Cycling Infrastructure

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.

Oldfatgit wrote:

One of my concerns about segregated infrastructure is the places where it cannot exist and cyclists are again thrown in to the flow of traffic. As unideal as it is, at least with the current system drivers are used to seeing us on the road; true, some of them don't like it, but at least the majority know how to behave around us. Remove this with segregation, and this behaviour pattern will reduce to insignificance and we will be at an even greater risk on the roads.

It doesn't seem to be a problem in places where they have some decent infrastructure.

Oldfatgit wrote:

One of my concerns about segregated infrastructure is the places where it cannot exist and cyclists are again thrown in to the flow of traffic. As unideal as it is, at least with the current system drivers are used to seeing us on the road; true, some of them don't like it, but at least the majority know how to behave around us. Remove this with segregation, and this behaviour pattern will reduce to insignificance and we will be at an even greater risk on the roads.

I think I know what you mean (the popular view that many places "there's no space") but look again - where is it that "[infrastructure ] cannot exist"?  The middle of the M1?  Through Ben Nevis?  Across the North Channel?

It's about choices (which I'm sure you know).  What we have now is self-reinforcing but no immutable.  (We know that because others have changed from similar states -NL even, but also Denmark in parts, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Seville, some places in Switzerland...).

If we can get past "but (someone) needs to get to (place x) by motor vehicle at some point - ergo - we can't change anything!".

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.

I wouldn't say drivers are "used to seeing us on the road" really.  Maybe in a few places?  At about 1-2% share of trips nationally (and that's not evenly distributed) I just don't think that's enough to allow learning to take place.

Besides which - even where there are cyclists by default drivers are looking for other motor vehicles.  I've stared into too many drivers' faces and realised "they aren't seeing me..."

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.

Cugel wrote:

Your post refflects my own worry-set about so-called cycling infrastructure. "So-called" because in the great majority of Bwitish schemes, it's no such thing but rather a set of half-arsed pretences that often make cycling more dangerous (as in white-line murder strips) or put us in contention with pedestrians and others on "shared paths".

Fair enough...

Cugel wrote:

But for me, the greatest worry is that faux-provision of even teeny amounts of sub-standard cycling infrastructure will provide an excuse for the car lobby to get us either banned from roads or made even more the pariah - semi-legitimate targets for punishment passes and worse.

Unless there are lots of cyclists (which there will never be with any current UK situation, or with more bogus "cycle infra" our bunglers cook up) I don't think anyone will be bothered to legislate cyclists off the roads.  Effectively it's already the case in most of the UK.

Most potential UK cyclists just drive, or take the bus / train.

As for "parah" ... too late!  For many people this is already the case.  Infra or not doesn't change that.

In fact, I bet if more cyclists were cycling on the roads there would be more motorgrumbles.  Because we are in drivers' way (even when we're cycling at the speed limit).  We are undertaking to avoid queueing (filtering).  We don't pay "road tax".

As I see it it's about our psychology - our sensitivity to "cheats" and our categorising of "others".  Because cyclists are on the roads BUT aren't the same as motorists.

Now - if there is separation (at least in part) that doesn't apply.  Don't think I've ever heard someone in a car complaining that a train passing on the left of the road is "undertaking them".  Nor do you get too many grumbles about pedestrians walking by a queue of traffic (well, maybe "it'd be quicker to walk...")

Your next point I think amounts to "rubbish infra is rubbish" (I agree) but then "better not ask for decent food - they'll just give you more gruel and beat you for complaining".  I agree, it's been gruel and not much of it so far... but I don't think we shouldn't keep asking for the proper stuff though and continue explaining why it's to the benefit of the non-cyclists and the powers that be also!

Cugel wrote:

Personally I find the cyclist cry for new infrastructure dedicated just to cyclists a very self-centred and blinkered attitude.

Bingo!

Actually, it's often not "cyclists" (in one definition) who are asking for this.  Surely "cyclists" would ride regardless - even if the drivers where actively hunting us down?  We free-thinking convention-defying types, unafraid to dress like clowns, adopt a mode of transport which many look down on and others despise, and ride among more dangerous vehicles...

No, infra is for the drivers, the bus riders, the walkers.  Get some of the masses out of their cars, give independence to some who have to rely on others, or taxis, or (woeful) buses...(it's for "cyclists" also though, don't fear).

As for "dedicated just to cyclists", it's a bit like how it makes sense not to have the cycling, horse racing, sprint and distance events - oh, and the javelin and shooting - all taking place at the same time on the same course / range...

Cugel wrote:

It demands vast amounts of money and perhaps the destruction of already built stuff but, worse, large areas of nature's flora & fauna to be paved over.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from.  It's not a given and us paving everywhere is little to do with cycle infra.  It sounds like the motorists' "save the tree! (because we flattened all the rest which were in the way of the road).  As pointed out before some places where they've added cycle infra they've been able to remove roads, overall leading to greener spaces.  (Because motoring is massively space-inefficient).

Cugel wrote:

More to the point, it only solves a tiny portion of the general and ever more pressing car problem. Cyling infrastructure won't stop pedestrians and the car-borne from continuing death and maiming; nor will it stop the vast pollutions and other damage done by cars.

Is this "it won't stop every death, ergo it's useless"?  Actually proper cycle infra does indeed make it safer for cyclists and indeed pedestrians.  That's a lot of the reason for it (at least initially).  Further - it can help get people out of their cars for some trips.  That reduces the chance for people to run others over AND reduces the pollutions and other damages.

I'm still not seeing how either "leaving things as they are" fixes either of those, or how "just make cars go away" can be achieved without a range of measures including getting more people cycling (which decent infra does)?

Cugel wrote:

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.

Roads aren't "excellent" for cycling mostly any more.  Though not built for cars they are now adapted for them, being very wide, having high kerbs, speed bumps, crash barriers, traffic lights and a host of stuff unneeded and unwanted by cyclists and pedestrians in their absence.  The directions the roads go tend to be "desire lines" (because they often pre-date cars).  Again this isn't an argument against cycle infra - it's an argument against crap cycle infra designed to not affect motorists at all.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Your next point I think amounts to "rubbish infra is rubbish" (I agree) but then "better not ask for decent food - they'll just give you more gruel and beat you for complaining".  I agree, it's been gruel and not much of it so far... but I don't think we shouldn't keep asking for the proper stuff though and continue explaining why it's to the benefit of the non-cyclists and the powers that be also!

Cugel wrote:

Personally I find the cyclist cry for new infrastructure dedicated just to cyclists a very self-centred and blinkered attitude.

Bingo!

Actually, it's often not "cyclists" (in one definition) who are asking for this.  Surely "cyclists" would ride regardless - even if the drivers where actively hunting us down?  We free-thinking convention-defying types, unafraid to dress like clowns, adopt a mode of transport which many look down on and others despise, and ride among more dangerous vehicles...

No, infra is for the drivers, the bus riders, the walkers.  Get some of the masses out of their cars, give independence to some who have to rely on others, or taxis, or (woeful) buses...(it's for "cyclists" also though, don't fear).

As for "dedicated just to cyclists", it's a bit like how it makes sense not to have the cycling, horse racing, sprint and distance events - oh, and the javelin and shooting - all taking place at the same time on the same course / range...

Cugel wrote:

It demands vast amounts of money and perhaps the destruction of already built stuff but, worse, large areas of nature's flora & fauna to be paved over.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from.  It's not a given and us paving everywhere is little to do with cycle infra.  It sounds like the motorists' "save the tree! (because we flattened all the rest which were in the way of the road).  As pointed out before some places where they've added cycle infra they've been able to remove roads, overall leading to greener spaces.  (Because motoring is massively space-inefficient).

Cugel wrote:

More to the point, it only solves a tiny portion of the general and ever more pressing car problem. Cyling infrastructure won't stop pedestrians and the car-borne from continuing death and maiming; nor will it stop the vast pollutions and other damage done by cars.

Is this "it won't stop every death, ergo it's useless"?  Actually proper cycle infra does indeed make it safer for cyclists and indeed pedestrians.  That's a lot of the reason for it (at least initially).  Further - it can help get people out of their cars for some trips.  That reduces the chance for people to run others over AND reduces the pollutions and other damages.

I'm still not seeing how either "leaving things as they are" fixes either of those, or how "just make cars go away" can be achieved without a range of measures including getting more people cycling (which decent infra does)?

Cugel wrote:

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.

Roads aren't "excellent" for cycling mostly any more.  Though not built for cars they are now adapted for them, being very wide, having high kerbs, speed bumps, crash barriers, traffic lights and a host of stuff unneeded and unwanted by cyclists and pedestrians in their absence.  The directions the roads go tend to be "desire lines" (because they often pre-date cars).  Again this isn't an argument against cycle infra - it's an argument against crap cycle infra designed to not affect motorists at all.

Will any potential Blighter government of any stripe find the money and the will to build non-gruel cycling infrastructure other than a few bits in highly urbanised places like London? The chances seem like zero, no matter what political party governs, because Grate Bwitain has no prospect of finding the money or the will. Or the space*. 

Are roads excellent for cycling? Having ridden on them for a vast amount of miles I would say: most definitely - apart from the presence of dangerous drivers of motorised vehicles. They're certainly better than even the nicest cycle path I've ever ridden along. And they go everywhere, which cycle paths never, ever will.

What is the fundamental problem in all this? It's motorised vehicles that themselves are inherently dangerous and which are driven by a lot of humans who are also inherently dangerous, through aggression and/or incompetance. Fix the fundamental problem and the whole need for an additional cycling infrastructure goes away - along with a huge amount of other serious problems associated with motorised vehicles.

I agree that fixing that fundamental problem of dangerous vehicles driven by dangerous humans is not a trivial issue to find solutions to. But the costs of not doing so are far, far greater than killing & maiming some cyclists. Asking for cycle paths is like asking for a sticking plaster for your gravel rash as you're rapidly bleeding to death from a cut artery whilst being locked in a room slowly filling with toxic gases. 

* You seem unable to appreciate just how much additional hard surface cycle path would need to be built to provide alternative routes to all the dangerous roads currently used by cyclists. It would be an immense amount!

Cugel wrote:

Will any potential Blighter government of any stripe find the money and the will to build non-gruel cycling infrastructure other than a few bits in highly urbanised places like London? The chances seem like zero, no matter what political party governs, because Grate Bwitain has no prospect of finding the money or the will. Or the space*.

I'm very slightly optimistic.  Somehow some has appeared in London. And - though not yet a *network* - some of *almost* the right calibre in Edinburgh. Some quite good enough for taking kids on.

For myself?  As an "almost cyclist" - nowhere near a roadie but a card-carrying member in the eyes of many - I'd go anyway, but more and more I really appreciate not riding around cars, or having to stop at traffic lights...

Cugel wrote:

Are roads excellent for cycling? Having ridden on them for a vast amount of miles I would say: most definitely - apart from the presence of dangerous drivers of motorised vehicles. They're certainly better than even the nicest cycle path I've ever ridden along.

Well I doubt it would be interesting because it sounds like you've found your own paradise with few cars!  However I recommend you do try some proper ones.  Only about 150 miles East for you to go for your nearest...(or head out to Scandinavia or Switzerland if you want hills also!)

Perhaps I've just got a town mouse perspective?  Although to a first approximation we're all town mice in the UK.

Cugel wrote:

And they go everywhere, which cycle paths never, ever will.

We've been here before.  You're right but that isn't needed.

Cugel wrote:

What is the fundamental problem in all this? It's motorised vehicles that themselves are inherently dangerous and which are driven by a lot of humans who are also inherently dangerous, through aggression and/or incompetance.

We agree - but I'm not aware you've made any suggestion how this might occur... well I think you did say ULEZ and LTNs but it will take a lot more than that!  Any examples of where that's got everyone out of their cars?

OTOH there are several examples of places where cars have been tamed (to different degrees) involving the use of cycle infra as part of the solution...

Cugel wrote:

...But the costs of not doing so are far, far greater than killing & maiming some cyclists.

Again I very much agree!  There is so much to gain from taming the car (I'm not optimistic about making it extinct yet.)  Again though - people (through buying cars) demonstrate they want private, personal transport.  What's going to fill that gap if not (in part) cycling?

Cugel wrote:

Asking for cycle paths is like asking for a sticking plaster for your gravel rash as you're rapidly bleeding to death from a cut artery whilst being locked in a room slowly filling with toxic gases.

I'd say it's more like asking for vaccines.  It fixes things for the individual first but gradually can massively reduce (if rarely eradicate) the prevalence of the disease.

Cugel wrote:

* You seem unable to appreciate just how much additional hard surface cycle path would need to be built to provide alternative routes to all the dangerous roads currently used by cyclists. It would be an immense amount!

Dealt with above I hope?  And as others have noted no-one is calling for cycle paths up the mountains (and I'll be agin them generally also).  I think change can only happen by a process, over time, which must include multiple measures, not just putting pain on drivers and building cycle infra. And initially it will need to be "pushed uphill" (just like when we pushed cars on everyone).  But eventually it will (must) be self-sustaining.  So we make driving just a little less attractive and make other travel (including cycling) more attractive.  Modal shift - and as driving decreases that unlocks things like reclaiming space from roads, reducing the amount we pay to cover the externalities of driving etc.

.

Agreed at first.

.

Switched off when you went hyperbolic.

.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

.

Agreed at first.

.

Switched off when you went hyperbolic.

.

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. 

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.

"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.