Are cycle lanes any use?

David Lloyd said:

I'm wondering. Given the comments on urc about the farcilities that are
foisted on us, the jealousy directed at us by motorists because they believe
that they are paying for these farcilities, and the opinions often voiced
that cycle lanes are unmaintained with dangerous junctions, how do we view
cycle lanes as a group? Are we, as cyclists, in favour of or against cycle
lanes as they are today? How should they be?

I think the essential/risible divide in views on the usefulness of cycle
lanes comes about because there different kinds of cyclists. There are
cyclists who ride as an alternative to walking and those who ride as an
alternative to driving.

Lanes, even shared use ones, might genuinely help a "little old lady"
potter to her local shop but they are no good for a 10 mile fast commute
to work. I suspect the latter group are disproportionately represented
in u.r.c

On balance I am mostly anti (except for those neat little bike-only cut
throughs that can really shorten town journeys) because I don't see why
we should put my stereotypical little old lady to the extra risk of
badly-designed paths; and because the longer these things are left lying
around the greater the risk of eventual compulsion to use them.

I would prefer the money to be spent on training.

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk

David Lloyd wrote on 10/06/2007 10:36 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I'm wondering. Given the comments on urc about the farcilities that are
foisted on us, the jealousy directed at us by motorists because they believe
that they are paying for these farcilities, and the opinions often voiced
that cycle lanes are unmaintained with dangerous junctions, how do we view
cycle lanes as a group? Are we, as cyclists, in favour of or against cycle
lanes as they are today? How should they be?

No need for them and they encourage poor behaviour - gutter riding by
the cyclist, passing too close by the motorist. Just get rid of all the
farcilities apart from those that provide genuinely new route options
and spend the money on cycle training instead.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:31:28 +0100, Peter Amey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Lanes, even shared use ones, might genuinely help a "little old lady"
potter to her local shop but they are no good for a 10 mile fast commute
to work. I suspect the latter group are disproportionately represented
in u.r.c

Quite probably. And is it not the former group who we want to
encourage to take up cycling as a means of transport rather than using
their cars?

My view is that sensibly-designed facilities should be built
(preferably in the kind of way the Dutch do where they are wide enough
and properly laid out - or in any new development things like the
Milton Keynes Redways which, like it or not, do result in quite a bit
of leisure cycling that you don't as much get elsewhere) but it should
remain optional to use them, as the former group will be more at home
on the road.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

in message <[email hidden]>, David Lloyd

(') said:

I'm wondering. Given the comments on urc about the farcilities that are
foisted on us, the jealousy directed at us by motorists because they
believe that they are paying for these farcilities, and the opinions
often voiced that cycle lanes are unmaintained with dangerous junctions,
how do we view cycle lanes as a group? Are we, as cyclists, in favour of
or against cycle lanes as they are today? How should they be?

I think it would be wrong to say that no cycle lanes, anywhere, are any
good. But the overwhelming majority - 95% or more - are at best useless,
at worst actively lethal.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant

in message <[email hidden]>, Neil Williams

(') said:

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:31:28 +0100, Peter Amey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Lanes, even shared use ones, might genuinely help a "little old lady"
potter to her local shop but they are no good for a 10 mile fast commute
to work. I suspect the latter group are disproportionately represented
in u.r.c

Quite probably. And is it not the former group who we want to
encourage to take up cycling as a means of transport rather than using
their cars?

My view is that sensibly-designed facilities should be built
(preferably in the kind of way the Dutch do where they are wide enough
and properly laid out - or in any new development things like the
Milton Keynes Redways which, like it or not, do result in quite a bit
of leisure cycling that you don't as much get elsewhere) but it should
remain optional to use them, as the former group will be more at home
on the road.

It's worth pointing out that, according to John Franklin who has studied
them extensively, substantially more dangerous for cyclists than the
Milton Keynes road network. See

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/redway.html
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html

Milton Keynes was a new town built on a greenfield site with provision of
cycle lanes as part of the original design. If it doesn't work there, it
isn't going to work an cities which have grown organically. A cycle
network separate from the roads is not generally possible.

Furthermore I'd argue very strongly that it's not desirable. The more
cyclists are persuaded not to use the roads, the more dangerous the roads
will be for cyclists. The way to make roads safer, as London has amply
demonstrated, is to get more cyclists on them, not get cyclists off them.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Simon Brooke said:

It's worth pointing out that, according to John Franklin who has studied
them extensively, substantially more dangerous for cyclists than the
Milton Keynes road network.

This may well be the case, partly due to the poor quality of cycling
that takes place on them. However, this is to an extent a
self-fulfilling prophecy because they encourage inexperienced cyclists
who wouldn't otherwise take to the grid system (which carries very
fast traffic and can be a bit scary if not actually unsafe when used
correctly).

Perception is as important as actual safety when encouraging more
cycling, though, which I'm sure we'd all agree is a desirable thing.
Looking at the Redways in a different way, many people won't walk them
at night because they believe they are unsafe because of their
relative secludedness. However, the crime statistics suggest that the
majority of attacks actually take place in the estates and not on the
isolated Redways. Thus, the Council are spending a fair bit of money
cutting down trees and the likes to make the Redways *feel* safer even
if in actual fact it makes almost no difference.

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/redway.html
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html

Will have a nose in more detail, but for a start:-

"The risk of personal attack is probably lower in Milton Keynes than
in many towns of a similar size, but attacks have taken place and more
often than not on Redways."

is factually incorrect. I don't have a reference to hand, but the
attacks on Redways are *not* disproportionately high.

Quoted message said:

Furthermore I'd argue very strongly that it's not desirable. The more
cyclists are persuaded not to use the roads, the more dangerous the roads
will be for cyclists. The way to make roads safer, as London has amply
demonstrated, is to get more cyclists on them, not get cyclists off them.

Cycling in London is a scary prospect for the inexperienced cyclist.
If you don't provide for them properly on fast/busy roads,
inexperienced cyclists will just go by car.

You could argue for blanket 20mph speed limits and such to make
cycling easier (note I say easier/less scary, not safer) but
realistically that is not a particularly feasible option.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Neil Williams wrote on 10/06/2007 13:42 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Perception is as important as actual safety when encouraging more
cycling, though, which I'm sure we'd all agree is a desirable thing.

Which is why continually telling people that they need special
protective equipment and facilities to protect them is a very bad idea.
Cycling is not actually unsafe, its just the perception the road
safety lobby create.

Quoted message said:

Cycling in London is a scary prospect for the inexperienced cyclist.

In parts of London. There are large parts I cycle in central London
where you meet almost no cars or taxis.

Quoted message said:

You could argue for blanket 20mph speed limits and such to make
cycling easier (note I say easier/less scary, not safer) but
realistically that is not a particularly feasible option.

Why not?

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:23:04 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[blanket 20mph]

Quoted message said:

Why not?

Because people need to get places more quickly than that, and unless
you have an entirely segregated rapid transit rail system in every
city to fulfil that role at least the buses will need to do so, even
if you take the view that you want to make car use so inconvenient
that nobody will want to bother.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Which is why continually telling people that they need special protective
equipment and facilities to protect them is a very bad idea.

There is just one thing that I am confused about here. You say that telling
people they need special equipment is bad yet people on here have called me
stupid because I don't wear gloves. Which is correct - do people need
special equipment (gloves) or not?

Tony Raven said:

Neil Williams wrote on 10/06/2007 13:42 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Perception is as important as actual safety when encouraging more
cycling, though, which I'm sure we'd all agree is a desirable thing.

Which is why continually telling people that they need special
protective equipment and facilities to protect them is a very bad idea.
Cycling is not actually unsafe, its just the perception the road
safety lobby create.

yes that is the issue really.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling in London is a scary prospect for the inexperienced cyclist.

In parts of London. There are large parts I cycle in central London
where you meet almost no cars or taxis.

true.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You could argue for blanket 20mph speed limits and such to make
cycling easier (note I say easier/less scary, not safer) but
realistically that is not a particularly feasible option.

Why not?

roger

Neil Williams said:

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:23:04 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[blanket 20mph]

Quoted message said:

Why not?

Because people need to get places more quickly than that, and unless
you have an entirely segregated rapid transit rail system in every
city to fulfil that role at least the buses will need to do so, even
if you take the view that you want to make car use so inconvenient
that nobody will want to bother.

Neil

the differnce from 30 to 20 is not likely to make any differnce or near
as can be. urban traffic gets held up at lights, roundabouts and such.

roger

in message <[email hidden]>, Adam Lea

(') said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Which is why continually telling people that they need special
protective equipment and facilities to protect them is a very bad idea.

There is just one thing that I am confused about here. You say that
telling people they need special equipment is bad yet people on here have
called me stupid because I don't wear gloves. Which is correct - do
people need special equipment (gloves) or not?

I'm probably the guilty party there. I really don't like cycling without
gloves, and I'd argue the case because if you do fall, you will put your
hand out to stop yourself, because gravel rash on the palms of the hands
is very painful and because damaging tendons in your palms is easy and
potentially disabling.

However, if I've said that you shouldn't ride without gloves I need to be
told not to. You're perfectly right (I caught myself doing it yesterday)
that we can put beginners off cycling by dwelling too much on safety
issues.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

... a mild, inoffensive sadist...

Adam Lea wrote on 10/06/2007 14:34 +0100:

Quoted message said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Which is why continually telling people that they need special protective
equipment and facilities to protect them is a very bad idea.

There is just one thing that I am confused about here. You say that telling
people they need special equipment is bad yet people on here have called me
stupid because I don't wear gloves. Which is correct - do people need
special equipment (gloves) or not?

For every day utility cycling no. If you want to go on a fast ride or
off-road then they can be useful just like lycra shorts, cycling top and
clipless shoes can be. YMMV

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Neil Williams wrote on 10/06/2007 14:32 +0100:

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:23:04 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[blanket 20mph]

Quoted message said:

Why not?

Because people need to get places more quickly than that...

In town? That's a shame then because in London and other major cities
average traffic speeds are something like 11mph. So being capped to
20mph, rather than racing to the next queue and thus endangering
cyclists in between while gaining no time advantage, will not make much
difference at all.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

In town? That's a shame then because in London and other major cities
average traffic speeds are something like 11mph. So being capped to
20mph, rather than racing to the next queue and thus endangering
cyclists in between while gaining no time advantage, will not make much
difference at all.

Inside the immediate city centres, yes, but most people don't live in
city centres, and it is not the only part of the journey where people
may feel intimidated by traffic.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Neil Williams said:

Tony Raven said:

In town? That's a shame then because in London and other major cities
average traffic speeds are something like 11mph. So being capped to
20mph, rather than racing to the next queue and thus endangering
cyclists in between while gaining no time advantage, will not make much
difference at all.

Inside the immediate city centres, yes, but most people don't live in
city centres, and it is not the only part of the journey where people
may feel intimidated by traffic.

Neil

the 20 zones are not the trunk routes, but the residential areas.
traffic around london, is essently dire, be that centre, middle, or
outer london and quite frankly some distance behond.

if i drop my partner in to kingston upon thames for work. a distance of
4 miles can take over 30 mins.

roger

David Lloyd said:

I'm wondering. Given the comments on urc about the farcilities that
are foisted on us, the jealousy directed at us by motorists because
they believe that they are paying for these farcilities, and the
opinions often voiced that cycle lanes are unmaintained with
dangerous junctions, how do we view cycle lanes as a group? Are we,
as cyclists, in favour of or against cycle lanes as they are today?
How should they be?

As well as cycle lanes being too narrow and encoraging cyclists to put
themselves in dangerous positions, I particularly dislike the green-coloured
surface they put on them now. The rough tarmac (or stone chippings or
whatever it is) noticebly increases rolling resistance.

Unfortunately my local cycling campaign group seems to want more and more
cycle "facilities", even completely segregated ones. They say it encourages
cycling on the continent so it must be a good thing for the UK too. How can
I argue against this?

~PB

Pete Biggs wrote on 10/06/2007 17:12 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately my local cycling campaign group seems to want more and more
cycle "facilities", even completely segregated ones. They say it encourages
cycling on the continent so it must be a good thing for the UK too. How can
I argue against this?

Easily by telling them it doesn't. In the late '80's and early '90's
the Dutch doubled and the Germans tripled their mileage of cycle
facilities. Cycling levels did not change at all which indicates that
whatever it is that encourages cycling its not the facilities. Clues
are elsewhere. Cycling in the Netherlands is more than just cycle
facilities. Its the whole approach to cycling particularly in the
residential and community areas. Cycling and walking are both much
safer in the Netherlands indicating a different attitude of motorists to
other road users. They don't have campaigns all the time telling them
how dangerous it is and to protect themselves. Most Dutch do not wear a
helmet or gloves and cycle in normal clothing. Have a look at

to see how differently the
Dutch promote cycling.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

"David Lloyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm wondering. Given the comments on urc about the farcilities that are
foisted on us, the jealousy directed at us by motorists because they
believe that they are paying for these farcilities, and the opinions often
voiced that cycle lanes are unmaintained with dangerous junctions, how do
we view cycle lanes as a group? Are we, as cyclists, in favour of or
against cycle lanes as they are today? How should they be?

David Lloyd

If the road is wide enough to have effective cycle lanes then it is wide
enough not to need them.
I wish they would just get rid of them & have wide kerb lanes.
Toby