[Closed] The Wiggins effect. E-petition for bike paths

NOT the answer

NOT the answer

Oh FFS. Does everything around here have to be a argument?

I have kids. If they are going out on their bikes, I would prefer that they are on dedicated cycle paths, physically seperate from the road.

And they will be wearing helmets.

Surely no-one can sensible argue that cycle paths, physically seperate from traffic, are dangerous.

Proper cycle paths are good, e-petitions aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

NOT the answer

NOT the answer

NOT helpfull

I've signed it, cheers.

Not dangerous but addressing the symptoms not the problems.

It's suggested that similar money spent on promoting road safety would bring a better result

It's also been suggested that you cannot pass your driving test till you've passed your cycling proficiency which isn't the worst idea

In addition to improving driver attitudes, I'd much rather ride on..

dedicated cycle paths, physically separate from the road.

I aways wear a helmet and think others should do too.

Trail centre are good.

I like gears.

go birch yourselves.

But that's never going to happen is it, there simply isn't the room to do that on every road

Realistic solutions

If this really means anything to people may I suggest they join an organisation like the CTC, support and get involved with their lobbying.

And start writing to MP's, their own and those more closely involved in transport policy.

This will have a far bigger impact than just signing some silly e-petition. Especially if the effort is sustained over time.

But that's never going to happen is it, there simply isn't the room to do that on every road

Realistic solutions

It can, but it takes time, Germany and Holland didn't get their cycle path networks overnight, they started decades ago. Many of us may never see the full benefit of a proper cycle network, but it needs to start somewhere or no one ever will.

Signed.

I used to live in Germany and the cycle paths (proper ones, physically separated etc etc) were fantastic.

NOT the answer

I'm afraid they are. Or at least part of it.

Some keen cyclists (like druidh I assume) object to cycle paths because they want to use the road, as is their right, to ride quickly.

But that misses the point.

Those people [i]already cycle[/i], despite the current conditions.
[b]They are not the target audience![/b]

To make cycling safer and more respected we need to get more people cycling. And the number one reason given by any non-cyclists is that they don't feel safe on the road and would cycle if there was a suitable safe path.

We NEED to put those in place if we want more cyclists.

It still helps those on the road: Some path cyclists will graduate to cycling faster on the road. Some will gain an understanding of cycling that they apply when driving around cyclists on the road. And most will lose their animosity towards cyclists. Cycling facilities for all will improve.

But that's never going to happen is it, there simply isn't the room to do that on every road

Other countries manage it just fine.

Look at these fine examples:
http://www.hembrowcyclingholidays.com/comparisons.html

Every little helps......SIGNED!

GrahamS yep sounds sensible but I do worry about being driven off the roads, I mean surely most regular road riders have had "you should be in the cycle lane" shouted at them - and that's with the crap "infrastructure" (bit of green paint) we currently have

Well if there are so many of ourselves against trying to improve cycle safety how will we manage to convince the non-cyclists. I live in Bristol and being able to commute without being on the roads is a great help.

We all need to get behind things like this. e-petitions might not be the best way to get our point across but by not signing them are we just giving u before we've even started. We're a small country with a lot of people and a lot of cars. So surely it's safer for cyclist including children to get them off of the overcrowded roads. In the last 10 years fuel prices have more than doubled (69p per litre when I started) and there are still more cars on the road than then so that's proved that people won't stop driving. So we need to start looking at alternatives to this as well as educating us both cyclists and drivers about road awareness and courtesy for other road users

Blinkin flip - the attitude on here sometimes sucks beyond belief - unless it's a panacea it's rubbish! What a sh1te attitude, and one reason nothing ever gets done.

The more pressure points across the widest range of media/campaigns can only be a good thing. Keep the profile high, do everything you can and support all positive measures.

I have signed. I also think helmets are a great idea, saved my head twice so i support helmet wearing and Wiggo.

If you want to support new cycle paths and a lot of work in encouraging safer/more sustainable transport options you could do a lot worse that spend a fiver a month supporting sustrans.

email in profile if you want to become a supporter, btw 😉

I have been hoping for completion of a cycle path between Wells and Cheddar in Somerset for years its only 1m for 8 miles of path which would boost tourism .Even our MPis in favour of it.They may not be the answer to everything but kids and the more nervous cyclists like them .My fiancee has only just started riding with me and is rather nervous and wont cycle on the road yet but is happy to build her confidence on a dedicated path

Oh FFS. Does everything around here have to be a argument?

You startin?!

ps Ive signed.. 😉

You startin?!

Eh, calm down like!

Cycle paths CAN be good, but they CAN be worse than nothing.

If we get poor cycle paths with loads of junctions and entrances, and we're compelled to use them, that would seriously affect cycling as a sport rather than a means of transport.

If we get wide open dedicated lanes without interruption, that would be fantastic.

I used to live in Germany and the cycle paths (proper ones, physically separated etc etc) were fantastic.

Me too, and some were good, some were awful. A study there concluded that it was actually safer for cyclists to be in with the traffic where they could be seen, because so many accidents were caused by entrances and junctions, where the cyclists couldn't be seen.

I do wish that folk would stop giving the Netherlands as an example.

I'd guess that less than 2% of roads in The Netherlands has a dedicated cycle lane and figures show that Dutch cyclists are just as nervous on "ordinary" roads as we are.

Have a look at a road map of Britain. Zoom in to almost any city. Tell me where these dedicated cycle paths are going to be built. Are you going to knock down houses and widen existing roads? I think it's great that New Towns can build something in at the planning stage but how many centuries until we reach this traffic-free nirvana?

And what happens when the path ends? You're dumped on to the existing road network with drivers who are even [i]less[/i] experienced at sharing with cyclists.

The answer is to increase the number of cyclists using the roads until that becomes "normal", decrease speed limits in towns to 20mph, install more ASLs (and give bikes priority to treat any Stop Line as an ASL) and to change road layouts (especially in residential areas) to slow traffic down still further and give more priority to cyclists and pedestrians.

Signed.

I do wish that folk would stop giving the Netherlands as an example.

Okay. Here my personal example.

I commute to work by bike twice a week. More if I can.
It's an 11 mile commute and is almost entirely on Sustrans cycle paths or shared use pavements. I only do a few hundred yards on road.

If those paths didn't exist; if my only option was to use the road; then I'd be taking the car. Simple as that.

Tell me where these dedicated cycle paths are going to be built. Are you going to knock down houses and widen existing roads?

Take a look at the hembrow link above for some excellent examples of how cycle paths could fit with existing UK streets. The main lesson is: take space away from the cars!

Plenty more paths can be built away from roads. Old railway lines are excellent because they usually go somewhere sensible, already have bridges/tunnels etc, and are pretty straight. Any disused line could be converted to cycle track with some investment.

I'd [b]guess[/b] that less than 2% of roads in The Netherlands has a dedicated cycle lane and figures show that Dutch cyclists are just as nervous on "ordinary" roads as we are.

Typical STW hot air bo***x

GrahamS - Member - Quote
Take a look at the hembrow link above for some excellent examples of how cycle paths could fit with [b]some [/b]existing UK streets. The main lesson is: take space away from the cars!

12 votes?

We have had more posts on here about it - lol

The more pressure points across the widest range of media/campaigns can only be a good thing. Keep the profile high, do everything you can and support all positive measures.

The problem with e-petitions are that they are basically a political "card trick" make people [b]believe[/b] they are getting involved in politics, and stop them from really getting involved and doing something worthwhile.

Most of the UK road network has one lane going in each direction. Tell me how you are going to reduce space for cars.

How many of those roads [i]need[/i] to have traffic flowing on both directions? How many could be made one-way, with an adjacent road going the other way? How many could operate as a single lane with lights controlling direction of traffic (e.g. as they do at road works)? How many roads have parking on both sides, then a line of trees, then pavement?

And yes: obviously not [i]every[/i] street needs a cycle lane. Other measures, such as 20mph limits, will work too. As will providing high-quality paths via other routes.

Do you really think the UK road network is that different to the roads in other countries?

If those paths didn't exist; if my only option was to use the road; then I'd be taking the car. Simple as that.

What we are saying is that it might be better to make the road safer for cyclists rather than remove cyclists altogether.

I used to cycle down the A580 until they put the cycle path in. I quite liked the cycle path but it was a long way between junctions, but those junctions were a bit dangerous - generally very high speed (straight off or onto a NSL DC). Somehow it always seemed less stress to use the cycle path for the bulk of the ride but when junctions appeared more frequently it was far less stress to just get on the road and become the traffic.

ENDLESS abuse for not using the cycle path when I wanted to use the road though, including people throwing bottles at me.

Cycle path was generally left covered in glass/spikey hedge cuttings.

Better than cycle lanes, but IMO still worse than just riding on the road.

I was recently over in Aalborg, Denmark - the whole situation is reversed there. They have a 180% tax on every car sale/import so cars are remarkably rare - I saw more bikes than cars during my week long stay there. No-one complained about it being hard to get about, they just hopped on a bike, even when they worked 10km from home. The roads have off-road cycle paths and generally cyclists get right of way after peds. The whole city seemed more open and inviting to bikes but likewise the lack of cars probably provided most of that feel. Incidentally, didn't see a single overweight person lol.

Most of the UK road network has one lane going in each direction. Tell me how you are going to reduce space for cars.

Theres countless examples in cities where there is loads of space, its just given to cars instead. Almost every junction in London has at least two lanes queuing the lights for instance, since TFL much prefer to shorten the queue to cars rather than give the space to cyclists (and pedestrians). Of course, this just encourages more cars. Just take a look at the Blackfriars redesign.

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/the-physical-constraints-of-londons-streets/

Molgrips & druidh have it for me.

Integration not segregation

The answer is to increase the number of cyclists using the roads until that becomes "normal",

Crap infrastructure, like molgrips says, is just detrimental for everyone, we're getting all this money spent on us (so anger from motorists), possibly being forced off the roads but its actually more dangerous than what we have now.

What we are saying is that it might be better to make the road safer for cyclists rather than remove cyclists altogether.

Yep, but what I am saying is that if you want more new cyclists then you [i]need[/i] traffic-free paths away from the road. And more cyclists benefits everyone, including those using the road.

How many folk would let their kids ride 2 miles to school on the road on their own?

How about if there was a dedicated path where they could cycle to school safely with their mates?

Do you really think the UK road network is that different to the roads in other countries?

Yes, absolutely.

Yep, but what I am saying is that if you want more new cyclists then you need traffic-free paths away from the road

That would be welcome (as long as they weren't mandatory), but how the hell are we going to achieve that?

Molgrips & druidh have it for me.

Integration not segregation

This.
At the same time I totally agree with Graham S's arguments- we need to get the people who currently don't cycle out there. But riding on the road isn't dangerous- riding on the road when it's full of people not taking care where they're putting their ton of metal is dangerous. Surely that should be addressed for everybody's benefit rather than ceding the roads to cars?

IMO the way cars dominate the roads is effectively anti-social and needs to change, and I don't see how it will if efforts are directed towards keeping people away from them- that seems to me to just be reinforcing the idea that roads are for cars not people, and if you want to stray onto them, well, you're taking your chances.

Is that really what we want?

> Do you really think the UK road network is that different to the roads in other countries?
Yes, absolutely.

How so? The roads shown in that Hembrow link are all the [i]"one lane going in each direction"[/i] type that druidh was citing. Are the UK ones so different from the Dutch ones in those pictures?

That would be welcome (as long as they weren't mandatory), but how the hell are we going to achieve that?

Money!

We spend absolutely sweet FA on cycling infrastructure in the UK.
The Dutch spend £10-20 per cyclist per year. The UK spend is about 70p per head.

Yep, but what I am saying is that if you want more new cyclists then you need traffic-free paths away from the road. And more cyclists benefits everyone, including those using the road.

How many folk would let their kids ride 2 miles to school on the road on their own?

Partly because of the paranoia spread by the media and the liberal sprinkling of cycle lanes. Plenty of people round here cycle to school fairly large distances, with no specific cycle lanes. It's all about perceived risk and AFAIK the actual risk of cycling on the road has gone DOWN from when I was a kid, but it's been a while since I saw the numbers so I'd be willing to back down on that one.

Plenty of people round here cycle to school fairly large distances, with no specific cycle lanes.

Good, but if there were traffic-free cycle paths available to them do you think that number would go up or down?

I agree perceived risk is a problem though.
It is a real issue for cycling safety campaigns to say on one hand, "we need safer cycling facilities" but on the other "the risk has gone down"

MSP - Member The problem with e-petitions are that they are basically a political "card trick" make people believe they are getting involved in politics, and stop them from really getting involved and doing something worthwhile.

If you read the rest of the post, I did suggest that we use all possible routes, not just this one alone.

Graham. UK cities are far more crowded than many European ones. There is less space, population density is high but crucially CAR density is very high. We also have hedges down the sides of many of our suburban and rural roads, which makes widening them difficult.

Our road network is not made from planned modern roads mostly, it's ancient tracks that have been surfaced. These are major problems both in terms of planning and cost.

Car density is highest in the UK I think too which means there's more pressure on more of the network.

The answer is to increase the number of cyclists using the roads until that becomes "normal",

Honestly there is no need for cycle lanes in cities. Education would be much better. With the 3 foot rule and some proper targeting on people breaking this rule.
Once drivers will learn that overtaking to be the first to queue at a traffic light is useless things will move forward. On the other hand, cyclist flitering to be the first at the traffic light is IMHO very stupid.

As for lack of space-make space ,take it from the cars. Holland did and it is on of the most crowded countries in Europe. And as for cost,make the money available.We just splurged £9 billion on the Olympics whos elegacy is supposed to be more participation in sport and exercise.
Th eproblem is the vested interests big business car manufacturers etc have a bigger voice than us so win out,hence the reason why CM in the other thread try and reclaim the roads.

nick1962 - Member - Quote
As for lack of space-make space ,take it from the cars. Holland did and it

population density is high

As it is in the Netherlands. They are right behind England in the top 10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density

but crucially CAR density is very high

Circular argument. Car [i]density[/i] is high, because car [i]dependency[/i] is high, because cycling (and walking) is not a serious alternative.

To reverse that you need to build cycling and walking infrastructure.

Our road network is not made from planned modern roads mostly, it's ancient tracks that have been surfaced. These are major problems both in terms of planning and cost.

As there were in other countries. Our history is not unique.

NOT the answer

So what is then?

There's no point in saying suggestions for improvements are no good but not suggesting alternatives.

wisepranker - Member - Quote
> NOT the answer
So what is then?

There's no point in saying suggestions for improvements are no good but not suggesting alternatives.

GrahamS - Member
Our road network is not made from planned modern roads mostly, it's ancient tracks that have been surfaced. These are major problems both in terms of planning and cost.
As there were in other countries. Our history is not unique.

What we need is a massive war that destroys much or our current city infrastructure....

We have fought in the same wars as the rest of Europe.

cycle lane provisions were started after most of the rebuilding work had been done in Holland and Germany, and the towns and cities are still much the same as the UK, they generally were not planned with cycling in mind then, although it takes a greater planning priority now.

I think America can help with the war, they seem to pick on everyone else, why not us

Look at the infrastructure photos on this page:
http://www.hembrowcyclingholidays.com/photos.html

Watch this video:

Almost every single child at that school cycles there. Why?

At this secondary school they have 850 parking spaces for the 725 pupils.

[img] [/img]

In winter the rate of pupils cycling sometimes drops to 95%!

Bike paths are good for the family pootle to the park etc.
Some how I dont see them practical for the roadies..

I think that stiffer sentences for drivers found guilty of killing/injuring cyclist through reckless driving.
How many times do you read about a person killing a cyclist and getting off because they claimed a SMIDSY ... a cruel one was recently when a driver forced a cyclist off the road coming into a traffic island and then got off because the cyclist wasnt wearing a helmet ... insane 🙁

Bike paths are good for the family pootle to the park etc.
Some how I dont see them practical for the roadies..

Roadies are not the target audience. They cycle already.

How many times do you read about a person killing a cyclist and getting off because they claimed a SMIDSY ..

Elizabeth Brown: an experienced triathlete cycling to work along a long straight road, wearing high-viz and helmet, on a clear day, she was struck from behind by a van at 60mph and killed.

[url= http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2012/06/29/van-driver-cleared-of-causing-death-of-cyclist-elizabeth-brown-72703-31288958/ ]SMIDSY. Van driver acquitted of "death by careless driving".[/url] 😡

Grahams hits the nail on the head.
That school probably has about 1000+ less car school runs every day.
druidh
War not required to destroy a city's transport infrastucture just look at Edinburgh 😉

Actually Edinburgh is a great example. They've somehow, against public will and at huge expense, made room for a tram through medieval streets.

That space could have been dedicated, segregated cycle lane at a tiny fraction of the cost.

grahams

you read my next post.Similar thing in MCR and Sheffield.They managed to fit trams there too elbowing out the cars.

At the end of the day the majority of the road infrastructure in the UK was paid for by all taxpayers not just by drivers and certainly not by car manufacturers.Lets reclaim some of that road space back for cyclists and spend a bit of cash on making our journeys safer.
Not much to ask imho

Honestly there is no need for cycle lanes in cities. Education would be much better

For sure, the Dutch have it completely wrong yah? It just doesn't seem to have had any impact on cycle use or safety there does it?

Yet increasing numbers on the London roads leading to increasing casualties.

There are still sport cyclists in Holland. They still seem to have world class riders winning medals. You don't need to worry about not being able to have your weekend club run.

It just doesn't seem to have had any impact on cycle use or safety there does it?

Difficult to say. Do people cycle because of the facilities, or are the facilities there because people cycle?

Our history is not unique.

Nothing to do with the war, it's about social history.

In Helsinki for instance, most of roads are really wide and have cycle paths alongside the pavements, or are dual use. The centre of the city was only built in the 18th century, when wide boulevards were popular, and the suburbs were built in the 1950s onwards, because before that most people lived in the countryside and it was only after the war that people migrated en masse to the cities.

I'm not saying nothing can be done in the UK, but we have a unique set of circumstances because our social and economic history is different, like most countries. Not all European cities are cycling paradises, are they?

Where else is bad for cycling?

Yet increasing numbers on the London roads leading to increasing casualties

Dunno about London but:

Year kms cycled (billion) Deaths Deaths per billion km

1990 5.3 256 48.3
1991 5.2 242 46.8
1992 4.7 204 43.1
1993 4.0 186 46.4
1994 4.0 172 42.8
1995 4.1 213 51.4
1996 4.1 203 49.8
1997 4.1 183 44.8
1998 4.0 158 40.0
1999 4.1 172 42.2
2000 4.2 127 30.5
2001 4.2 138 32.6
2002 4.4 130 29.4
2003 4.5 114 25.3
2004 4.2 134 31.8
2005 4.4 148 33.4
2006 4.6 146 31.7
2007 4.2 136 32.4
2008 4.7 115 24.5
2009 5.0 104 20.8
2010 5.0 111 22.2

The trams have not elbowed out cars here in Sheffield, they run in traffic. In fact very little room has been made for them, they've just been plonked on top of the existing network adding to busier roads

Difficult to say. Do people cycle because of the facilities, or are the facilities there because people cycle?

They built new facilities, from the mid-1970s onwards on the back of the [url= http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/stop%20the%20child%20murder ]"Stop de Kindermoord" ("Stop the Child Murder") campaign[/url], and rates of cycling sky-rocketed.

Interested to see how they did that.

Did they already have the space? Or did they have to compulsorily purchase strips of land?

Interested to see how they did that.

Potted history:

Did they already have the space? Or did they have to compulsorily purchase strips of land?

Bit of everything I think. Compulsory purchases. Car space sacrificed. Roads redesigned and rebuilt.

That was in the 70s though, far less car pressure.

Do you really think it's at all feasible to create cycling facilities like that across Britain? The cost would be astronomical. I can't imagine how it would happen really.

That was in the 70s though, far less car pressure.

They are still building new ones now though.

Do you really think it's at all feasible to create cycling facilities like that across Britain?

Yes. But not in the current political climate. It requires a major change of attitude.

The cost would be astronomical.

It would. But more than high-speed rail link? More than the Channel Tunnel? More than is spent on new roads every year? More than health care bill for the 200,000 injured on our roads every year + the rising obesity epidemic?

More than *whisper* the Olympics?

Do you really think it's at all feasible to create cycling facilities like that across Britain? The cost would be astronomical. I can't imagine how it would happen really.

I don't think you should let a lack of imagination work against you. There are [url= http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/communities-of-color-like-east-harlem.html ]better cycle facilities[/url] being put in [url= http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/15729/new-jersey-avenue-will-become-2-way-with-bike-lanes/ ]American[/url] [url= http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/stratplan_intro.pdf ]Cities [/url]than in the UK

Yes - a LOT more. Some road in the UK haven't been upgraded to two-carraigeway yet.

Yes. But not in the current political climate. It requires a major change of attitude.

Oh yeah, that.

Whilst we're at it we can redistribute wealth, make growth sustainable and re-populate Britain's forests.

It'd be nice, wouldn't it?

More than *whisper* the Olympics?

Much much more, probably. And as for obesity - this wouldn't cure obesity, not by a long shot. You're talking about changing the personal attitudes of a nation. Massive challenge, and it'll take decades if not centuries.

There are better cycle facilities being put in American Cities than in the UK

How many American cities have you been to? If you think cyclists have it bad here, you'd be stunned at people's attitudes in the US.

There are miles and miles of cycle tracks in Livingston. As a New Town, it was possible to incorporate them from day 1 and they've (generally) kept that up as it has expanded. When I cycle through Livingston, I see far fewer cyclists than I do in Edinburgh. I can only conclude that there is something other than cycle-lane provision influencing the population.

Incidentally, I saw very few cyclists on the lovely cycle facilities in Helsinki. Some, but no more than you'd see in any UK city.

In Munich there were a fair few, mostly tootling grannies.

When I cycle through Livingston, I see far fewer cyclists than I do in Edinburgh. I can only conclude that there is something other than cycle-lane provision influencing the population.

I worked in Livingston for a while. Used to get the train there (with bike) then cycle from the train station to work.
My (probably unfair) impression was the town was just one big industrial estate with a hundred roundabouts.

You'll obviously see more cyclists in Edinburgh because the population is far higher (~450,000). The resident population of Livingston is fairly small (27,000) and it's not an easy place for non-residents to cycle to.

That's not a great comparison druidh.....for a start what's the population difference between the two places? How difficult is it to get from one side of Livingston to the other by car during peak traffic periods? Is there a huge student population in Livingston?

Oh yeah, that.

Whilst we're at it we can redistribute wealth, make growth sustainable and re-populate Britain's forests.

It'd be nice, wouldn't it?

Ah always the cynic. 😀

That change of attitude did happen in the Netherlands. It can happen here. People just need to be shown the choice and given a chance to make their voice heard.

GrahamS - Member - Quote
My (probably unfair) impression was the town was just one big industrial estate with a hundred roundabouts.

The resident population of Livingston is fairly small ([s]27,000[/s]) (60,000) and it's not an easy place for non-residents to cycle to.

GrahamS - Member
That change of attitude did happen in the Netherlands. It can happen here. People just need to be shown the choice and given a chance to make their voice heard.