[Closed] In Praise of Sustrans and Traffic-Free Cycle Paths (photos)

This looks awful:

[img] [/img]

This is good though

[img] [/img]

It's not just about that, it's about being at liberty to do my sport, which is cycling quickly.

he was talking about commuting

Take my family (please...)

I'm not sure what you expect to do about people who apparently can't walk or use wheelchairs.

And presenting it as "cycle paths OR public transport" is a bogus argument. As is the whole "cycle paths OR the NHS" point.

Why can't it be "cycle paths OR cars", "cycle paths OR high speed rail link"? Or even "cycle paths or Trident"?

the Dutch embarked on a massive programme of building segregated facilities from the late 1980s: it didn't lead to an increase in cycling. "build it and they will come" is a nonsense.

Figures?

They did something right:
[img] [/img]

Looks like a reasonable recovery in the 80's to me:
[img] [/img]

[i]People (some people, that I am in no position to accurately quantify) want to cycle in a traffic free environment.[/i]

But in foreign, people cycle because it's the best way of getting about, regardless of traffic, and that's the way we should go, not running away to our special little paths..

Molgrips, IMO its not the cycle lane spoiling the asthetic of that picture. Though all the metal bits both in and out of the cycle lane are a bit odd. Any idea what they're all for/do?

That's technically true, numbers of Dutch and Danish cyclists are now falling slightly I believe. But they kept their levels of cycling higher than anywhere else in Europe in the face of enormous pressure from private motor vehicles.

Correlation is not causation!

There's no evidence that this was anything to do with segregated facilities - given that mass vehicle ownership existed for many years before they embarked on the segregation schemes.

Bogota in Columbia still has fairly paltry cycling levels (about 5% apparently) but it's an example of somewhere which saw a big increase in cycling after building proper infrastructure (and improving the bike-friendliness of public transport).

Closer to home, London has seen a significant increase in cycling without much segregated infrastructure. What's the explanation?

People do cycle in Cambridge (and Oxford and York) because it is time competitive. Cambridge has little segregated infrastructure.

And yet the Cambridge Cycle Campaign are crying out for it.

In a country where car registration tax costs 200% of the cost of the car (Denmark) is it any wonder that people use bikes?

Ransos there may be a touch of oversimplification there. I think you've got a point when you say that some people will trade off a bit more personal risk for a quicker journey, but it's not a choice that people should have to make.

It's pretty clear that new cyclists want safe routes. They perceive that traffic-free routes are the way to achieve this (though my understanding is that they're not actually any safer...)

Are you getting your figures from the same place as Mike Penning?

the minute you begin to segregate cyclists from 'traffic', road design begins to ignore them

Oh you mean like this segregation in Germany:

-- from http://katsdekker.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/frantically-soaking-up-some-cycling.html

No sign of road design ignoring segregated cyclists there. Quite the opposite actually.

Looks like a reasonable recovery in the 80's to me:

Your graph shows that cycling rates in 2006 were about the same as 1988. How is that an advert for building segregated facilities?

How do you explain the significant increase in cycling in places like London, which have very little segregated infrastructure?

Molgrips, IMO its not the cycle lane spoiling the asthetic of that picture.

I didn't mean aesthetics, I meant it looked like an awful cycle path. Small metal bollards and low metal loops IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PATH.

Flippin eck! Also what might be crosswalks.. and I'd hope those pedestrians do a better job of keeping off the path than they do here.

No sign of road design ignoring segregated cyclists there.

Graham, one example doesn't really help the debate, does it? That could be rare or unique, we don't know.

molgrips - Member
This looks awful

It's probably better than sharing a road with a bunch of looney Colombians.

Isn't that the sort of attitude that causes friction in the first place, people not wanting to be held up in their cars etc? Aren't cyclists supposed to be a bit more laid back about it all?

How do you explain the significant increase in cycling in places like London, which have very little segregated infrastructure?

Well apparently (I don't have any figures to hand) there was a massive jump in the numbers of cyclists after 7/7. So all we have to do is commit terrorist atrocities on public transport in every other city in the UK and we'll be sorted.

It's frankly disgusting that some people here don't want pedestrians getting in the way of them on 'their cyclepaths'.

Well, when I'm cycling I like to keep to the side of the road so motorists can pass easily and quickly.

On most cyclepaths, there are usually pedestrians wandering all over the place, and even standing around chatting. I think if I tried the same thing on the roads on my bike it would not be fair, would it?

I don't mind sharing the paths, I just want them to be aware that they are on a cyclepath. Not too much to ask, is it?

How do you explain the significant increase in cycling in places like London, which have very little segregated infrastructure?

??? The fact that some places manage to increase cycling without any segregated paths doesn't mean segregation doesn't work, it just means there are other levers to pull too.

London did the "superhighways", Boris Bikes, congestion charging, tube strikes, TfL promotion, and it has incredibly slow traffic. These all helped.

Do you think some properly segregated paths would cause cycling to fall in London?

I didn't mean aesthetics, I meant it looked like an awful cycle path. Small metal bollards and low metal loops IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PATH.

Yeah that's an odd design. 😕 And very narrow given the apparent pedestrian are to the side. I think the hoops are supposed to make you get in the correct lane as you go through the pedestrian crossing.

Graham, one example doesn't really help the debate, does it? That could be rare or unique, we don't know.

Read the accompanying blog post. It's not.

Are you getting your figures from the same place as Mike Penning?

No idea what you're talking about...

1. Cycling is a relatively safe activity in the UK, though less safe than Holland.
2. The increased safety in Holland is roughly what we would expect from safety in numbers. See

3. Cycling safety has improved significantly in places like London, yet there has been no large programme of segregated facilities.

It's frankly disgusting that some people here don't want pedestrians getting in their way on 'their cyclepaths'.
This is the same as motorists not wanting cyclists getting in their way on 'their roads'.

Not really. If pedestrians walked on the left side of the lane nobody cares.
But when 4 pedestrians walk side by side blocking the whole path it gets a bit irritating. Still fuming!! Lol
Imagine the reaction if 4 roadies blocked an entire road cycling side by side.

On most cyclepaths, there are usually pedestrians wandering all over the place

I don't mind sharing the paths, I just want them to be aware that they are on a cyclepath. Not too much to ask, is it?

A (polite) bell helps. As does a cheery "hello" or "Thanks" when they move.

It's all about education, reinforcing good behaviour and good cyclist PR.

I think the hoops are supposed to make you get in the correct lane as you go through the pedestrian crossing

Pretty severe penalty if you don't!

On most cyclepaths, there are usually pedestrians wandering all over the place, and even standing around chatting. I think if I tried the same thing on the roads on my bike it would not be fair, would it?

Your analogy fails because the path is not a road. It's a shared use path.

They do it on divided cyclepaths too.

A quick ring of the bell, a cheery hello... Y'know, nice human interaction.

Ok that's fine, but it means I can't ride fast. Which is why I often choose the roads, cos I can ride fast legally and safely.

My point once again is that I would be concerned about ghettoisation, which I think is a real risk. Cyclists need to be accepted on the roads, as well as on cyclepaths.

??? The fact that some places manage to increase cycling without any segregated paths doesn't mean segregation doesn't work, it just means there are other levers to pull too.

London did the "superhighways", Boris Bikes, congestion charging, tube strikes, TfL promotion, and it has incredibly slow traffic. These all helped.

Do you think some properly segregated paths would cause cycling to fall in London?

I think that, as with Holland, it would make no difference whatsoever.

I think the hoops are supposed to make you get in the correct lane as you go through the pedestrian crossing

That's not a ped crossing - it looks like an access to the building, and hence is a 2-way give way to cross the bike path. Bikes have priority.

The hoops do seem odd though. Actually the poles do too (except those demarking the access "road"

Well apparently (I don't have any figures to hand) there was a massive jump in the numbers of cyclists after 7/7. So all we have to do is commit terrorist atrocities on public transport in every other city in the UK and we'll be sorted.

Shall we not go there?

Well if you really want to go there, then judging by the graph of deaths on roads (other thread?), the best way to halve them is to have a war 😕

Ok that's fine, but it means I can't ride fast. Which is why I often choose the roads, cos I can ride fast legally and safely.

And what do you do on the roads at traffic lights, roundabouts, junctions, heavy traffic, trucks, buses, roadworks? You slow down or stop.

Just different "hazards", that's all.
You have that. I have a few peds, some dog walkers and the odd gate.

I'll bet you have to slow down more often than I do.

London has seen a significant increase in cycling without much segregated infrastructure. What's the explanation?

Very simply, public transport fare increases.
Imagine the increases with a carrot as well as the stick.

Just different "hazards", that's all.
You have [s]that[/s] [b]a massive group of school kids standing around, mothers pushing pushchairs three abreast....[/b] I have a few peds, some dog walkers and the odd gate.

And what do you do on the roads at traffic lights, roundabouts, junctions, heavy traffic, trucks, buses, roadworks? You slow down or stop.

As you do on urban segregated routes, at every junction.

It's worth looking here: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Every single study shows that segregated paths either make no difference to safety, or make it worse.

You've yet to show me which places have significantly increased cycling because of segregation.

You've yet to show it didn't help in the Netherlands.

I'm not an expert. I don't have all the figures. I'm not even sure all the figures exist.

But I do know that people consistently ask for segregation. Several people on this very thread have cited examples of family members who only cycle because they have access to traffic-free routes. I personally will only be cycling on Sunday with my family because I have such access.

It's not the only solution by a long way. Neither is it a panacea.
But I'm thoroughly convinced that safe routes = more cycling.

The increased safety in Holland is roughly what we would expect from safety in numbers.

What was it you were saying about correlation and causation?

Cycling in London has indeed got safer. No-one really seems to know why but I'd guess that safety in numbers, a clued-up affluent cycling community and the congestion charge are all factors. However there are now signs that casualty numbers are starting to creep back up again.
http://road.cc/content/blog/49070-cycling-london-getting-safer

And what do you do on the roads at traffic lights, roundabouts, junctions, heavy traffic, trucks, buses, roadworks? You slow down or stop.

As you do on urban segregated routes, at every junction.

You've yet to show it didn't help in the Netherlands.

So you'd like me to prove a negative? Doh!

But I do know that people consistently ask for segregation. Several people on this very thread have cited examples of family members who only cycle because they have access to traffic-free routes. I personally will only be cycling on Sunday with my family because I have such access.

It's not the only solution by a long way. Neither is it a panacea.

But I'm thoroughly convinced that safe routes = more cycling.

As you do on urban segregated routes, at every junction.

There are more traffic lights than side roads on my route as discussed earlier.

And any reason why bikes have to give way to cars at side roads like that?
A continental design would be for the cars to give way to bikes, reinforced by a raised section that continues the segregated path across the side road and which cars must slow down to cross, like a speed bump.

Every single study shows that segregated paths either make no difference to safety, or make it worse.

It's worth looking here: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Every single study shows that segregated paths either make no difference to safety, or make it worse.

A selective list compiled from pre-2000 data by a bloke who makes his living from telling people to cycle on the road!

What was it you were saying about correlation and causation?

If cycling in numbers doesn't improve safety then there must be another explanation for the data, which shows that accident rates are invariably in proportion to the level of cycling. Can you think of one?

Cycling in London has indeed got safer. No-one really seems to know why but I'd guess that safety in numbers, a clued-up affluent cycling community and the congestion charge are all factors. However there are now signs that casualty numbers are starting to creep back up again.
http://road.cc/content/blog/49070-cycling-london-getting-safer

A selective list compiled from pre-2000 data by a bloke who makes his living from telling people to cycle on the road!

In which case there must be a wealth of studies out there to contradict him. Do you know of any? I am genuinely interested...

So you'd like me to prove a negative? Doh!

I've shown the figures for the Netherlands that show the fall in cycling levelling out then starting to increase again just at the point where you said they started building segregated paths to no effect.

So yes, prove segregation had no impact on that and it was entirely down to other factors.

People ask for all sorts of things. That doesn't mean we should do them.

Well quite. But this works. Several people here are offering their personal stories telling you how it works for them. That these paths have got other people cycling.

Once again I ask:

Would you let your young child cycle to school on roads?

How about if there was a traffic-free route where they could cycle with their friends?

How many unnecessary school runs would that eliminate? Less cars on the road. More fit kids with an interest in cycling. Jobsagoodun.

there must be a wealth of studies out there to contradict him. Do you know of any?

First off, that's not a "study", it's a blog post. The bloke is a self-appointed expert par excellence, but in case you're interested, there's a dissection of his often-recycled journal article on the Milton Keynes cycle paths here: http://manchestercycling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/milton-keynes-redways.html

And secondly, you've touched on an unfortunate truth - research into cycling in particular is really thin on the ground, and when it's done, it's often not the sort of thing that could be influential on policy.

I've shown the figures for the Netherlands that show the fall in cycling levelling out then starting to increase again just at the point where you said they started building segregated paths to no effect.

The graph shows that cycling rates in 2006 were the same as 1988. I believe that they fallen since 2006.

So yes, prove segregation had no impact on that and it was entirely down to other factors.

Well quite. But this works. Several people here are offering their personal stories telling you how it works for them. That these paths have got other people cycling.

The plural of anecdote is not data. There is no evidence that building segregated paths increases cycling overall.

Would you let your young child cycle to school on roads?

How about if there was a traffic-free route where they could cycle with their friends?

First off, that's not a "study", it's a blog post.

Eh? He quoted umpteen studies. There must be other ones you can provide, surely?

The bloke is a self-appointed expert par excellence, but in case you're interested, there's a dissection of his often-recycled journal article on the Milton Keynes cycle paths here: http://manchestercycling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/milton-keynes-redways.html

I think that to some extent here we're all arguing from a position of faith. There are many variables that could come into play - the quality of the infrastructure and its effect on cyclists' right to use the roads are two that get mentioned frequently.

The thing that really swings it for me is the moral argument. Why have we come to favour one mode of transport so massively over others, and (literally) marginalise the most vulnerable road users? It's a seriously messed-up situation, and "MTFU" or "do nothing and things will be fine" won't cut it as an answer.

The graph shows that cycling rates in 2006 were the same as 1988. I believe that they fallen since 2006.

Yes and it also shows the initial steep steep decline was halted and reversed during the period they were building those segregated paths.

The Dutch have probably the safest roads to cycle on in the world. Why is that? Numbers, respect, and infrastructure.

Again, showing me a drawing of how you're going to fit one into a typical urban street.

I'm not a traffic engineer. The Hembrow blog has numerous examples. See also flickr, Cambridge Cycle Campaign, Copenhagenize, Cycling Embassy of Great Britain etc

Here's a nice video of redesigning a crossroads Dutch style

So we now have two conflicting opinions

That's not an opinion-based piece at all. You should probably take the time to read it.

Again, showing me a drawing of how you're going to fit one into a typical urban street.

Okay tell you what - just for giggles - give me a realistically "typical urban street". Your choice. Google maps location will do. I'll have a go at making it cycle friendly my way.

I'm not a traffic engineer and there are likely to be many flaws with what I come up with - but it might be an interesting exercise.

The thing that really swings it for me is the moral argument. Why have we come to favour one mode of transport so massively over others, and (literally) marginalise the most vulnerable road users? It's a seriously messed-up situation, and "MTFU" or "do nothing and things will be fine" won't cut it as an answer.

I agree completely. But segregation is not a solution...for one thing, it's exceptionally impolite to effectively privatise part of the street just to satisfy the small minority who want it, especially when it doesn't appear to achieve anything.

BTW - I used to be in favour of segregation, but have been persuaded otherwise by the evidence.

Yes and it also shows the initial steep steep decline was halted and reversed during the period they were building those segregated paths.

No it doesn't. Cycling was increasing already. Look at it again.

The Dutch have probably the safest roads to cycle on in the world. Why is that? Numbers, respect, and infrastructure.

BTW - your picture already has cycle paths. I'm asking you what you're going to take space from to create them.

it's exceptionally impolite to effectively privatise part of the street just to satisfy the small minority who want it

What are roads, pavements, bus lanes, taxi lanes, tram tracks, footpaths and motorways if not exactly that?

I used to be in favour of segregation, but have been persuaded otherwise by the evidence.

I used to be against segregation for the same reasons as molgrips, but have been persuaded otherwise by evidence and eloquent arguments. 😀

Cyclists are a minority. People who want to cycle but think it's too dangerous, or just for sporty fit types, are a sizeable chunk of the populace.

your picture already has cycle paths. I'm asking you what you're going to take space from to create them.

Might I suggest removing the hordes of parked cars that line every urban street. I know it's a god-given right to be able to park your car outside your house, but at some point we're going to have to face the fact that it's a massive appropriation of public space with some seriously negative consequences for other road users.

Moan moan moan ... all these disused railway tracks laying idle and overgrown ... moan moan moan.

Look at any map and you will see loads of them, such a waste!

Interest bit on Newsnight the other night:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ll5vg/Newsnight_02_08_2012/?t=14m06

First time I've heard "move cars out the way for bikes" being discussed seriously on national news.

What are roads, pavements, bus lanes, taxi lanes, tram tracks, footpaths and motorways if not exactly that?

Facilities for public transport and pedestrians generally have a common good. If there were a good reason for segregated cycling facilities then you might have a point...

I used to be against segregation for the same reasons as molgrips, but have been persuaded otherwise by evidence and eloquent arguments

I think in the future we'll see more homezones, naked streets, 20mph zones, congestion charging, cycle hire, parking charges and higher fuel prices. All of these things will make our streets more convivial, and do so much more for cycling than segregation.

Going back to Sustrans, they have some brilliant routes but others are really badly signed.

From Preston, think its route 62, its well signed all the way through and theres a really nice section of disused Tramway thats well fast ( well apart from pedestrians ) and it links all through Avenham Park.

On the other hand, route 55 through Wigan disappears completely in places.

Shame really as they seem to have trouble getting funding as it takes ages but they do a good job when they start.

Might I suggest removing the hordes of parked cars that line every urban street. I know it's a god-given right to be able to park your car outside your house, but at some point we're going to have to face the fact that it's a massive appropriation of public space with some seriously negative consequences for other road users.

Well indeed. I believe one of the negative effects in Copenhagen was to increase parking pressure in side streets (having banned parking on roads with cycle paths), which then made the side streets less safe for cyclists. The answer of course is fewer cars, which can be achieved by serious restrictions on their use, such as congestion charging and parking permits.

Facilities for public transport and pedestrians generally have a common good. If there were a good reason for segregated cycling facilities then you might have a point...

I'm pretty sure facilitating cheap, sustainable, healthy, enjoyable personal transport and leisure activity is a "common good".

Why are black cabs more deserving of lane than bikes for instance? How do they provide a greater common good?

I think in the future we'll see more homezones, naked streets, 20mph zones, congestion charging, cycle hire, parking charges and higher fuel prices. All of these things will make our streets more convivial,

I'm sure we will and I agree they will all massively help, but...

and do so much more for cycling than segregation.

See you say [i]"segregation"[/i] like I'm suggesting all bikes should be segregated from all other traffic like some kind of weird transport apartheid.

I'm not.

I'm just saying we need some safe traffic-free routes and right now I think that would do more to encourage new cyclists than forcing them to resentfully to bikes with more taxes and charges.

No point in having a big stick if the carrot is rotten.

I cycle that route fairly frequently but from further out of town. If I was going to work alone, early in the morning, I would choose the road from Ovingham through Wylam rather than the cycle track for similar reasons to molgrips- plus the road alternative is hardly a busy main road. For that reason I would not welcome enforced segregation. If cycling that route with my children, which we have done several times, I wouldn't consider taking them on the road. Last year we did he Coast and Castles as a family and I was particularly impressed with the way we were directed through the towns en route.

That route into Newcastle is great. It's not the same coming in from the North, or the NW. Try going from the quayside to Gosforth for example. For that, segregated, high quality dedicated routes would be tremendous.

We've been down on the quayside this afternoon and cyclists and pedestrians mix easily, there's loads of space and (get this) give and take on both sides.

Incidentally, before everyone moves to the North East in search of this cycling utopia, it's really horrible up here, you really wouldn't like it 😉

Going back to Sustrans, they have some brilliant routes but others are really badly signed.

Yep that can be an issue. The maps help, as do the smartphone apps.

Get involved with [url= http://openstreetmap.org ]OpenStreetMap[/url] / [url= http://www.opencyclemap.org/ ]OpenCycleMap[/url] / [url= http://www.cyclestreets.net ]CycleStreets[/url] and help produce better maps that reflect what is on the ground and help other cyclists find good routes.

One of the problems in comparing the UK with other places is that our economy has become ever more based on motorised transport, and attempts to improve cycling facilities will be swimming upstream because of that.

Take hospitals; my hospital recruits staff from a massive catchment area, and with increasing concentration of services, this is likely to get bigger, not smaller. To concentrate efforts on cycling would improve matters for a small local population rather than making things better for the majority.

In terms of actually moving economically viable numbers of people, the answer has to lie in improving public transport, not in concentrating on cycling.

It's people moving which needs improving...

I've been involved in a slight discussion about dangerous roads this morning. It's not the roads that are dangerous but the users. Sure, there are features of he roads which be dangerous if the users are ignorant of the dangers but that's still down to the users.

We regularly cycle into Hexham. To do so we cross a bridge and ride up and down a narrowish, twisty road which is the main road into the village. People often overtake us in crazy places. These are not bad people, not malicious, we often know who it is, but they clearly have no idea about the danger they are causing themselves and us. Curing that and somehow facilitating mixing of all road users would make everything so much safer.

Going back to Sustrans, they have some brilliant routes but others are really badly signed.

Yep that can be an issue. The maps help, as do the smartphone apps.

Get involved with OpenStreetMap / OpenCycleMap / CycleStreets and help produce better maps that reflect what is on the ground and help other cyclists find good routes.

I agree. The Sustrans app needs work as well unfortunatly, as at one point, it tries to take you down a disused railway on route 55 thats under 4 feet of water 🙄

If I was going to work alone, early in the morning, I would choose the road from Ovingham through Wylam rather than the cycle track for similar reasons to molgrips- plus the road alternative is hardly a busy main road

Oooh really? I wouldn't. From Ovingham you just need to [url= http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=15&lat=54.97011&lon=-1.84112&layers=B00 ]go across the bridge to Prudhoe and you're on the N72[/url] - nice quiet path by the river, through the field with the horses in it then across the Hagg Bank Bridge to Wylam.

The Ovingham Road isn't busy, but it is [url= http://goo.gl/maps/iH14X ]a narrowish NSL with blind bends[/url]. Can't see any reason to take that over the cycle path myself.

For that reason I would not welcome enforced segregation.

I don't think anyone here would welcome enforced segregation.

It's not the same coming in from the North, or the NW. Try going from the quayside to Gosforth for example. For that, segregated, high quality dedicated routes would be tremendous.

[url= http://newcycling.org/ ]Newcastle Cycle Campaign[/url] are pushing for improvements round there. Are you a member? 😀

We've been down on the quayside this afternoon and cyclists and pedestrians mix easily, there's loads of space and (get this) give and take on both sides.

Yep, nice innit? Bit of human interaction. Bit of British "after you". Lovely.

Much prefer it to [i]"beep beep pay your f***ing road tax beep.. SMIDSY"[/i] 😀

Take hospitals; my hospital recruits staff from a massive catchment area

This is an issue. We live where we live because it is roughly in the middle of the deanery that my missus rotates around (as a Senior Registrar or whatever they are called now). Her current post is 25 miles away. She could also end up at Middlesborough which is 50 miles the other direction. Or Carlisle which is another 50 miles away.

That, combined with shift work, forces her to use a car.

Sadly that is a common story. Plenty of UK employers just expect you to have a car and drive.

Shift work is a major problem, particularly when it means traveling to and from work in the dark for 6 months of the year after or before 12 to 14 hour shifts.

Right, I'm off to [s]terrorise some pedestrians[/s] ride politely and sensibly on my route home.

I have ridden many of these roads and tracks in the past week whilst staying with my mother in law in Throckley; this being the first time I've ever bothered taking a bike along.

I must say that it was a pleasure to ride all the roads up there and I got 200 miles in over the days we were visiting. I found the standard of driving and consideration from the drivers refreshing compared to the Huddersfield/Manchester area roads (except for the **** in a Lamborghini with something like TY4 LNT number plate who nearly took me out).

The military road over to Greenhead was my favoutite and I never felt unsafe. However the A69 back to Newcastle at rush hour was more like riding on a motorway and not an experience I would like to repeat too often.

I do like the Sustrans ethos though and have direct debited them a tenner as month for years - would be as good contribution to cycling for anyone, I reckon.

However the A69 back to Newcastle at rush hour was more like riding on a motorway and not an experience I would like to repeat too often.

You rode your bike on the A69?

😯

Congratulations on still being here.

People who want to cycle but think it's too dangerous, or just for sporty fit types, are a sizeable chunk of the populace

Hmm.. Call me cynical but I suspect that if the roads were devoid of traffic a lot of them might find some other excuse...

You rode your bike on the A69?
Congratulations on still being here.

Seconded. The A69 and the A1 are the two roads in particular that I'm very happy to avoid by taking the off-road route.

Personally I wouldn't ride on any NSL dual carriageway.
Hats off to those that do - but those roads are a no-go for me.

Hmm.. Call me cynical

Well okay, but then what are we going to call cynic-al? 😉

but I suspect that if the roads were devoid of traffic a lot of them might find some other excuse...

Probably true in some cases. But as illustrated on this thread some of us have direct experience of those paths encouraging non-cyclists to come out for a ride.

On the way home I was mentally auditing some of the folk I saw cycling on the path. Commuters aside, I'd say many of them would struggle in city traffic: old boy in flat cap on a bone shaker, couple of families with young kids, some red-faced beginners on BSOs, couple of tourers with full panniers and backpacks, and a three folk in their fifties who appeared completely flummoxed by a simple gate. 😕

Commuters aside, I'd say many of them would struggle in city traffic: old boy in flat cap on a bone shaker, couple of families with young kids, some red-faced beginners on BSOs, couple of tourers with full panniers and backpacks, and a three folk in their fifties who appeared completely flummoxed by a simple gate.

I see those people on busy roads all the time. They really do not appear connected with their surroundings in any way. They swerve all over the place and never check behind them.
Amazes me.

You rode your bike on the A69?

Congratulations on still being here.

Was ok from Greenhead until around Corbridge area - when I got there it was about 08.15hrs and much of the traffic seemed in a rush to get to Newcastle.

As I said only had a close one with one car in all the time up there. Get more close calls round here on a short run into town, reckon you're pretty lucky with your drivers further up North.

Was in Edinburgh a few years back and was shocked with what cyclists got away with.

Mind you, I'm on the Yorkshire side of the Pennines so it's not all bad. When I venture to Manchester people intentionally cut you up, especially if they see you coming up the inside in a cycle lane. Nine times out of ten at least one car will pull over to block you.

+1 on being converted bybevidence and experience.

See my last post on Wiggins effect thread for riposte to Molgrips too slow/sport cycling gripes.

Molgrips - new A48 cycle lane between Penhow and Newport is a waste of money. If they'd used raised speed humps at the junctions, or reassigned the masses of space wasted on central hatching, then it could have been excellent. Certainly space isn't a problem.

Newcastle Cycle Campaign are pushing for improvements round there. Are you a member?

I am now 🙂

Good Man. If you are on Facebook then you can join the "Friends of Newcastle Cycle Campaig" there too - that's probably the most active discussion (I'm a fairly new member too).

-

FWIW I've just ridden two miles pulling a child trailer. 1st mile on Sustrans, second on 20 zone streets.

Got beeped and shouted at by the end of the second mile (apparently being in the middle of the road to turn right on a 20 zone residential street, signalling clearly, is not right for some reason) 🙁

1. People don't cycle in Milton Keynes because it isn't time competitive when compared to driving. Milton Keynes has extensive segregated infrastructure.

A rather selective reading. There's a more detailed piece on the MK redways [url= http://manchestercycling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/milton-keynes-redways.html ]here[/url]

Which says - "Whilst at the most superficial level, it can be argued that the Dutch and the Milton Keynes approaches are similar (they both involve some degree of separation of cycle and motor traffic), the similarities do not extend beyond the superficial. Unlike the Dutch approach to separate cycle infrastructure, designed to promote cycling by making it subjectively and objectively safer, direct and convenient, the Milton Keynes Redways are primarily an infrastructural intervention designed to benefit the private motorist by removing cyclists and pedestrians from the grid roads, permitting higher speeds and less-attentive driving, whilst leaving cyclists with a network of poorly signed, surfaced and maintained narrow two-way lanes with poor sight-lines, having no priority over side roads or driveways and bringing cyclists into conflict with pedestrians."

note the comment about both [b]subjectively and objectively safer[/b]. The superhighways in London are giving some illusion of the first but fail on the second (As well as the two well publicised deaths at Bow there have been serious accidents elsewhere on the two open CS routes.)

Closer to home, London has seen a significant increase in cycling without much segregated infrastructure. What's the explanation?

Some impact from the superhighways, sure, but far more from tube strikes (how Katie started riding) but it's still a MAMIL dominated environment. It doesn't feel safe and it's not safe. The whole helmet argument is about saying that it's dangerous.

Existing commuter cyclists (the members of LCC) voted by a decent majority for LCC to campaign for Dutch style infrastructure, 40k have signed their petition and 10,000 turned out in really filthy weather for the LCC's 'big ride'. (I expect you'll dismiss it as a small protest compared to X)

Martin Porter (The Cycling Lawyer) is [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/use-cycle-path-here-we-go-again.html ]not an advocate for segregated cycle routes[/url] (he seems to have swallowed the myth that they must be slow and would prevent sport cycling) but if he, a seasoned rider and long term commuter, the kind of fast riding MAMIL who is easiest to bring onto the roads, now says "Sad to say I have all but given up commuting into London now." [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/commuting.html ]Post [/url] there is surely something very wrong.

I would argue he's rejecting, good, useful infrastructure on the basis of the crap we're presented with at the moment. I struggle to see how he wouldn't be better off with segregated routes on the main roads he needs to use to get into London on his commute. 'Traffic calming' is rarely the answer on major routes - a number of the 'near miss' incidents he's posted videos of are caused by artificially created pinch points where there is actually sufficient space for segregated paths.

Now I really should stop arguing on the internet.