Cycle Paths or Not?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I've read lots of anti-cycle path comments, most of which are
understandable due to their low quality, bad design, litter strewn
surfaces and oblivious headphone wearing pedestrians weaving from side
to side. However comments such as "Bikes belong on the road." are
often made to defend cyclists rights to use the road - which again is
understandable.

My confusion arises over praise of Holland and it's wonderful cycling
infrastructure (no argument there). A lot of comments are made about
this wonderful utopia and why can't we be the same in the UK. Use of
cycle paths, where present, is mandatory in Holland, i.e. cycles are
banned from the road.

So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
cycle paths?

Steve

On 10/05/2008 15:17, Steve C said,

> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
> cycle paths?

OK - this is my own personal opinion and nothing more. I haven't been
to Holland, so I can only go on what my brother has said - he lives
there. However, it seems that there the cycling infrastructure is
planned and much more of it is actually usable for its intended purpose.
There is also a law that pretty much says that if a car driver hits a
cyclist, it's the driver's fault (that is a gross simplification, by the
way, but is the gist). Whether it's that, or the fact that the Dutch
are generally a much more pleasant group of people (in my experience),
but cyclists are not treated as a mobile obstacle to be shoved out of
the way. The general standard of driving is also much better (according
to my brother), without the aggression and impatience we get in many
parts of the UK.

In the UK, we get a token effort so that some civil servant can tick a
box and say "x miles of cyclepath - done.". Whether or not the
cyclepath is actually usable by those for whom it is intended is not a
factor in the "design". Therefore there are very few that can be safely
used. We also have on one hand cyclists being prosecuted for riding on
the pavements, and on the other hand councils encouraging cyclists to
ride on the pavements. Until cycling is seen as a realistic and
practical means of transport and facilities instead of just a toy and
not be considered seriously, and the facilities are given at least the
same level of care and consideration as is given to motor vehicle
facilities, then I will not use many cycle lanes.

Having said all that, there are a good few useful cycle paths in Weston
that are very usable, but there are also some bloody awful ones that I
won't use for my own and for pedestrian's safety. Which idiot put a
"cycle lane" on a pavement running in front of a bus stop????

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

On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Steve C
<sc99cs@googlemail.com> said in
<359ce20d-0ff3-4e25-bc13-5cb3b3ac0fbe@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:

>So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
>for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
>any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
>cycle paths?

Mostly roads, but with the Dutch law which presumes fault on the
part of the driver if he collides with a vulnerable road user.

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

I hope you'll forgive me for reposting my own message but I was feeling
lazy earlier and posted through Google groups. Didn't realise that my
own usernet provider blocks Google groups by default...

I really would like people's opinions on this and as I guess most people
also block Google groups to avoid spam I'll risk your wrath and repost!

I said before

I've read lots of anti-cycle path comments, most of which are
understandable due to their low quality, bad design, litter strewn
surfaces and oblivious headphone wearing pedestrians weaving from side
to side. However comments such as "Bikes belong on the road." are
often made to defend cyclists rights to use the road - which again is
understandable.

My confusion arises over praise of Holland and it's wonderful cycling
infrastructure (no argument there). A lot of comments are made about
this wonderful utopia and why can't we be the same in the UK. Use of
cycle paths, where present, is mandatory in Holland, i.e. cycles are
banned from the road.

So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
cycle paths?

Steve

Steve C wrote:

> I've read lots of anti-cycle path comments, most of which are
> understandable due to their low quality, bad design, litter strewn
> surfaces and oblivious headphone wearing pedestrians weaving from side
> to side. However comments such as "Bikes belong on the road." are
> often made to defend cyclists rights to use the road - which again is
> understandable.
>
> My confusion arises over praise of Holland and it's wonderful cycling
> infrastructure (no argument there). A lot of comments are made about
> this wonderful utopia and why can't we be the same in the UK. Use of
> cycle paths, where present, is mandatory in Holland, i.e. cycles are
> banned from the road.
>
> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
> cycle paths?
>
> Steve


The problem in this country, as I see it, is that planners make two
wrong assumptions when "designing" a traffic system:

1. The main aim of any such system is to get motor vehicles from point A
to point B as rapidly as possible.

2. Cyclists are wheeled pedestrians.

A possible third assumption is that:

3. Pedestrians can be ignored.

My cycle computer tells me that I regularly reach speeds of 30+ mph (ok,
only when going downhill, but it's still 30mph) and that I average 15mph
over an undulating 11 mile commute.

As a pedestrian, I am not sure that I would want _me_ cycling on the
footpath.

As a motorist I would imagine that (I do own a car, I just don't use it
much) being overtaken regularly by the same ancient looking cyclist as I
try to drive through town would be a bit depressing.

From this I see the planning needs as:

A. Keep cyclists away from pedestrians.

B. Persuade motorists to cycle through town, it's quicker!

C. Make better provision for pedestrians crossing roads. We are all
pedestrians at times and we do matter.

Terry

On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:40:18 +0100, Terry Duckmanton
<terry@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu> wrote:

>Steve C wrote:
>
>> I've read lots of anti-cycle path comments, most of which are
>> understandable due to their low quality, bad design, litter strewn
>> surfaces and oblivious headphone wearing pedestrians weaving from side
>> to side. However comments such as "Bikes belong on the road." are
>> often made to defend cyclists rights to use the road - which again is
>> understandable.
>>
>> My confusion arises over praise of Holland and it's wonderful cycling
>> infrastructure (no argument there). A lot of comments are made about
>> this wonderful utopia and why can't we be the same in the UK. Use of
>> cycle paths, where present, is mandatory in Holland, i.e. cycles are
>> banned from the road.
>>
>> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
>> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
>> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
>> cycle paths?
>>
>> Steve
>
>
>The problem in this country, as I see it, is that planners make two
>wrong assumptions when "designing" a traffic system:
>
>1. The main aim of any such system is to get motor vehicles from point A
>to point B as rapidly as possible.
>
>2. Cyclists are wheeled pedestrians.
>
>A possible third assumption is that:
>
>3. Pedestrians can be ignored.
>
>My cycle computer tells me that I regularly reach speeds of 30+ mph (ok,
>only when going downhill, but it's still 30mph) and that I average 15mph
>over an undulating 11 mile commute.
>
>As a pedestrian, I am not sure that I would want _me_ cycling on the
>footpath.
>
>As a motorist I would imagine that (I do own a car, I just don't use it
>much) being overtaken regularly by the same ancient looking cyclist as I
>try to drive through town would be a bit depressing.
>
> From this I see the planning needs as:
>
>A. Keep cyclists away from pedestrians.
>
>B. Persuade motorists to cycle through town, it's quicker!
>
>C. Make better provision for pedestrians crossing roads. We are all
>pedestrians at times and we do matter.

I've seen a massive improvement in road crossings for pedestrians at
junctions over the last ten years in London. Blanket crossings,
clearly indicating pedestrian priority, are common alongside red
routes and outside schools.

On 10 May, 18:20, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Steve C
> <sc9...@googlemail.com> said in
> <359ce20d-0ff3-4e25-bc13-5cb3b3ac0...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
> >for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
> >any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
> >cycle paths?
>
> Mostly roads, but with the Dutch law which presumes fault on the
> part of the driver if he collides with a vulnerable road user.
>
> 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


Typically selfish attitude- Chapman wants his own cake and will eat
all himself- and sod everybody else

On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<pete.aron@virgin.net> said in
<fd1921bb-e7d5-4b13-b86c-9961e1c4736c@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>:

>> Mostly roads, but with the Dutch law which presumes fault on the
>> part of the driver if he collides with a vulnerable road user.

>Typically selfish attitude- Chapman wants his own cake and will eat
>all himself- and sod everybody else

Typically fatuous riposte. Chapman is a driver, and is perfectly
willing to be bound by that self-same law himself.

The comment was mostly prompted by a discussion with the leader of
my choir, JanJoost van Elburg, who noted that this law is
responsible for an enormously more careful attitude towards
pedestrians and cyclists by Dutch drivers. He is right, and it's
been noted by many others, including John Adams.

It is merely an expression of natural justice: the presumption that
the burden of responsibility applies most to those who bring most
danger. Bike v bike, bike v ped and ped v ped collisions have an
extremely low fatality rate by comparison with car v bike and car v
ped.

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

Paul Boyd wrote:
>
> In the UK, we get a token effort so that some civil servant can tick a
> box and say "x miles of cyclepath - done.".

I sometime look through Hansard, and I receive emails on key words, and
MPs/Lords regularly ask "How many miles of cycle lanes/paths have been
built in xxx since yyy".

> Whether or not the
> cyclepath is actually usable by those for whom it is intended is not a
> factor in the "design". Therefore there are very few that can be safely
> used


> We also have on one hand cyclists being prosecuted for riding on
> the pavements, and on the other hand councils encouraging cyclists to
> ride on the pavements.

Yes, that really irks me.

Steve C <sc99cs@googlemail.com> writes:

> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
> cycle paths?

I suspect your confusion (if it is indeed confusion, and notr just a
hook to hang a discussion off) arises from an assumption that the
newgroup as a whole has a consensus opinion on either of these
subjects. I think closer study would reveal that most of the people
calling for Dutch style cycling infrastructure are by and large not
the same people chanting "cyclists are traffic too". There is more
than one constituency involved - average cycling speeds may vary
between 8mph and 25-30mph depending on the cyclist and the
circumstances, so trying to find a "one-size fits all" consensus is
like trying to design a facility for motorbikes that's equally as
advantageous for the 50cc scooter rider and the Hayabusa owner.

First rule of internet forums: the apparent consensus of posters on
any given thread is /not/ indicative of general consensus among all
the posters across all threads. Most people would rather ignore a
thread they don't agree strongly with than start an argument.

Exceptions exists, of course.


-dan

Steve C wrote:
> I hope you'll forgive me for reposting my own message but I was feeling
> lazy earlier and posted through Google groups. Didn't realise that my
> own usernet provider blocks Google groups by default...
>
> I really would like people's opinions on this and as I guess most people
> also block Google groups to avoid spam I'll risk your wrath and repost!

I block spam from Google groups, but try to let legitimate posts
through. There are quite a few posters that use googlegroups.

>
> My confusion arises over praise of Holland and it's wonderful cycling
> infrastructure (no argument there).

The Dutch have had these facilities for years, and are used to them.
Motorists are used to having a lot of cyclists, and so keep their eyes
open for them. They are used to segregation.

> A lot of comments are made about
> this wonderful utopia and why can't we be the same in the UK. Use of
> cycle paths, where present, is mandatory in Holland, i.e. cycles are
> banned from the road.

A Dutch style system in this country would be impossible, we do not have
the room for it. Even if we had the room, it would cost far too much to
implement. Once implemented, not enough cyclists would use it, to make
motorists take more care at cyclepath/motor road junctions.

> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
> cycle paths?

To use the road. mixing bikes with pedestrians does not work.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:uttb24dg8f29vge5qosl2hk0b8tcrav6j1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <pete.aron@virgin.net> said in
> <fd1921bb-e7d5-4b13-b86c-9961e1c4736c@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>> Mostly roads, but with the Dutch law which presumes fault on the
>>> part of the driver if he collides with a vulnerable road user.
>
>>Typically selfish attitude- Chapman wants his own cake and will eat
>>all himself- and sod everybody else
>
> Typically fatuous riposte. Chapman is a driver, and is perfectly
> willing to be bound by that self-same law himself.
>

Presumably we would have to be bound by that law as cyclists too, i.e. bike
hits ped, cyclist presumed responsible.

Martin <martin.dann@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> A Dutch style system in this country would be impossible, we do not
> have the room for it. Even if we had the room, it would cost far too
> much to implement. Once implemented, not enough cyclists would use
> it, to make motorists take more care at cyclepath/motor road
> junctions.

Like Holland is noted for its wide open plains ????
Apathy rules?

--

Geoff

Terry Duckmanton wrote:
>
>
> C. Make better provision for pedestrians crossing roads. We are all
> pedestrians at times and we do matter.
>

I know this is a bit OT, but your post has raised a couple of questions
in my mind.

Zebra crossings, why? Why not make every bit of road a zebra crossing,
change the rule to be:

If you see a pedestrian signalling that they wish to cross the road (by
raising an arm) you will stop and allow them.


Why do pelican crossings, miles away from traffic lights, make you wait
to cross?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Steve C
<sc99cs@googlemail.com> wrote:

>I've read lots of anti-cycle path comments, most of which are
>understandable due to their low quality, bad design, litter strewn
>surfaces and oblivious headphone wearing pedestrians weaving from side
>to side. However comments such as "Bikes belong on the road." are
>often made to defend cyclists rights to use the road - which again is
>understandable.
>
>My confusion arises over praise of Holland and it's wonderful cycling
>infrastructure (no argument there). A lot of comments are made about
>this wonderful utopia and why can't we be the same in the UK. Use of
>cycle paths, where present, is mandatory in Holland, i.e. cycles are
>banned from the road.
>
>So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
>for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
>any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
>cycle paths?

There are four broad categories of cyclist.

1. Fast commuter
2. Utility cyclist
3. Recreational cyclist
4. Sport cyclist

A fast commuter or sport cyclist is rarely going to benefit from cycle
paths.

Utility cyclists and recreational cyclists are most likely to benefit
from cycle paths and the greatest potential growth for cycling is
utility cycling, journeys between 1 mile and 5 miles: from residential
areas to schools, libraries, parks and town centres.

Build those traffic free cycle routes, build them properly and give
cyclists priority at junctions. Motorists should lean out of their
widows to push a button to cross cycle paths, or be taken under them.

This, otherwise excellent, traffic free route in Beckton is bisected
by a major road junction.
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/gw
It takes six separate toucan crossings and two short sections on the
footway to cross the junction.

Absurd!

"Steve C" <sc99cs@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:359ce20d-0ff3-4e25-bc13-5cb3b3ac0fbe@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>
> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
> cycle paths?
>
> Steve

This poster, as pedestrian, cyclist & motorist (don't ride horses..) would
like more motorist education to get across to the too many petrol-headed
tosspots that abound on the roads, that the roads are for everyone, not just
Clarkson wannabees, so that road users treat each other with more courtesy &
respect, whatever mode of transport they happen to be using. Too many of us,
when in motorist mode, switch off the brain cells and presume the roads are
there for us alone and stuff any poor bugger that happens to be in our way
when we want to get from A to B as fast as possible. I've not cycled in the
Netherlands, but I have in France, Germany & Italy as well as the UK. The
main difference I've found is nothing whatsoever to do with cycle
'facilities' but with the mindset of folk. Over in JohnnyForeignerLand,
riding a bicycle is seen as something *normal* something folk of all ages
do, be it for leisure, utility or sport. It's that difference in mindset
which I found to be crucial, not whether or not there were any cycle
facilities to use. One of the lovely things about a short holiday in Cologne
was seeing vast numbers of folk from tiny kids up to folk well past
retirement age out on bikes: it was *normal* But hey, there's never anything
JohnnyForeignerLand can teach we proud Brits... oh no, can't have those
terrible Europeans teach us anything, no sir, Brussels, thin end of the
wedge, loss of sovereignty, etc., etc. Rany continued over on pages 1-96 of
the Daily Wail, Sun, Torygraph etc etc.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:06 +0100, "Adam Lea" <asrl07@yahoo.co.uk>
said in <tsudnXvWyvVVgrvVnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@bt.com>:

>Presumably we would have to be bound by that law as cyclists too, i.e. bike
>hits ped, cyclist presumed responsible.

I don't have an issue with that, either, as long as there is a
get-out clause for little twunts who jump out in front of you just
to give you a scare, as occasionally happens.

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

Steve C wrote:

> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
> cycle paths?


Here in my part of Scotland, as in many other areas with medium to low
population density, the road system provides a wonderful network of
paths between communities and through the countryside. Additionally
there are various other paths which are not suitable for motor vehicles
but can accommodate cyclists, pedestrians and horses. There is no need
for any extra provision of cycle paths, lanes, routes or whatever.

In general, the behaviour of motorists on these roads towards cyclists
and pedestrians is much less aggressive and dangerous than is reported
from the densely populated urban parts of the country. As a result I
can ride my bicycle without fear or apprehension all over the place, in
whichever direction takes my fancy, except on motorways from which bikes
are banned.

So naturally I want the status quo. The sad thing, however, is that the
fear of "dangerous roads" has spread here with the result that very few
people take the opportunities to cycle offered by the road system and
many of those who do now absurdly bedeck themselves with hi-viz yellow
vests and plastic hats. This of course re-inforces the message about
"dangerous roads" to young people and others who might want to cycle.

Further to that, the local authorities find themselves duty bound to
provide their quota distance of "cycle facilities" whether or not there
is any need for them. Novice cyclists then find themselves utterly
confused when presented with pavements they are encouraged to cycle on,
pavements they mustn't cycle on, roads with skinny tracks at the side
for bicycles which immediately turn into roads with no such tracks on
them. No wonder the vast majority give up and limit themselves to
"leisure cycling" which involves sticking their bikes on motor car roof
racks and driving them to forest parks where they can puff up a bumpy
rutted track for a mile or so then turn round and bounce back down to
the car park.


Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

On 2008-05-11, Brian G <junk@ardo-howe.co.uk> wrote:
> Steve C wrote:
>
>> So what do posters want? Dutch style cycling infrastructure and a ban
>> for cyclists from using the roads, or to be allowed to use roads as
>> any other vehicle, especially bearing in mind the low design speed for
>> cycle paths?
>
>
> Here in my part of Scotland, as in many other areas with medium to low
> population density, the road system provides a wonderful network of
> paths between communities and through the countryside. Additionally
> there are various other paths which are not suitable for motor vehicles
> but can accommodate cyclists, pedestrians and horses. There is no need
> for any extra provision of cycle paths, lanes, routes or whatever.

Something they have in the Netherlands which is quite nice is that big A
roads and dual carriageways usually have a pretty good (mandatory) cycle
lane.

Although it's still often nicer to ride through the lanes and villages
(where you don't always get a cycle lane, but they're quiet roads), it
does give you a bit more freedom in planning your route.

They have a different infrastructure because they have more cyclists.
One could argue however that more POBs would ride to work here if
(proper) cycle lanes were provided as the perception of the man on the
Clapham omnibus is that it is too dangerous to consider getting off the
omnibus and riding alongside it on a bike.

Personally I don't see much need to encourage people onto bikes. I'm
quite happy to be in a minority. If everyone was riding them they'd
start legislating and taxing them like crazy and then they'd be just as
bad as cars.

On May 10, 10:04 pm, Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> wrote:
> [...]
> trying to find a "one-size fits all" consensus is
> like trying to design a facility for motorbikes that's equally as
> advantageous for the 50cc scooter rider and the Hayabusa owner.

Absolutely agree with this.

There's a big difference between "right to use the roads" (which is
good) and "compulsion to only use roads" (which isn't).

Richard