lanes or pedestrianised streets. You'd just have a massive free-for-all where might wins out. While YOU may be the world's best bike rider, quite happy and confident mixing it with trucks and buses and cars on a daily basis, not everyone is like that and you simply won't get any modal shift away from cars if you just tell people to ride bikes and deal with the traffic.

Segregated cycle lanes (properly done, unlike this example) are an easy win. You give people space to cycle, you simultaneously remove (some) space from motor vehicles and you sort of "prompt" the modal shift.

There's a similar bit of "cycle lane" HERE just around the corner from that demo where the painted cycle lane directs cyclists right down to the point where buses swing their front left corner across it as they come out of Piccadilly Gardens. Needs segregation there as well because what has been put in is MORE dangerous than having nothing.

Except that you can't have segregated lanes everywhere you want to cycle, indeed many roads don't have pavements either. There was an article on here some time ago of a trial of urban junctions with no markings at all - a free for all which reduced accidents as everyone looked where they were going instead of thinking 'I've got right of way I don't have to stop'.

ChasP wrote:

While I can see segragation may be appropriate in some situations I really don't think its the solution as it re enforces the idea that roads are for cars. Appropriate policing and sentancing of the significant minority of dangerous drivers leading to a change in the mindset that cyclists have no right to be on the roads should be the first priority.

I completely agree!  There is no way in the near future any government is going to commit to proper segregated infra; the cost to the government and the backlash from the fat lazy bastards who can't do anything without their cars wwould be off the scale. 

It would be much cheaper and quicker to have some govt information films about sharing the roads, not driving around like an arsehole, and generally reinforcing the Highway Code.  It would also be relatively quick and cheap to get some police people out and about stopping people driving badly, instead of relying on a network of speed cameras to "police" the roads.

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

ChasP wrote:

While I can see segragation may be appropriate in some situations I really don't think its the solution as it re enforces the idea that roads are for cars. Appropriate policing and sentancing of the significant minority of dangerous drivers leading to a change in the mindset that cyclists have no right to be on the roads should be the first priority.

 

I completely agree!  There is no way in the near future any government is going to commit to proper segregated infra; the cost to the government and the backlash from the fat lazy bastards who can't do anything without their cars wwould be off the scale. 

It would be much cheaper and quicker to have some govt information films about sharing the roads, not driving around like an arsehole, and generally reinforcing the Highway Code.  It would also be relatively quick and cheap to get some police people out and about stopping people driving badly, instead of relying on a network of speed cameras to "police" the roads.

There have been dozens of those "share the road" ad campaigns over the years, most of them uniformly terrible (remember the ridiculous "Nice Way Code" that got so much grief on here and elsewhere?). Not one of them has ever shown the slightest impact on KSI figures. It's a total utter waste of money, done solely so that Government can say "oh, we're taking action" while actually doing the very opposite; they're creating a climate of total inaction.

Put a child on that street, riding to school. Are you going to tell them:
"you've got a segregated lane from here all the way to the school gates" or
"everyone else driving these big cars and lorries next to you has been told to be resepctful"

This isn't about removing your right to ride on the road, it's about a congested city centre putting in infrastructure that enables people to move around safely in an environmentally friendly manner. With the Climate Emergency (another lovely Government phrase that basically hides their total inactivity on the subject), this should be front and centre of every single bit of town planning. A mix of segregated cycle lanes, blocked off/one-way streets to stop rat-running, gradual removal of parking, congestion charging, public transport investment and joined-up infra (like secure cycle parking at train, bus and tram stops). It ALL feeds in. Segregated infra on it's own won't cut it if there's nowhere safe or convenient to leave the bike when you get to work. Having a safe place to leave your bike at work won't be any use if you've been killed on the roads riding there...

crazy-legs wrote:

This isn't about removing your right to ride on the road, it's about a congested city centre putting in infrastructure that enables people to move around safely in an environmentally friendly manner. 

That may not be the current intention, but it will have that effect non-the less. We already see driver attitude like 'use the f'in bike path' .   And it's quite obvious riding in different areas how degree of modal shift affects driver attitude and awareness.  And then we all know the clout of the voting motorist; you think introducing 'Must use where available' laws  for cycle paths, is that far fetched?

I am pro infra to promote modal shift, but I am acutely aware of the downsides.

visionset wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

This isn't about removing your right to ride on the road, it's about a congested city centre putting in infrastructure that enables people to move around safely in an environmentally friendly manner. 

That may not be the current intention, but it will have that effect non-the less. We already see driver attitude like 'use the f'in bike path' .   And it's quite obvious riding in different areas how degree of modal shift affects driver attitude and awareness.  And then we all know the clout of the voting motorist; you think introducing 'Must use where available' laws  for cycle paths, is that far fetched?

I am pro infra to promote modal shift, but I am acutely aware of the downsides.

That would require a wholesale change in the law which would be vehemently opposed by British Cycling, Cycling UK, London Cycling Campaign and basically everyone. It'd serve no useful purpose whatsoever, is unenforceable and would also mean that a legal definition of "cycle lane" was required and currently, the cycle infra that does exist is built to no national standard so can't be put into law.

There's no way (or need) of building cycle lanes on every road - what were taking about with segregated lanes is town/city centre stuff, not country lanes.

Everyone should be pushing for top quality cycle infra as much as possible. It will have no impact on whether you're allowed to ride in the roads bit every impact on getting more people cycling instead of driving. The more people riding, the more chance that a driver knows a cyclist or their kids ride to school so understanding spreads that way. Not by ad campaigns.

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

ChasP wrote:

While I can see segragation may be appropriate in some situations I really don't think its the solution as it re enforces the idea that roads are for cars. Appropriate policing and sentancing of the significant minority of dangerous drivers leading to a change in the mindset that cyclists have no right to be on the roads should be the first priority.

 

I completely agree!  There is no way in the near future any government is going to commit to proper segregated infra; the cost to the government and the backlash from the fat lazy bastards who can't do anything without their cars wwould be off the scale. 

It would be much cheaper and quicker to have some govt information films about sharing the roads, not driving around like an arsehole, and generally reinforcing the Highway Code.  It would also be relatively quick and cheap to get some police people out and about stopping people driving badly, instead of relying on a network of speed cameras to "police" the roads.

I suspect that when the Govt says they'll do infrastructure, they mean they'll maybe put in some recreational routes or something.

I don't think they consider that people might just use a bike for transport, not really, so I don't imagine for a moment that they mean they'll put in anything useful to anyone like that.

ChasP wrote:

While I can see segragation may be appropriate in some situations I really don't think its the solution as it re enforces the idea that roads are for cars. Appropriate policing and sentancing of the significant minority of dangerous drivers leading to a change in the mindset that cyclists have no right to be on the roads should be the first priority.

What we need is for the segregated cycle infrastructure to be taken from what is currently car space rather than walking space. (In addition to needing decent surfaces, no stupid barriers, sufficient widths, etc.)

ChasP wrote:

While I can see segragation may be appropriate in some situations I really don't think its the solution as it re enforces the idea that roads are for cars. Appropriate policing and sentancing of the significant minority of dangerous drivers leading to a change in the mindset that cyclists have no right to be on the roads should be the first priority.

And segregated cycle lanes reinforce the idea that cycle lanes are for bikes (and not cars, parking, deliveries etc) 

It's a very fine balance, but you are right, a change of mindset is required.

visionset wrote:

Actually you do want cars in the cycle lane, it's the only way they'd get cleaned. Better still don't use the pointless paint in the 1st place.  It's not hard, drive on the tarmac not on the people.  Solid white line, so don't cross, but do you ever see a street cleaner?

This particular pointless paint cycle lane is a contraflow down a one way (for motor vehicles) street. Whilst I understand your point about road detritus being spat out to the kerb by motor transport incursions into the lane, as a cyclist using the lane I really wouldn't want them there as it means they are coming at me head on.

CygnusX1 wrote:

This particular pointless paint cycle lane is a contraflow down a one way (for motor vehicles) street. Whilst I understand your point about road detritus being spat out to the kerb by motor transport incursions into the lane, as a cyclist using the lane I really wouldn't want them there as it means they are coming at me head on.

Point taken. On road contraflow, eek, that's the worst.

visionset wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

This particular pointless paint cycle lane is a contraflow down a one way (for motor vehicles) street. Whilst I understand your point about road detritus being spat out to the kerb by motor transport incursions into the lane, as a cyclist using the lane I really wouldn't want them there as it means they are coming at me head on.

Point taken. On road contraflow, eek, that's the worst.

I'd draw your attention to my own forum contribution, m'lud 

https://road.cc/content/forum/269593-nelson-street-bristol