Cycling by Design

Simon Brooke said:

In seeking to tackle various local farcilities I've been told that no
change could be made because the Scottish Executive's standard work on
cycle routes, 'Cycling by Design' either didn't mandate or didn't
require it.

I now discover 'Cycling by Design' is on line, here:
<URL:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-00.asp>, and one of the
things I'll be doing over the next few days is a critical review of it.
But if anyone else who wants to have a look and comment, it would help
me marshall my arguments.

It looks like an interesting document, and given the Scottish
Executive's eminently sensible position on the subject of H*****s,
possibly sensible debate will be paid heed to.

Not sure what to make of this page though:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-10.asp ??? :-)

I got to it by clicking "Next" at the bottom of:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-09.asp

Quoted message said:

Just to make it clear - I don't want to be destructive or simply
critical. This seems, in the main, a good document. I want to identify
those parts of it which are being used to provide excuses for poor
design and seek to have them strengthened.

A good plan.

I find the biggest problem with most traffic engineering is that it
tends to start from the idea that motor traffic should travel fast, and
then add in the idea that everyone else needs to be "herded". And then
when the motor traffic does what comes naturally in such fenced-off
urban channels, they throw in speed humps to slow it back down again.

One of the best schemes I saw was in Glasgow, where lots of traffic
lights were installed in Shawlands, changing at a very high frequency,
in order to break up the streams of traffic and let busses pull out. I
cycled through this area regularly for a couple of years and it was an
effective arrangement.

Simon Brooke said:

I now discover 'Cycling by Design' is on line, here:
<URL:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-00.asp>, and one of the
things I'll be doing over the next few days is a critical review of it.
But if anyone else who wants to have a look and comment, it would help
me marshall my arguments.

It's been on-line for ages. The standards it sets out seem generally
very high. Certainly no cycle lane round here comes even close to
meeting them.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

Simon Brooke said:

I now discover 'Cycling by Design' is on line, here:
<URL:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-00.asp>, and one of the
things I'll be doing over the next few days is a critical review of it.
But if anyone else who wants to have a look and comment, it would help
me marshall my arguments.

It's been on-line for ages. The standards it sets out seem generally
very high. Certainly no cycle lane round here comes even close to
meeting them.

Might that be because you are not in Scotland?

...d

in message <[email hidden]>,

dkahn400 (') said:

Simon Brooke said:

I now discover 'Cycling by Design' is on line, here:
<URL:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-00.asp>, and one of
the things I'll be doing over the next few days is a critical review
of it. But if anyone else who wants to have a look and comment, it
would help me marshall my arguments.

It's been on-line for ages. The standards it sets out seem generally
very high. Certainly no cycle lane round here comes even close to
meeting them.

What do m'learned fiends think of paras 6.54 - 6.61 [fig 6.2] and paras
6.62 - 6.67 [fig 6.3] on this page:

<URL:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-12.asp>

Fig 6.3 seems to me classic 'left hook' territory. Worse, it doesn't
appear to me that motorists will fully appreciate that they're expected
to give way /to the cycle lane/. Is 6.2 better? Does anyone know of
anywhere where a 6.2-like junction has actually been built, or is this
purely academic?

My draft of a response to the document as a whole is here:
<URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/tmp/review.html>
Comments welcomed.

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

;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
;; Jim Morrison

Pyromancer said:

One of the best schemes I saw was in Glasgow, where lots of traffic lights
were installed in Shawlands, changing at a very high frequency, in order
to break up the streams of traffic and let busses pull out. I cycled
through this area regularly for a couple of years and it was an effective
arrangement.

I was in Ghent two weekends ago, and a native of the town told me that the
cobblestones and generally bad road surfaces were for traffic calming. He
said that local residents would kick up a stink of the local authority
proposed removing cobbles, claiming that the streets would become
racetracks.
A road nearby to me in London is being resurfaced, and the surface with
all the tarmac scraped off is rough, has no road markings and plenty of
exposed drain covers. A marked reduction in vehicle speeds. Indeed a 4x4
overtook me when I was driving at about 20mph along it.

Yes, cycling on nice smooth tarmac is good and over a rough surface is
rotten.
But I really wonder if creating lumpy road surfaces has a part to play in
urban streets.
I'm not fan of road pillows - I believe it simply leads to four wheel
traffic weaving across the road to position wheels on either side, wit
consequent risk to cyclists.
Roll on some cobblestones I say.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

dkahn400 (') said:

Simon Brooke said:

I now discover 'Cycling by Design' is on line, here:
<URL:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-00.asp>, and one of
the things I'll be doing over the next few days is a critical review
of it. But if anyone else who wants to have a look and comment, it
would help me marshall my arguments.

It's been on-line for ages. The standards it sets out seem generally
very high. Certainly no cycle lane round here comes even close to
meeting them.

What do m'learned fiends think of paras 6.54 - 6.61 [fig 6.2] and paras
6.62 - 6.67 [fig 6.3] on this page:

<URL:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-12.asp>

Fig 6.3 seems to me classic 'left hook' territory. Worse, it doesn't
appear to me that motorists will fully appreciate that they're expected
to give way /to the cycle lane/. Is 6.2 better? Does anyone know of
anywhere where a 6.2-like junction has actually been built, or is this
purely academic?

Off road track:
If there is to be a parallel cycle track with the same priority as the
main road over a minor road, then this is as good as it can be.
This is however useful ammunition for throwing at the city engineers
who have nasty schemes in the back of their mind. (Despite the best
efforts of the local council cycling officer, the head engineer is a
timid cyclist who seems to like the poor facilities. Being able to call
him to account wrt a published design guideline will be fantastic.)

On road lane:
There is no difference here between a left hook with the cycle lane and
a left hook without.

Quoted message said:

My draft of a response to the document as a whole is here:
<URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/tmp/review.html>
Comments welcomed.

Might be a several of years beyond the comments deadline?

...d

Quoted message said:

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

;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
;; Jim Morrison

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:31:48 +0000, Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I now discover 'Cycling by Design' is on line, here:
<URL:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-00.asp>, and one of the
things I'll be doing over the next few days is a critical review of it.
But if anyone else who wants to have a look and comment, it would help
me marshall my arguments.

Before you get too bogged down in it, why not phone Roger or Adam at
CTC?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

David Martin said:

dkahn400 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's been on-line for ages. The standards it sets out seem generally
very high. Certainly no cycle lane round here comes even close to
meeting them.

Might that be because you are not in Scotland?

It might well be so. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the
nothernmost nation of the Union is also the most civilised.

I'm undecided about the principle of good standards for cycle
facilities really. If they were to be built to a very high standard
they might just be a Good Thing (TM). However, I will take some
convincing that on-road or parallel-to-the-road facilities should be
built at all. Completely separate routes, well surfaced and maintained,
are possibly a different matter. But not the farce we have at the
moment for the majority of cycle routes; I accept there is a small
number of notable exceptions.

What happens round here is that the traffic engineers say, in effect,
we don't have the space on this bit of road to build to the standard
we'd like to, so here you go with an 18" lane full of ironwork. I'd
much rather they realised that if they can't build the facility to a
decent standard it would be much better if they didn't build it at all.
Actually they probably do realise that but they don't give a [censored]
because they have to use up the paint budget. The degradation of
conditions for cycling seems to be of no concern whatsoever, indeed it
often seems to be deliberate.

--
Dave...