Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Cyclists, using Londons new blue lanes and bike superhighway outnumber motorists

http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/2011/06/jeremy-clarkson-still-thinks-were-anti.html

"Cyclists have for the first time outnumbered motorists on some of the country’s busiest commuter routes during the rush hour," splashed the Sunday Times news feature.


Vauxhall Bridge - even outside the congestion charge, cycling has more than trebled on this bridge...

http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/2011/03/vauxhall-bridge-even-outside-congestion.html

Is vehicular cycling the reason that cycling has increased so much in central London?

genec, the principle "build it and they will ride" is clearly being demonstrated in London along these bike routes.

One of my theories about bicycling ridership is that Auto-centric roads present a barrier to greater participation in bicycling and in effect "cap" ridership along significant roadways. This cap is only ameliorated when infrastructure is built in that better supports bicycling, or the traffic patterns change significantly i.e. metro detroit.

Just used Montreal, QC's BIXI system. I liked the bikes, the ease of renting them, the solid construction.

I did not like the ultra-narrow 2-way bike channels around Montreal. Riding out of them was pleasant though. The provision of these mandatory left-turn collision channels puts me off riding in MTL. It seems like the height of auto-centric road construction in a downtown to me.

...Is vehicular cycling the reason that cycling has increased so much in central London?

:lol: Surely, you jest.

I rode all over London this spring and loved it. Loved it because it's a great city and loved the Barclay bike rental system. My first full day in London I woke up at 4 am (jet lagged) and decided to ride the entire city as it awoke. While the city is fabulous in the early car free hours, as it comes to life the place to be as a cyclist is on whatever infrastructure exists. As I headed back to South Kensington, where I was staying, the bike commuters were streaming into the city. I couldn't resist and joined them and decided to just follow one rider going roughly my speed all the way to their destination.

What a treat! The rider took bike lanes and paths virtually the whole way except for a few streets deep in the business district, where they weren't needed anyway because the street was so narrow it became a wide sidewalk.

When I talked to London bikers they gave the same answers my NYC friends give for why they ride now as opposed to 10 years ago- infrastructure. It's a no-brainer.

:lol: Surely, you jest.

I rode all over London this spring and loved it. Loved it because it's a great city and loved the Barclay bike rental system. My first full day in London I woke up at 4 am (jet lagged) and decided to ride the entire city as it awoke. While the city is fabulous in the early car free hours, as it comes to life the place to be as a cyclist is on whatever infrastructure exists. As I headed back to South Kensington, where I was staying, the bike commuters were streaming into the city. I couldn't resist and joined them and decided to just follow one rider going roughly my speed all the way to their destination.

What a treat! The rider took bike lanes and paths virtually the whole way except for a few streets deep in the business district, where they weren't needed anyway because the street was so narrow it became a wide sidewalk.

When I talked to London bikers they gave the same answers my NYC friends give for why they ride now as opposed to 10 years ago- infrastructure. It's a no-brainer.

But but I thought infrastructure didn't matter... everybody just rode vehicularly in jolly old England.

But but I thought infrastructure didn't matter... everybody just rode vehicularly in jolly old England.

You appear to be stuck in a Manichean struggle with VC (it's always a sign that your thinking is off when you agree with Bek too much).

Meanwhile, the real changes in the U.K. are passing you by: campaigns such as "20 is plenty" which emphasize lowering traffic speeds to something manageable for cyclists are having some success. Note that the recent calls (http://road.cc/content/news/39908-1000-cyclists-take-part-blackfriars-bridge-flashride-plus-video) for keeping London's Blackfriars Bridge safe for cyclists don't include a demand for a cycle-superhighway.

Transport for London (the cycle-superhighway a.k.a strip of blue paint) pushers are the ones who want to add lanes to the bridge and increase traffic speeds.

V.C. has a place too, and many UK cyclists are more open to it than their US counterparts.

There's a time and place for everything, including bikelanes/bikepaths, but these usually aren't in cities with multiple intersections disrupting them.

You appear to be stuck in a Manichean struggle with VC (it's always a sign that your thinking is off when you agree with Bek too much).

Meanwhile, the real changes in the U.K. are passing you by: campaigns such as "20 is plenty" which emphasize lowering traffic speeds to something manageable for cyclists are having some success. Note that the recent calls (http://road.cc/content/news/39908-1000-cyclists-take-part-blackfriars-bridge-flashride-plus-video) for keeping London's Blackfriars Bridge safe for cyclists don't include a demand for a cycle-superhighway.

Transport for London (the cycle-superhighway a.k.a strip of blue paint) pushers are the ones who want to add lanes to the bridge and increase traffic speeds.

V.C. has a place too, and many UK cyclists are more open to it than their US counterparts.

There's a time and place for everything, including bikelanes/bikepaths, but these usually aren't in cities with multiple intersections disrupting them.

Circumstances and history are greatly different. British governments have never had the anti-cyclist, cyclist-inferiority policy that American governments have had for seventy years and reinforced with bikeways for the last forty years. A history of doing things for cyclists instead of to cyclists makes all the difference.

A history of doing things for cyclists instead of to cyclists makes all the difference.

oh, those jolly old brits! london bicycle infrastructure and human scaled road speeds -

yeah, american cities don't do anything like that for cyclists :rolleyes: it's an inferiority thing over here, dontchyaknow?


HILARIOUS! :roflmao:



http://vimeo.com/12120369


There's a time and place for everything, including bikelanes/bikepaths, but these usually aren't in cities with multiple intersections disrupting them.

actually,razrskutr, the ONLY way developed, industrialized cities in the modern era get to double digit rider share is thru bikelanes and bicycle specific infrastructure in cities. Look to cities across Europe, the great cycling capitals of Europe are all heavily built in with bicycle specificity.

londons rider share is laughable, pale and paltry in comparison to REAL cycling cities. Perhaps, with a build in of bicycle specific routes and traffic calming, London too, could raise ridership and cyclist safety thru infrastructure.

Only when cities begin to do things FOR cyclists, like in New York City in the video above or the great cycling capitals of Europe, does bicycling begin to solidly increase rider share.

Circumstances and history are greatly different. British governments have never had the anti-cyclist, cyclist-inferiority policy that American governments have had for seventy years and reinforced with bikeways for the last forty years. A history of doing things for cyclists instead of to cyclists makes all the difference.

In terms of headlines you're probably right. In terms of actual following through with what governments say it's not quite so clear cut.

Yes, we have the sky-blue cycle superhighways which for the most part are good. It's frustrating when you have to merge back into the traffic because someone parked across the cycle lane, and you still have to watch for vehicles on your right who want to turn left and may not realise how fast bikes are going (the other day I nearly ran into someone who turned across my lane when I was pushing 25mph almost alongside them). But on the whole they are good.

What is less good is the number of times a footpath is turned into a "shared footpath/cyclepath" with nothing more than a few signs with bikes on them. Some of these paths are narrow, with a broken surface and prickly or stinging plants on both sides. Certainly not somewhere you'd want to take a road bike. Unfortunately the alternative is often worse - in one particular case the cyclist gets the choice between being prickled and stung (and periodically having to move right over into the undergrowth to give way to a pedestrian) or riding on a 3-lane busy road with a 70mph limit where most cars exceed it.

Other times I've found a cycle lane that appears to allow the cyclist to bypass a busy roundabout, only to find that it ends after 50 yards and spits cyclists back into the traffic. So you can either negotiate the roundabout and keep moving, or use the cycle lane, stop to give way twice, and then stop to wait to merge back into the traffic.

sounds just like american cyclists problems, contago -

Having to choose between a substandard side path choice OR 70 mph traffic exemplifies some of the reasons rider share is so paltry in BOTH the USA and Britain.

I am a London cyclist - I commute a 20 mile round trip every day. I don't use bike lane. If they are there and safe I will use them but I don't use the ones that go onto the pavement, nor do I use the ones that are too narrow - I sit on the outside of them making sure I'm not riding in the gutter.

I use a route that goes on a faster road rather than use the cycle superhighway route (as it has too many slow cyclists, and I like to speed up a bit on this section).

Basically I find cycle lanes to neither cause me to ride more or feel safer.

sounds just like american cyclists problems, contago -

Having to choose between a substandard side path choice OR 70 mph traffic exemplifies some of the reasons rider share is so paltry in BOTH the USA and Britain.

So that's a steadfast refusal from you to consider the benefits of a "20 is plenty" campaign which lowers road speeds within cities. Instead you prefer the idea of dodgy bikelanes?

no, no, I'm a huge proponent of traffic calming at TEMPO30 zones, home zones, woonerven and the newly minted 20mph home zones in Britain.

However, bicyclists miking with automobile traffic is not a solution for every roadway. Londons' Transport Ministry, I believe, is responsible for a great venn diagram of integration/separation by volume/speed of roadway you may be familiar with?

but here's what I was agreeing with you, razrskutr-
...... riding on a 3-lane busy road with a 70mph limit where most cars exceed it. sounds like a typical american OR british dysfunctional carriageway.

bicyclists need to get places those 70mph carriageways go, and if there isn't a way there by traffic calmed, 20mph home zone -and even if there is- cities MUST plan for cyclists travelling along ALL roadways save those we are prohibited from. leaving cyclists to ride in 70mph traffic is no way to support a large rider population- I will give you that, razr!!

oh, those jolly old brits! london bicycle infrastructure and human scaled road speeds -

yeah, american cities don't do anything like that for cyclists :rolleyes: it's an inferiority thing over here, dontchyaknow?


HILARIOUS! :roflmao:



I don't know, Bek, whether you just want to try to score off me, but you clearly do not understand the difference between American government policy and actions regarding cycling and British government policy and actions regarding cycling. To put things crudely, American policy is that cyclists are not legitimate drivers of vehicles but are constrained by law to act subservient to motorists, while British policy has always been that cyclists are drivers of vehicles.

In terms of headlines you're probably right. In terms of actual following through with what governments say it's not quite so clear cut.

Yes, we have the sky-blue cycle superhighways which for the most part are good. It's frustrating when you have to merge back into the traffic because someone parked across the cycle lane, and you still have to watch for vehicles on your right who want to turn left and may not realise how fast bikes are going (the other day I nearly ran into someone who turned across my lane when I was pushing 25mph almost alongside them). But on the whole they are good.

What is less good is the number of times a footpath is turned into a "shared footpath/cyclepath" with nothing more than a few signs with bikes on them. Some of these paths are narrow, with a broken surface and prickly or stinging plants on both sides. Certainly not somewhere you'd want to take a road bike. Unfortunately the alternative is often worse - in one particular case the cyclist gets the choice between being prickled and stung (and periodically having to move right over into the undergrowth to give way to a pedestrian) or riding on a 3-lane busy road with a 70mph limit where most cars exceed it.

Other times I've found a cycle lane that appears to allow the cyclist to bypass a busy roundabout, only to find that it ends after 50 yards and spits cyclists back into the traffic. So you can either negotiate the roundabout and keep moving, or use the cycle lane, stop to give way twice, and then stop to wait to merge back into the traffic.

That answer is easy. Side paths around roundabouts are dangerous; everybody ought to know that. Use the roundabout just like all the other traffic. I've done lots of them, in both America and the UK. No problem; just don't try to go past an exit while hugging the curb. Treat exits like UK left turns (or US right turns) and stay away from them until you reach the one you want.

sounds just like american cyclists problems, contago -

Having to choose between a substandard side path choice OR 70 mph traffic exemplifies some of the reasons rider share is so paltry in BOTH the USA and Britain.

Come on, Bek, these are descriptions of rural traffic, no different there from hers.

I was using razrskutrs example of british traffic he found so onerous. i assumed it was greater London.

:D So Cal has PLENTY of high speed urban and suburban roads, in case you hadn't noticed - perhaps not 70mph but quite speedy, Genec in SD aften mentions the freeway speed surface streets he deals with.


come on, john. no different from here. :rolleyes:

....To put things crudely, American policy is that cyclists are not legitimate drivers of vehicles but are constrained by law to act subservient to motorists, while British policy has always been that cyclists are drivers of vehicles.

:roflmao: why the misdirect and the misinformation, john? this thread isn't even about US cycling, john and that's not how US states regulate bicycle traffic! What a shlubby, worthless rebut on the part of an erstwhile bicycling advocate, such wild and unsupportable claims about the american cycling condition.

Now john, this bicycling subservience thing you're always going on about? You might mean well, but here's the rub -it's inaccurate. It sounds like a personal problem to be perfectly honest , a personal neuroses about bicycling rights you may have developed over the years. I suspect it could be exorcised with a bikes 1-2-3 course to start off with.

Have you ever considered any bicycle safety classes?

american cyclists, like the artifice of British equality supposed by john, there's cyclists in both countries intimidated by dense or 70 mph traffic - a perfectly normal human response to that travelling environment - despite cyclists having the rights and responsibilities of the driver of a vehicles in most all states as well as Britain. there are only a small handful of states with mandatory shoulder and sidepath laws anyway.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vMPuvNx3gBY/Tf5ejutGTSI/AAAAAAAAANo/l7B-pncFG1w/s1600/stuck.jpg "Would you cycle here with you family? I think not." reads this london bicycle bloggers caption in the OP links about the british cycling condition.

Besides, given a clean, wide, ample shoulder to ride on alongside a busy, freeway speed rural carriageway, i am confident john forester would be happily and voluntarily chugging away in it, in all 50 states OR the British Commonwealth, as a vehicular cyclist.

I was using razrskutrs example of british traffic he found so onerous. i assumed it was greater London.

No, you weren't. You were quoting someone going by the moniker "Contango". :(

Yay, Brits!

They say WE are becoming the British. Maybe thats not so bad.

No, you weren't. You were quoting someone going by the moniker "Contango". :(

so sorry to have conflated two brits talking about 20mph safety zones in england. seems BOTH of you'd prefer extreme traffic calming on cycle routes versus 70mph, 3 lane carriageways - that may be the source of my confusion, so sorry.

Extreme traffic calming to near bicycling speed to create more livable streets is common on both sides of the atlantic.. I do suspect both contago and razrdskutr are familiar with the distinctly british cyclist planning that considers traffic speed and volume as variables that very well indicate separation from auto and lorry traffic along higher speed, volume carriageways. I wish i could find an easy link to the diagram but i am not at my home computer.... ah, here we go - THIS understanding of traffic speeds and cyclist facilities is common among traffic management professionals across the british commonwealth ....http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/reports/j185500/j185500_g03.gif

:roflmao: why the misdirect and the misinformation, john? this thread isn't even about US cycling, john and that's not how US states regulate bicycle traffic! What a shlubby, worthless rebut on the part of an erstwhile bicycling advocate, such wild and unsupportable claims about the american cycling condition.

Now john, this bicycling subservience thing you're always going on about? You might mean well, but here's the rub -it's inaccurate. It sounds like a personal problem to be perfectly honest , a personal neuroses about bicycling rights you may have developed over the years. I suspect it could be exorcised with a bikes 1-2-3 course to start off with.

Have you ever considered any bicycle safety classes?

american cyclists, like the artifice of British equality supposed by john, there's cyclists in both countries intimidated by dense or 70 mph traffic - a perfectly normal human response to that travelling environment - despite cyclists having the rights and responsibilities of the driver of a vehicles in most all states as well as Britain. there are only a small handful of states with mandatory shoulder and sidepath laws anyway.

Besides, given a clean, wide, ample shoulder to ride on alongside a busy, freeway speed rural carriageway, i am confident john forester would be happily and voluntarily chugging away in it, in all 50 states OR the British Commonwealth, as a vehicular cyclist.

Bek, I realize that, for your own purposes, you argue vociferously that America is a great cycling nation where cyclists are treated as drivers of vehicles, and therefore cannot accept unfavorable comparisons with a nation that does just that. However, America has had the cyclist far right law since the 1940s, Britain has never had that. American bikeways were designed by motorists to clear the way for motor traffic. British bikeways were not developed with that as any significant purpose. The difference in social attitude makes all the difference to how things get done and their effect.

Your argument about the unpleasantness of shoulderless roads with 70mph traffic has no bearing on that difference. When Dorris and I cycled to Portsmouth Dockyard in 1985, we cycled on A4 (as I remember it), just like an American 8-lane freeway, and it was so noisy that we could not converse while riding. But nobody stopped us, nobody honked, nobody bothered about us; we were just cyclists going where we needed to go. Would we have gone some other way, had we time and information? Probably, but we followed signs and found this way.

I am a London cyclist - I commute a 20 mile round trip every day. I don't use bike lane. If they are there and safe I will use them but I don't use the ones that go onto the pavement, nor do I use the ones that are too narrow - I sit on the outside of them making sure I'm not riding in the gutter.

I use a route that goes on a faster road rather than use the cycle superhighway route (as it has too many slow cyclists, and I like to speed up a bit on this section).

Interesting, I've only ever used them outside rush hour and often wondered what they would be like during the rush hour. With the combination of racers much faster than me, people drifting around much slower than me, and the varying attitudes to red traffic lights I can imagine it's an experience...

Basically I find cycle lanes to neither cause me to ride more or feel safer.[/QUOTE]

For the most part a wide lane feels safe to me, although obviously you still have to be aware of people who might turn across the lane.

That answer is easy. Side paths around roundabouts are dangerous; everybody ought to know that. Use the roundabout just like all the other traffic. I've done lots of them, in both America and the UK. No problem; just don't try to go past an exit while hugging the curb. Treat exits like UK left turns (or US right turns) and stay away from them until you reach the one you want.

I guess a lot depends on the skill and speed of the cyclist.

When I'm out on the bike I usually look to maintain 15-20mph or so depending on circumstances. Sometimes I get passed by cyclists doing 25+, other times I pass cyclists doing 5-10.

When a cyclist is moving at or near the speed of the traffic is clearly makes no sense for them to slow right down, bump off the road onto the cycle lane, stop after 50 yards, set off, stop, wait their turn and merge back into the traffic. But for the cyclists who are going slowly it's probably the kind of thing that makes them feel safer because they don't have to negotiate the busy roundabout.

My only real issue is that if a cyclepath is provided some motorists expect cyclists to use it, however inappropriate it is for their needs.

so sorry to have conflated two brits talking about 20mph safety zones in england. seems BOTH of you'd prefer extreme traffic calming on cycle routes versus 70mph, 3 lane carriageways - that may be the source of my confusion, so sorry.

Extreme traffic calming to near bicycling speed to create more livable streets is common on both sides of the atlantic.. I do suspect both contago and razrdskutr are familiar with the distinctly british cyclist planning that considers traffic speed and volume as variables that very well indicate separation from auto and lorry traffic along higher speed, volume carriageways. I wish i could find an easy link to the diagram but i am not at my home computer.... ah, here we go - THIS understanding of traffic speeds and cyclist facilities is common among traffic management professionals across the british commonwealth ....http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/reports/j185500/j185500_g03.gif

I'm not sure quite what point you're trying to make here. Streets in the cities usually do have a low speed limit of 20 or 30mph. Trunk roads out of town will have limits of anything up to 70mph. Obviously cycling among three lanes of traffic doing 70+ is suicidal but it doesn't seem like so much to ask to have a path worthy of the name to cycle on. Simply saying "there's a strip of concrete, it's all broken up and badly overgrown but that will have to do" while ticking the box that says "cycling provision made" doesn't really cut it.

Maybe I'm agreeing with you... I honestly have no idea.

....American bikeways were designed by motorists to clear the way for motor traffic. British bikeways were not developed with that as any significant purpose. The difference in social attitude makes all the difference to how things get done and their effect.



I'm sorry, john, but you're blowing smoke. your entire framing of cycling is out of touch with traffic planning on both sides of the Atlantic. its a contrived fantasy you portray, the idealized bicycle equality of Britain,


the british transport ministry calls for separation of bicycle traffic along higher speed, high volume roads. American bikeways, by mileage, are most frequently shared lane roadways.

take a look at the chart from the british transport ministry.... it calls for bicyclist separation from automobile traffic in many conditions - over 10,000 cars per day, 35km/hr or higher.....and even very low ADT trafficed roads are considered unsuitable with speeds over 65 km/hr....

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/reports/j185500/j185500_g03.gif

I'm not sure quite what point you're trying to make here. Streets in the cities usually do have a low speed limit of 20 or 30mph. Trunk roads out of town will have limits of anything up to 70mph. Obviously cycling among three lanes of traffic doing 70+ is suicidal but it doesn't seem like so much to ask to have a path worthy of the name to cycle on. .....
Maybe I'm agreeing with you... I honestly have no idea.


If YOU don't, I honestly have no idea where your opinion lies, but it sounds like you want traffic calming OR traffic separation.

The bloated grouse of obstructionists that stand against better bicycle infrastructure is simply complaining and stonewalling on improvements to a bicycle network. the stupid warrington cycle facility of the month campaign is widely misinterpreted as a smear against bike facilities, yet the real impetus of the warrington cycle campain is improvements via bicycle specificity when warrranted.

the ardent vehikularists have latched onto the warrington cycle campaign as if it were only about bad infrastructure, not what it's actually about - improving infrastructure for bicyclists.

But yeah, I think you're agreeing with the traffic planning dictates of your countries' transport ministry. Contago, you appear to want want traffic calming OR quality, separated bikeways along high speed, high volume roads. REMARKABLY SIMILAR TO recommendations from the British Transport Ministry. you are actually promoting separated cycle tracks along 70 mph roads.

however, if you were to ask john or other equally ardent vehikularists if that's a valid plan for accommodating cyclists, that's far, FAR too much to ask.

Interesting, I've only ever used them outside rush hour and often wondered what they would be like during the rush hour. With the combination of racers much faster than me, people drifting around much slower than me, and the varying attitudes to red traffic lights I can imagine it's an experience...

Basically I find cycle lanes to neither cause me to ride more or feel safer.

For the most part a wide lane feels safe to me, although obviously you still have to be aware of people who might turn across the lane.[/QUOTE]

There are some nice wide lanes, but there are usually cars (legally) parked in them on weekends. I just think that like you say, they make drivers think you MUST be in the cycle lane instead of on the road in general. Speaking of that I recently had to complain to the council as there were some road works which put the bike lane out of use and there was a sign saying "cycle lane not in use, cyclists dismount" which is obviously illegal as cyclists can ride on a road without a bike lane!

If YOU don't, I honestly have no idea where your opinion lies, but it sounds like you want traffic calming OR traffic separation.

Traffic calming would clearly be absurd on a major trunk road - it would be comparable to expecting traffic on an interstate to slow to 25mph to keep cyclists safe. A separate cycle lane is nice but it doesn't seem so much to ask that it's worthy of the name. A badly broken surface that's barely wide enough for two bikes to pass and certainly isn't wide enough for a bike to pass a pram, and that's badly overgrown with stinging and prickly plants isn't worthy of the name.


But yeah, I think you're agreeing with the traffic planning dictates of your countries' transport ministry. Contago, you appear to want want traffic calming OR quality, separated bikeways along high speed, high volume roads. REMARKABLY SIMILAR TO recommendations from the British Transport Ministry. you are actually promoting separated cycle tracks along 70 mph roads.

however, if you were to ask john or other equally ardent vehikularists if that's a valid plan for accommodating cyclists, that's far, FAR too much to ask.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here, other than noticing that I'd like separated bike paths to be of a quality that can be used without shaking my teeth loose.

Speaking of that I recently had to complain to the council as there were some road works which put the bike lane out of use and there was a sign saying "cycle lane not in use, cyclists dismount" which is obviously illegal as cyclists can ride on a road without a bike lane!

I came across a cycle lane in west London a while back (I forget exactly where it was). It was a marked area of the pavement and every 50 yards or so it was obstructed by a large tree right in the middle of it. So there was no way to use it without cycling on the pavement to avoid the trees.

Today I crossed Lambeth Bridge in central London and found nice metal channels, about the same width as a bike tyre, positioned in the middle of the bike lane. They were something to do with letting the bridge expand by the looks. I'd love to know what (or indeed whether) the people who design these things were thinking.

[QUOTE=Bekologist;13015133]so sorry to have conflated two brits talking about 20mph safety zones in england[QUOTE]

1. I'm not a Brit and never have been.
2. You make up all sorts of stuff (such as the above problems) which makes it impossible for you to get your point across.

Back on target: why do you spend so much time pushing for bikelanes/paths/sidepaths instead of focusing on reducing automotive speed in urban areas?

The latter is much more likely to be a win in terms of gaining support from communities while achieving the goal of creating cyclist-friendly conditions.

I guess a lot depends on the skill and speed of the cyclist.

When I'm out on the bike I usually look to maintain 15-20mph or so depending on circumstances. Sometimes I get passed by cyclists doing 25+, other times I pass cyclists doing 5-10.

When a cyclist is moving at or near the speed of the traffic is clearly makes no sense for them to slow right down, bump off the road onto the cycle lane, stop after 50 yards, set off, stop, wait their turn and merge back into the traffic. But for the cyclists who are going slowly it's probably the kind of thing that makes them feel safer because they don't have to negotiate the busy roundabout.

My only real issue is that if a cyclepath is provided some motorists expect cyclists to use it, however inappropriate it is for their needs.

With respect to feeling safe, you have described people cycling in a manner that is so dangerous that it can be safe only when done slowly with more delays. Sure, when done so slowly, with more delays, and with at least equal caution, it makes them feel safer. That's the situation with many bikeway designs.

I'm sorry, john, but you're blowing smoke. your entire framing of cycling is out of touch with traffic planning on both sides of the Atlantic. its a contrived fantasy you portray, the idealized bicycle equality of Britain,


the british transport ministry calls for separation of bicycle traffic along higher speed, high volume roads. American bikeways, by mileage, are most frequently shared lane roadways.

take a look at the chart from the british transport ministry.... it calls for bicyclist separation from automobile traffic in many conditions - over 10,000 cars per day, 35km/hr or higher.....and even very low ADT trafficed roads are considered unsuitable with speeds over 65 km/hr....



Bek, you are claiming that British bikeways are primarily sidepaths, based on the British chart of what might be considered desirable, while claiming that the great majority of American bikeways have no separation whatsoever. And on the basis of this argument you claim that American society considers cyclists to be more equal to motorists than does British society.

I consider Bek's whole argument to be unfounded.

clearly john you do not understand my position. However, wildly unsupportable claims about british cyclists treated as equals to motorists is readily seen as nothing more than a skewed version, a sheer fantasy about the british cycling environment.

The British Transport Ministry considers many road and traffic conditions unamenable to bicycle traffic, and call for separation. over 10,000 vehicles a day on 35km hr roads and the British government recommends separated facilities for bicycling, john.

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/reports/j185500/j185500_g03.gif

and how sensible and cognizant of the human condition on the part of the british transport ministry to consider vulnerable road users with preferred class facilities like they do. remarkably civilized. that graph is actually culled from the scotish transport ministry but it mirrors the planning dictates in great britain and likely the rest of the british common wealth.

Traffic calming would clearly be absurd on a major trunk road - it would be comparable to expecting traffic on an interstate to slow to 25mph to keep cyclists safe. A separate cycle lane is nice but it doesn't seem so much to ask that it's worthy of the name. A badly broken surface that's barely wide enough for two bikes to pass and certainly isn't wide enough for a bike to pass a pram, and that's badly overgrown with stinging and prickly plants isn't worthy of the name.I have no idea what point you're trying to make here, other than noticing that I'd like separated bike paths to be of a quality that can be used without shaking my teeth loose

so, contago, you are of the camp of separated cycling facilities along roads YOU consider it appropriate on. multiple lane high speed carriageways, 70 mph roads, interstates...... you think at some speed and volume, bikes should have separated facilities. you WANT QUALITY BIKE FACILITIES, separated from high speed carriageways.

ardent vehikularists think this is far, FAR too much for bicyclists. the 'vehikularists' think there is no better answer than planning for bike traffic than to just TAKE THE LANE on those 70 mph trunk roads, or build wide enough lanes cyclists can cower to the side, subservient to car traffic by riding to the right.

should your neighborhood schoolkids and their families be satisfied with no other option for cycling than to take the lane on a 70 mph carriageway?

I believe i am acxcurate in stating you think there should be extreme traffic calmed route or a separated sidepath, eh, contago. well, so does the british transport ministry.



.

clearly john you do not understand my position. However, wildly unsupportable claims about british cyclists treated as equals to motorists is readily seen as nothing more than a skewed version, a sheer fantasy about the british cycling environment. [

The British Transport Ministry considers many road and traffic conditions unamenable to bicycle traffic, and call for separation. over 10,000 vehicles a day on 35km hr roads and the British government recommends separated facilities for bicycling, john.

Do you not understand that the UK has had a cycling culture which historically has been more supportive of cyclists and that that legacy shows? Do you not understand that the MoT and others may be trying out new-fangled ideas imported from the USA?



and how sensible and cognizant of the human condition on the part of the british transport ministry to consider vulnerable road users with preferred class facilities like they do. remarkably civilized. that graph is actually culled from the scotish transport ministry but it mirrors the planning dictates in great britain and likely the rest of the british common wealth.

Again, what's your response to the Blackfriars Bridge situation in London that I linked above? Cyclists have been relatively happy using it at 20mph and Transport for London have decided that instead they're going to increase the speed limit and add lanes while shunting cyclists off to the side. Are you in agreement with TfL?

so, contago, you are of the camp of separated cycling facilities along roads YOU consider it appropriate on. multiple lane high speed carriageways, 70 mph roads, interstates...... you think at some speed and volume, bikes should have separated facilities. you WANT QUALITY BIKE FACILITIES, separated from high speed carriageways.

ardent vehikularists think this is far, FAR too much for bicyclists. the 'vehikularists' think there is no better answer than planning for bike traffic than to just TAKE THE LANE on those 70 mph trunk roads, or build wide enough lanes cyclists can cower to the side, subservient to car traffic by riding to the right.

should your neighborhood schoolkids and their families be satisfied with no other option for cycling than to take the lane on a 70 mph carriageway?

I believe i am acxcurate in stating you think there should be extreme traffic calmed route or a separated sidepath, eh, contago. well, so does the british transport ministry.



.

As always, Bek, you rather skimp on the facts. Here is a general statement from a semi-official site about driving in England.

The National Speed limits


Motorways and dual carriage ways: 112km/h / 70mph
Unrestricted single carriageway roads: 96km/h / 60mph
Built up areas e.g. towns and villages: 48km/h / 30mph
Residential areas: 35km/h / 20mph

so, contago, you are of the camp of separated cycling facilities along roads YOU consider it appropriate on. multiple lane high speed carriageways, 70 mph roads, interstates...... you think at some speed and volume, bikes should have separated facilities. you WANT QUALITY BIKE FACILITIES, separated from high speed carriageways.

ardent vehikularists think this is far, FAR too much for bicyclists. the 'vehikularists' think there is no better answer than planning for bike traffic than to just TAKE THE LANE on those 70 mph trunk roads, or build wide enough lanes cyclists can cower to the side, subservient to car traffic by riding to the right.

should your neighborhood schoolkids and their families be satisfied with no other option for cycling than to take the lane on a 70 mph carriageway?

I believe i am acxcurate in stating you think there should be extreme traffic calmed route or a separated sidepath, eh, contago. well, so does the british transport ministry.



No sane cyclist in the UK would ride to the right. We drive on the left, so taking the right-hand lane on a 70mph trunk road would be to dance with death with the white vans doing 90+.

Secondly when dealing with the "neighbourhood schoolkids" the chances are they will have alternative routes so they aren't expected to take the fast roads at all. If they live more than about 3 miles from school they will often qualify for a free bus pass so they don't have to cycle at all. From where I live in town I can cover significant distances without needing to go on any fast roads at all. From where I live I can reach literally dozens of schools without going on any road with a speed limit over 30mph.

The other thing we have to consider with segregated paths is whether it's a realistic proposition to install them at all. On a long-distance trunk road it may well be easy enough (although why the government didn't have a cycle lane included on the new Severn Bridge to match the one over the old Severn Bridge remains a mystery). In a lot of places there simply isn't the space to build a segregated lane and even if there were space there comes a point when the cost of providing it is out of all proportion to the people who will use it. My comment was that if a lane is going to be provided it needs to be maintained, or there's no point providing it (and the associated point that putting up a blue sign with a bike on it merely makes it legal to cycle along the path, it doesn't make the path suited to any particular bicycle).

Looking at the diagram that keeps popping up, 30kph is roughly 20mph and it seems to think that if traffic is moving faster than 20mph then additional facilities are required. Personally I think that's an absurd assertion as most urban streets are still limited at 30mph (50kph). So I guess I don't agree with so much of these recommendations, other than for a segregated lane to be available on roads that are either very fast or too narrow for cars to safely overtake cyclists.

As always, Bek, you rather skimp on the facts. Here is a general statement from a semi-official site about driving in England.

The National Speed limits



Motorways and dual carriage ways: 112km/h / 70mph
Unrestricted single carriageway roads: 96km/h / 60mph
Built up areas e.g. towns and villages: 48km/h / 30mph
Residential areas: 35km/h / 20mph



We also have a few roads with limits of 40 and 50mph. To give US readers a better idea of what we're talking about, a motorway is like an interstate/expressway where bikes (among other slow moving vehicles) are prohibited. A dual carriageway has two or more lanes in both directions, separated by a median - on these roads bikes are permitted but rarely seen for fairly obvious reasons. A single carriageway has one lane in both directions with no median.

Often urban dual carriageways will have a speed limit of 30, 40 or 50mph, wider arterial roads through or around town may have a 40 limit. Sometimes an unrestricted single carriageway (60mph limit) will be wide enough to pass cyclists with ease - I've ridden on a few near home and for the most part found them just fine. Other times a road with a 40 limit can be narrow enough to make passing impossible if there is oncoming traffic: on one particular road near home I decided to get off the road because I was struggling up a big hill and I was aware of the traffic building up behind me as I struggled to do more than about 8mph (I know I've got as much right to be there as the cars have, but see little point being an ass about it)

It is a counterfeit vision of british cycling equality to suggest brits think bikes equal to cars and never plan for bike traffic OUT OF THE WAY of high speed motor vehicle traffic.


There are many circumstances british cyclists will NOT be on high spped roads, contago hints at the cultural norm and suggests it is culturally an oddity to see british cyclists on what would be characterized in the US as typical median-divided arterials.


A dual carriageway has two or more lanes in both directions, separated by a median - on these roads bikes are permitted but rarely seen for fairly obvious reasons. A single carriageway has one lane in both directions with no median.

Often urban dual carriageways will have a speed limit of 30, 40 or 50mph, wider arterial roads through or around town may have a 40 limit...


rarely seen, for obvious reasons :roflmao: I would suspect then, that cyclists along those traffic corridors served by divided dual carriageways would be more frequently seen on the separated cycle tracks along dual carriageways of Great Britain, where they are rarely seen on the carriageway, for OBVIOUS reasons.

..... what's your response to the Blackfriars Bridge situation in London that I linked above? Cyclists have been relatively happy using it at 20mph and Transport for London have decided that instead they're going to increase the speed limit and add lanes while shunting cyclists off to the side. Are you in agreement with TfL?

20mph was a temporary resrtriction on the bridge during construction to increase motorized access to a new tube station that is suggested to increase motorized traffic across the blackfriars bridge by SIXTY PERCENT.

That's an example of 'traffic management', razrskutr. :rolleyes: that echoes the british transport ministry standards for of bike and car traffic mixing/separation.

leaving the bridge at 20mph after the traffic pattern changes as a result of the tube station would lead to much greater traffic congestion.

so, QED: the projected increase in annualized daily traffic across the bridge indicates to the MoT to add a preferred class lane to the bridge when it returns to the original speed of 30mph. Additionally, cyclists in britain and 43 of the 50 us states would not be required to use the preferred class lane, and will still have the opportunity to take the travel lane across bridges like the blackfriars bridge in london.

It is a counterfeit vision of british cycling equality to suggest brits think bikes equal to cars and never plan for bike traffic OUT OF THE WAY of high speed motor vehicle traffic.


There are many circumstances british cyclists will NOT be on high spped roads, contago hints at the cultural norm and suggests it is culturally an oddity to see british cyclists on what would be characterized in the US as typical median-divided arterials.




rarely seen, for obvious reasons :roflmao: I would suspect then, that cyclists along those traffic corridors served by divided dual carriageways would be more frequently seen on the separated cycle tracks along dual carriageways of Great Britain, where they are rarely seen on the carriageway, for OBVIOUS reasons.

Bek, you base your argument on "the separated cycle-tracks along dual carriageways of Great Britain". Since you base your argument on this condition, we have to assume that you known just what proportion of these roads have separated cycle-tracks. What's the basis of your information, Bek? And what do the data say?

20mph was a temporary resrtriction on the bridge during construction to increase motorized access to a new tube station that is suggested to increase motorized traffic across the blackfriars bridge by SIXTY PERCENT.

That's an example of 'traffic management', razrskutr. :rolleyes: that echoes the british transport ministry standards for of bike and car traffic mixing/separation.

leaving the bridge at 20mph after the traffic pattern changes as a result of the tube station would lead to much greater traffic congestion.

so, QED: the projected increase in annualized daily traffic across the bridge indicates to the MoT to add a preferred class lane to the bridge when it returns to the original speed of 30mph. Additionally, cyclists in britain and 43 of the 50 us states would not be required to use the preferred class lane, and will still have the opportunity to take the travel lane across bridges like the blackfriars bridge in london.

So, what you're trying to say is that you're in favour of increasing the number of lanes to 3, in favour of upping the speed from 20mph to 30mph, and in favour of restricting bicycles from those lanes in the road?

Thanks, that clarifies your position hugely.

Thanks, that clarifies your position hugely. hardly :roflmao: and quite the mischaracterization.

I'm not the planners that have increased the traffic pattern for the bridgeway and surrounding area. sounds like the massive traffic influx necessitating some type of grander traffic management across that bridge is an unfortunate result of the new tram station. you couldn't glean that from the article you posted?

i suggest many bridges should have an entire travel width lane dedicated to bicycle traffic, lower city driving speeds. i am also a realist about the traffic and recognize cities will have arterial routes, tram stations get built, dual carriageways will shunt rider share in britain, etc etc.. 30mph and a bikelane is a good plan for a large capacity bridgedeck and so does the british transport. its up to them to do it well, like the burrard street bridge in vancouver BC.

Bek, you base your argument on ...




john, why don't yaz asks CONTAGO why HE thinks there's little traffic on the dual carriageways of britain, and what those obvious reasons are? where's the supposed - and apparently illusory - british cycling equality along these roads, that, quite obviously there won't be many bicyclists riding. meh. britains paltry rider share is, like the USA, a result of autocentric roads that, quite obviously, many cyclists won't be riding.

:roflmao:


A dual carriageway has two or more lanes in both directions, separated by a median - on these roads bikes are permitted but rarely seen for fairly obvious reasons.

john, why don't yaz asks CONTAGO why HE thinks there's little traffic on the dual carriageways of britain, and what those obvious reasons are? where's the supposed - and apparently illusory - british cycling equality along these roads, that, quite obviously there won't be many bicyclists riding. meh. britains paltry rider share is, like the USA, a result of autocentric roads that, quite obviously, many cyclists won't be riding.

:roflmao:


I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.

A lot of the time bikes wouldn't want to be following these routes. I can get to a friend's house in about 32 miles on the bike. The shortest sensible route by car follows motorways and dual carriageways and takes more like 40 miles. The fastest route by car follows motorways for almost the entire journey and comes in at closer to 50 miles. Why would I want to cycle alongside the motorway when I can cycle a more direct route?

Do you expect cars to slow to 20mph on interstates so that cyclists can use the whole road? Or can you accept that just as bikes have cycle lanes and assorted cut-throughts etc that aren't available to cars, so some roads are designed as arterial trunk roads for cars and therefore don't have bikes in mind? The fact that cyclists aren't considered the primary users of every single road doesn't mean we are delegated to some form of second class citizen, merely that some roads weren't designed with us in mind.

When I'm driving somewhere I want fast trunk roads to be available so I can get where I'm going as fast as possible. When I'm cycling I want roads that are quiet and, if it's impractical to avoid major roads, to have some kind of provision so I can cover those short parts of my journey in safety.

contago, why don't you ask JOHN that. I understand traffic management.


...so some roads are designed as arterial trunk roads for cars and therefore don't have bikes in mind? The fact that cyclists aren't considered the primary users of every single road doesn't mean we are delegated to some form of second class citizen, merely that some roads weren't designed with us in mind.

what sez you, john, of this OBVIOUS phenomenon contago is clearly describing about the british cycling condition?


A dual carriageway has two or more lanes in both directions, separated by a median - on these roads bikes are permitted but rarely seen for fairly obvious reasons.


:roflmao:

now, contago, I'm BIG fan of planning for bike traffic, better bike facilities, blue lane superhighways for bikes, better cycle routes, a combination of shared space -low speed roads and arterials with ample cyclist accommodation, either separated or, american style, a well provided lane that is part of the roadway.

The artifice of some peoples' idealization of british cycling equality is readily seen as counterfeit

Dishonest bleats of misdirection, ardently trying to cover up of how it actually sorts out on the carriageways of great britain.

OF COURSE you won't see many cyclists on the divided dual carriageways, either side of the atlantic!!

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.

A lot of the time bikes wouldn't want to be following these routes. I can get to a friend's house in about 32 miles on the bike. The shortest sensible route by car follows motorways and dual carriageways and takes more like 40 miles. The fastest route by car follows motorways for almost the entire journey and comes in at closer to 50 miles. Why would I want to cycle alongside the motorway when I can cycle a more direct route?

Do you expect cars to slow to 20mph on interstates so that cyclists can use the whole road? Or can you accept that just as bikes have cycle lanes and assorted cut-throughts etc that aren't available to cars, so some roads are designed as arterial trunk roads for cars and therefore don't have bikes in mind? The fact that cyclists aren't considered the primary users of every single road doesn't mean we are delegated to some form of second class citizen, merely that some roads weren't designed with us in mind.

When I'm driving somewhere I want fast trunk roads to be available so I can get where I'm going as fast as possible. When I'm cycling I want roads that are quiet and, if it's impractical to avoid major roads, to have some kind of provision so I can cover those short parts of my journey in safety.

What exactly do you call such "provisions" in your part of the world? Do you feel such "provisions" make cycling safer or more enjoyable? Do they encourage cycling?

contago, why don't you ask JOHN that. I understand traffic management.



what sez you, john, of this OBVIOUS phenomenon contago is clearly describing about the british cycling condition?




:roflmao:

now, contago, I'm BIG fan of planning for bike traffic, better bike facilities, blue lane superhighways for bikes, better cycle routes, a combination of shared space -low speed roads and arterials with ample cyclist accommodation, either separated or, american style, a well provided lane that is part of the roadway.

The artifice of some peoples' idealization of british cycling equality is readily seen as counterfeit

Dishonest bleats of misdirection, ardently trying to cover up of how it actually sorts out on the carriageways of great britain.

OF COURSE you won't see many cyclists on the divided dual carriageways, either side of the atlantic!!

Hmmm... you've quoted me and attributed it to John and then complain of misdirection...

The road I'm referring to does allow cyclists to use the hard shoulder (I think you guys just call it the shoulder - the lane beside the slowest lane where you pull off if you break down or blow a tyre or something). Each junction on that fast road has handy signs to show cyclists how to proceed - by following the hard shoulder down the exit ramp, crossing to rejoin the carriageway, then crossing the entry ramp and rejoining the carriageway in the hard shoulder. I can see it being a royal pain in the rear but much less of a pain than being sideswiped by a car doing 70mph who didn't see you (and whoever was at fault in such an accident it doesn't make the cyclist's injuries any less severe)

So the next question is why so few cyclists are seen using these roads. It doesn't take a genius to figure that given the choice of a scenic route with a nice view, or a fast road with a lot of fast-moving traffic to be aware of, fumes from heavy lorries and all the other traffic, and getting to ride over all the debris that inevitably drifts to the hard shoulder, why would anybody choose to use such a road?

By the way, take a look at my user name. C-O-N-T-A-N-G-O. Note the second N there.

What exactly do you call such "provisions" in your part of the world? Do you feel such "provisions" make cycling safer or more enjoyable? Do they encourage cycling?

Provisions along short sections of trunk roads make cycling more enjoyable in that they remove the need to make substantial detours to avoid them.

Two classic examples - in the UK pedestrians and cyclists are not allowed on motorways. The old Severn Bridge has a shared footpath/cyclepath beside it so that pedestrians and cyclists can cross the bridge. The new Severn Bridge does not, for reasons which are far from clear. Should the old Severn Bridge collapse a pedestrian or cyclist would need to either find a motorist willing to drive them across the bridge or take a very substantial detour - I'd guess the detour would be 60-70 miles or so. There's a bridge where the M5 crosses the Avon near where it joins the Severn and again there's a footpath/cyclepath so the bridge can be shared.

Encouraging cycling needs to take in many elements, from encouraging people to get on a bike for the first time to encouraging people to make more journeys by bike where possible. The person getting on a bike for the first time will want to avoid any road they consider "difficult" whether that's because of traffic, terrain or any other factor. There's no point putting a cycle path beside a motorway so that a novice cyclist will suddenly feel empowered to get on their bike beside the motorway - that's more about making it easy for serious cyclists to get around with a choice of routes. A novice cyclist will probably be doing little more than going to the shops or taking a relatively short ride for recreation while a serious cyclist will make more journeys by bike if they don't involve taking long detours to avoid areas where cycling is either illegal or highly undesirable.

I remember the time I chose to cycle about 1/4 mile of the A316 about half a mile before it became the M3. I was absolutely within my rights to cycle along it but if I'd had any idea just how unpleasant it was going to be I'd have taken the two mile detour my GPS suggested to avoid it. I've never been so glad to get off a section of road in my life.