Cycle paths or psyclepaths?

Matt B said:

Tom C said:

Matt B said:

Tom Crispin wrote:
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane
> Would this road be better for cyclists:
> a. without a cycle lane
> b. with a segregated cycle lane
> c. with cycles banned
> d. left as it is
> e. other - please state
> Note - banning motor vehicles, though a favoured option of mine, is
> not a valid option.
Where exactly is it? How wide is the road? What day is it? What time
of day is it?

The A2 Shooters Hill Road across Blackheath.

Thanks. The A2, so some of the motor traffic will be /through/ traffic,
on a mission, rather than /local/ tootling traffic. The best option
then is to segregate the "through" motor traffic, to let it travel
efficiently, and to free the current road for local, less stressed,
traffic, and make travelling more pleasant for all.

Ah, there is one flaw with that idea though, it is no longer politically
correct to build the motorways that we need to free our local roads from
heavy "through" traffic, to reduce congestion, to reduce pollution, to
reduce road casualties, and to increase journey reliability. So it
looks as though the best option is "d", sorry.

They built a motorway you can see it in the background. It provides a
free flowing pleasant journey as in the daily report "queues back to Sun
in the sands".

The road is fine. The cars do slow cyclists a bit but its only for a
couple of minutes.

Chris Smith said:

Tom Crispin said:

www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane

Would this road be better for cyclists:

a. without a cycle lane
b. with a segregated cycle lane
c. with cycles banned
d. left as it is
e. other - please state

Note - banning motor vehicles, though a favoured option of mine, is
not a valid option.

I don't know the area so this may not be a usable alternative, but a
quick look at the map reveals a parallel minor road (Rochester Way)
about 1km to the South.

So I'd probably remove the cycle lane completely from the main road, and
put a Bicycle Boulevard in on Rochester Way.

But as I say - I've never been there - it could well be one way, or a
door zone nightmare...

Chris

You got the wrong place. He is due south of Greenwich park.

Nick said:

Chris Smith said:

Tom Crispin said:

www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane

Would this road be better for cyclists:

a. without a cycle lane
b. with a segregated cycle lane
c. with cycles banned
d. left as it is
e. other - please state

Note - banning motor vehicles, though a favoured option of mine, is
not a valid option.

I don't know the area so this may not be a usable alternative, but a
quick look at the map reveals a parallel minor road (Rochester Way)
about 1km to the South.

So I'd probably remove the cycle lane completely from the main road,
and put a Bicycle Boulevard in on Rochester Way.

But as I say - I've never been there - it could well be one way, or a
door zone nightmare...

Chris

You got the wrong place. He is due south of Greenwich park.

Ah, OK.

Zog The Undeniable said:

Tom Crispin said:

www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane

Would this road be better for cyclists:

a. without a cycle lane
b. with a segregated cycle lane
c. with cycles banned
d. left as it is
e. other - please state

(b) - the dashed line is asking for trouble, although it's nice and
wide for a psyclepath.

Unusual to see no white vans parked in it!

M.

Chris Smith said:

Tom Crispin said:

www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane
Would this road be better for cyclists:

Quoted message said:

I don't know the area so this may not be a usable alternative, but a
quick look at the map reveals a parallel minor road (Rochester Way)
about 1km to the South.

So I'd probably remove the cycle lane completely from the main road, and
put a Bicycle Boulevard in on Rochester Way.

Ta. So now I'm forced into a 2km detour.

It is very easy to let the idea of a cycle network over-ride other
considerations such as directness and the fact that everywhere is a
potential cyclist's destination. Traffic engineers are generally
delighted if they can point to an alternative route for cyclists. It
means they can probably get away with re-engineering the direct route
to make it even more frightening and/or dangerous to cycle on.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Nick said:

Matt B said:

Tom C said:

On 8 Apr, 22:28, Matt B <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane
>> Would this road be better for cyclists:
>> a. without a cycle lane
>> b. with a segregated cycle lane
>> c. with cycles banned
>> d. left as it is
>> e. other - please state
>> Note - banning motor vehicles, though a favoured option of mine, is
>> not a valid option.
> Where exactly is it? How wide is the road? What day is it? What time
> of day is it?

The A2 Shooters Hill Road across Blackheath.

Thanks. The A2, so some of the motor traffic will be /through/
traffic, on a mission, rather than /local/ tootling traffic. The best
option then is to segregate the "through" motor traffic, to let it
travel efficiently, and to free the current road for local, less
stressed, traffic, and make travelling more pleasant for all.

Ah, there is one flaw with that idea though, it is no longer
politically correct to build the motorways that we need to free our
local roads from heavy "through" traffic, to reduce congestion, to
reduce pollution, to reduce road casualties, and to increase journey
reliability. So it looks as though the best option is "d", sorry.

They built a motorway you can see it in the background.

I can't see it. All I can see is a normal public road, open to all
modes of traffic. It appears to be snarled-up with, presumably,
non-local traffic held up too. Better, I think, to segregate the
non-local, longer distance, motor traffic onto a dedicated motorway.
That way they will be happier, not having their journey delayed with
local traffic, roundabouts, buses, delivery vans, cyclists, pedestrians,
etc., and the locals will be happier, because their roads would be less
clogged with traffic, and therefore more pleasurable to use.

--
Matt B

On 8 Apr, 21:07, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane

Quoted message said:

Note - banning motor vehicles, though a favoured option of mine, is
not a valid option.

That rather asinine comment shows what a selfish person you are

Colin McKenzie said:

Chris Smith said:

Tom Crispin said:

www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane
Would this road be better for cyclists:

Quoted message said:

I don't know the area so this may not be a usable alternative, but a
quick look at the map reveals a parallel minor road (Rochester Way)
about 1km to the South.

So I'd probably remove the cycle lane completely from the main road,
and put a Bicycle Boulevard in on Rochester Way.

Ta. So now I'm forced into a 2km detour.

It is very easy to let the idea of a cycle network over-ride other
considerations such as directness and the fact that everywhere is a
potential cyclist's destination. Traffic engineers are generally
delighted if they can point to an alternative route for cyclists. It
means they can probably get away with re-engineering the direct route to
make it even more frightening and/or dangerous to cycle on.

Colin McKenzie

Urban roads are massively overcrowded, and some give & take is required
to make it all work. If the main road can flow better for not having the
bike lane, and cyclists can have a rather more pleasant experience for
the piffling cost of an extra km or two - I'd say that's a reasonable
solution.

Of course this is sometimes taken to extremes by Sustrans; where the
contrived routes are just plain daft.

Chris Smith said:

If the main road can flow better for not having the
bike lane, and cyclists can have a rather more pleasant experience for
the piffling cost of an extra km or two - I'd say that's a reasonable
solution.

I'll often go 2 or 3 km out of my way if it means I can avoid a
section with an on-road cycle lane. My current commute is about 9km
with roughly 300m of that including on-road cycle lanes and about 50m
of the 300 where I actually venture into the lane.

Guess where I was when I was hit by a #@*$ing Smart car last week.
Only injury is a now-fading bruise on my right forearm. I think the
car might need a new wing mirror though.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

Guess where I was when I was hit by a #@*$ing Smart car last week.
Only injury is a now-fading bruise on my right forearm. I think the
car might need a new wing mirror though.

Pity it wasn't a smart driver ;-)

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

"Chris Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie said:

Chris Smith said:

Tom Crispin wrote:
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane
> Would this road be better for cyclists:

Quoted message said:

I don't know the area so this may not be a usable alternative, but a quick
look at the map reveals a parallel minor road (Rochester Way) about 1km to
the South.

So I'd probably remove the cycle lane completely from the main road, and
put a Bicycle Boulevard in on Rochester Way.

Ta. So now I'm forced into a 2km detour.

It is very easy to let the idea of a cycle network over-ride other
considerations such as directness and the fact that everywhere is a
potential cyclist's destination. Traffic engineers are generally delighted
if they can point to an alternative route for cyclists. It means they can
probably get away with re-engineering the direct route to make it even more
frightening and/or dangerous to cycle on.

Colin McKenzie

Urban roads are massively overcrowded, and some give & take is required to
make it all work. If the main road can flow better for not having the bike
lane, and cyclists can have a rather more pleasant experience for the
piffling cost of an extra km or two - I'd say that's a reasonable solution.

Of course this is sometimes taken to extremes by Sustrans; where the
contrived routes are just plain daft.

I must say that, as a road bound cycle camping ( touring) cyclist I have to
agree with your comment about Sustrans routes.
I haven't done a wide quantative assessment but in some areas they can add
over ( a lot over) 30% to a safe on road route.

I will qualify my comment by saying that I am NOT a Sustrans supporter --
quite the reverse.

As an old "f*rt" I cycle daily on road. However I do find that some days,
after doing my "daily dozen" ( that should be a score but.....) I arrive back
home fuming and definitely a grumpy (very) old man. A case in point today --
just 200 metres away from my home there is a no entry, very narrow, road (
some 300 metres long) and a petrol head drove up it to find that 4 cars were
coming at him. He was local and knew it was a "no entry" but guess who got all
the verbal abuse as he nearly reversed into me ( walking on the pavement with
my bike in the gutter).

After a year in UK I am just 2 weeks from leaving home to cycle ( on road) to
Portsmouth and then on 2 May I am at the beginning of 6 to 8 weeks of cycling
in France. I have found this winter long and depressing -- not cold and
freezing but windy and wet. I do need to get away from the hassle of cycling
in England. I would love to live there permanently in my dotage.

Bit of a rant there - just shows that I need to get away! It has been an awful
( mentally) winter for me and I am sure that part of it is "getting older" --
quite frightening really!
--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Brian G said the following on 09/04/2008 16:59:

Quoted message said:

Pity it wasn't a smart driver ;-)

I guess the drivers think they don't need to be - after all, that's why
they have a smart car :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Quoting Chris Smith <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Urban roads are massively overcrowded, and some give & take is required
to make it all work. If the main road can flow better for not having the
bike lane, and cyclists can have a rather more pleasant experience for
the piffling cost of an extra km or two - I'd say that's a reasonable
solution.

If the roads are overcrowded, why the hell should vehicles that don't take
up much space be diverted while ones that do get an additional advantage?
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Oil is for sissies
Today is Second Olethros, April - a weekend.

Matt B said:

Nick said:

Matt B said:

Tom C wrote:
> On 8 Apr, 22:28, Matt B <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane
>>> Would this road be better for cyclists:
>>> a. without a cycle lane
>>> b. with a segregated cycle lane
>>> c. with cycles banned
>>> d. left as it is
>>> e. other - please state
>>> Note - banning motor vehicles, though a favoured option of mine, is
>>> not a valid option.
>> Where exactly is it? How wide is the road? What day is it? What time
>> of day is it?
>
> The A2 Shooters Hill Road across Blackheath.

Thanks. The A2, so some of the motor traffic will be /through/
traffic, on a mission, rather than /local/ tootling traffic. The best
option then is to segregate the "through" motor traffic, to let it
travel efficiently, and to free the current road for local, less
stressed, traffic, and make travelling more pleasant for all.

Ah, there is one flaw with that idea though, it is no longer
politically correct to build the motorways that we need to free our
local roads from heavy "through" traffic, to reduce congestion, to
reduce pollution, to reduce road casualties, and to increase journey
reliability. So it looks as though the best option is "d", sorry.

They built a motorway you can see it in the background.

I can't see it.

Nick is right. A motorway was built for through traffic. You can see
a roundabout above it in the background.

Quoted message said:

All I can see is a normal public road, open to all
modes of traffic. It appears to be snarled-up with, presumably,
non-local traffic held up too. Better, I think, to segregate the
non-local, longer distance, motor traffic onto a dedicated motorway.
That way they will be happier, not having their journey delayed with
local traffic, roundabouts, buses, delivery vans, cyclists, pedestrians,
etc., and the locals will be happier, because their roads would be less
clogged with traffic, and therefore more pleasurable to use.

Most of the traffic on that section of the A2 will have come from the
dual carriageway section of the A2 or from the Blackwall Tunnel and be
heading into Central London.

The traffic was flowing freely, probably within the 30mph speed limit.

Sir Jeremy said:

On 8 Apr, 21:07, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane

Quoted message said:

Note - banning motor vehicles, though a favoured option of mine, is
not a valid option.

That rather asinine comment shows what a selfish person you are

Coming from you, I take that as a great compliment. Thank you.

I'd be insulted if you agreed with me.

On 9 Apr, 18:15, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 05:08:44 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy

Quoted message said:

On 8 Apr, 21:07, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Note - banning motor vehicles, though a favoured option of mine, is
not a valid option.

Quoted message said:

That rather asinine comment shows what a selfish person you are

Coming from you, I take that as a great compliment.  Thank you.

I'd be insulted if you agreed with me.

So you're smug as well as selfish?

Sir Jeremy said:

On 9 Apr, 18:15, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 05:08:44 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy

Quoted message said:

On 8 Apr, 21:07, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane

Quoted message said:

> Note - banning motor vehicles, though a favoured option of mine, is
> not a valid option.

Quoted message said:

That rather asinine comment shows what a selfish person you are

Coming from you, I take that as a great compliment.  Thank you.

I'd be insulted if you agreed with me.

So you're smug as well as selfish?

I'm delighted to appear both smug and selfish to you.

In article said:

Quoting Chris Smith <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Urban roads are massively overcrowded, and some give & take is required
to make it all work. If the main road can flow better for not having the
bike lane, and cyclists can have a rather more pleasant experience for
the piffling cost of an extra km or two - I'd say that's a reasonable
solution.

If the roads are overcrowded, why the hell should vehicles that don't take
up much space be diverted while ones that do get an additional advantage?

Based on the photo, because there are far fewer of the former to be
disadvantaged. Of course if the aim of those planning the system was
to change that, rather than pander to the existing majority, then the
answer might be different.

But in fact, based on the photo, removing the cycle lane wouldn't make
the remaining traffic flow better in the slightest, so the question is
irrelevent.

Tom Crispin said:

Matt B said:

Nick said:

Matt B wrote:
> Tom C wrote:
>> On 8 Apr, 22:28, Matt B <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane
>>>> Would this road be better for cyclists:
>>>> a. without a cycle lane
>>>> b. with a segregated cycle lane
>>>> c. with cycles banned
>>>> d. left as it is
>>>> e. other - please state
>>>> Note - banning motor vehicles, though a favoured option of mine, is
>>>> not a valid option.
>>> Where exactly is it? How wide is the road? What day is it? What time
>>> of day is it?
>> The A2 Shooters Hill Road across Blackheath.
> Thanks. The A2, so some of the motor traffic will be /through/
> traffic, on a mission, rather than /local/ tootling traffic. The best
> option then is to segregate the "through" motor traffic, to let it
> travel efficiently, and to free the current road for local, less
> stressed, traffic, and make travelling more pleasant for all.
>
> Ah, there is one flaw with that idea though, it is no longer
> politically correct to build the motorways that we need to free our
> local roads from heavy "through" traffic, to reduce congestion, to
> reduce pollution, to reduce road casualties, and to increase journey
> reliability. So it looks as though the best option is "d", sorry.
>
They built a motorway you can see it in the background.

I can't see it.

Nick is right. A motorway was built for through traffic. You can see
a roundabout above it in the background.

That's north/south though - and is it a "motorway", or a public road?
The main traffic in the picture is travelling west - isn't it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All I can see is a normal public road, open to all
modes of traffic. It appears to be snarled-up with, presumably,
non-local traffic held up too. Better, I think, to segregate the
non-local, longer distance, motor traffic onto a dedicated motorway.
That way they will be happier, not having their journey delayed with
local traffic, roundabouts, buses, delivery vans, cyclists, pedestrians,
etc., and the locals will be happier, because their roads would be less
clogged with traffic, and therefore more pleasurable to use.

Most of the traffic on that section of the A2 will have come from the
dual carriageway section of the A2 or from the Blackwall Tunnel and be
heading into Central London.

The traffic was flowing freely, probably within the 30mph speed limit.

OK, I couldn't tell from the picture - it looks to be crawling from the
spacing, but perhaps it's the foreshortening. If there's no congestion,
then there's no excuse for a cycle lans, so it's probably your option
"a" that is the best solution all round.

--
Matt B

Chris Smith said:

Urban roads are massively overcrowded, and some give & take is required
to make it all work. If the main road can flow better for not having the
bike lane, and cyclists can have a rather more pleasant experience for
the piffling cost of an extra km or two - I'd say that's a reasonable
solution.

Let me put it this way. What is more likely to get car commuters out
of their cars and onto bikes: a cyclable route that is longer than the
driving route, or one that is shorter?

By all means provide improved conditions for cyclists where you can -
but don't make them worse elsewhere.

Quoted message said:

Of course this is sometimes taken to extremes by Sustrans; where the
contrived routes are just plain daft.

And, apparently, by the Olympic Delivery Authority. You have been warned.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.