Different segregation....

[SA_SA_SA]

Given that the problems leading to some cyclists wishing segregation are caused by motor vehicles:

I suggest that it is fairer for motor vehicles to be segregated off standard public roads onto special roads, and only allowed on public roads under severe restrictions (eg 20mph limit, thorough investigation and dealing with of collisions, appropriate revoking of licenses etc ):

Plus, eg for dutch two way roadside cycle tracks (I think even they view them as a compromise of convenience vs safety), safety at their priority junctions with side roads relies on the motorists behaviour not being bad, but segregation was supposed to be protecting the cyclist from bad behaviour/incompetence...).. So, proper road traffic enforcement has to come first anyway...


NB I hate being confined by kerbs on a narrow 2 way roadside paths with oncoming cyclists For roadside cycle ways, Single way with flow seems best for the UK IMO.

I feel I should dissuade campaigners from invoking such things (and mocking dissenters).

[mjr]

Given that the problems leading to some cyclists wishing segregation are caused by motor vehicles:

That doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Could it be rephrased, please? It would be great if "segregation" was replaced with any of the more accurate terms, too.

I suggest that it is fairer for motor vehicles to be segregated off standard public roads onto special roads, and only allowed on public roads under severe restrictions (eg 20mph limit, thorough investigation and dealing with of collisions, appropriate revoking of licenses etc ):

I'd agree with all of those as fairer measures, but pushing for those does not mean we can ignore the follies of some highway designers.

Plus, eg for dutch two way roadside cycle tracks (I think even they view them as a compromise of convenience vs safety),

Do they? I can think the moon is made of cheese but it doesn't make it true.

safety at their priority junctions with side roads relies on the motorists behaviour not being bad,

That has little to do with it. Dutch drivers are not saints. https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... attitudes/

but segregation was supposed to be protecting the cyclist from bad behaviour/incompetence...)..

Was it? Who by? At best, it seems like one tool among many for Sustainable Safety http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/U ... ciples.pdf or Vision Zero.

So, proper road traffic enforcement has to come first anyway...

Does it? Except for where motoring has been banned, I don't think anywhere has ever made cycling popular by enforcing traffic laws before redesigning roads, has it? It would help, but we need other things too: Road Justice and the elements of Space for Cycling seem very much like different pieces of the same puzzle to me.

NB I hate being confined by kerbs on a narrow 2 way roadside paths with oncoming cyclists For roadside cycle ways, Single way with flow seems best for the UK IMO.

I'd agree with all those - we need to keep hammering this message home. My local group is currently tackling a route being constructed with stupid kerbs being used to trap people on a two-way mixed-use path being built alongside a restricted-use carriageway when of course it would be better if we could ride on and off freely depending on how busy it was.

I feel I should dissuade campaigners from invoking such things (and mocking dissenters).

I feel I should dissuade dissenters from building the above sorts of strawmen when we basically agree... and on the other thread I wasn't mocking.

[thirdcrank]

... I suggest that it is fairer for motor vehicles to be segregated off standard public roads onto special roads, ...

I've selected this bit because it's a version of the CTC's policy before motorways (which are referred to in legislation as "special roads BTW) were built. The rather naïve belief of our cycling predecessors was that once motorways were built, the rest of the road network would be left free for cyclists etc. It didn't work like that, nor is it ever likely to.

[SA_SA_SA]

...
I've selected this bit because it's a version of the CTC's policy before motorways (which are referred to in legislation as "special roads BTW)....

Yes, I know that history (and that motorways are special roads; source of that knowledge: you ):
it was partially about semantics (restricting cars to eg 20mph on ordinary roads but allowing their customary speeds on their special roads, which I was thinking of as just ordinary two lane roads for motorvehicles). As opposed to saying segregated facilities for cyclists: which might look more like removing (those pesky) cyclists from public roads (which motorists often think of as their roads ).

i would prefer a form of language about cycle routes that does not seem to reinforce the idea that public roads belong to the motorist and cyclists should be removed from them. Hence trying to invert the logic of segregation description.

[mjr]

Mostly, it's opponents of cycle infrastructure who talk about segregation, isn't it? I'm only too aware of the dangers of that word and the associated thinking which is often behind it.

[SA_SA_SA]

Mostly, it's opponents of cycle infrastructure who talk about segregation, isn't it? I'm only too aware of the dangers of that word and the associated thinking which is often behind it.

I thought the word was just descriptive rather than a deliberate plot:
from the point of view of a motor vehicle driver/rider, cyclists are seeming to be moved from "their" road to a separate but visible (i.e. segregated) cycle route. But the danger is from motorists and "their" road is a public road: so alternatively instead place limits on motor vehicles when they use those and "segregate" them when they want to go faster.. .

Cycling beside even rubbish cycling facilities can be "interesting" due to the idea that the public road is for motor vehicles....

Dutch cyclists don't have the right to ride on the road where there is a separate blue signed facility, even at night where some rural paths place cyclists eyes at same level/lower than oncoming car headlamps = massive glare for cyclist. (see swhs lighting site)

I tend to dread when a new cycle facility is announced on a road I use

My local group is currently tackling a route being constructed with stupid kerbs being used to trap people on a two-way mixed-use path being built alongside a restricted-use carriageway when of course it would be better if we could ride on and off freely depending on how busy it was.

I remain sceptical that the will to make consistently good cycle routes can exist until there is a will to deal with road traffic law..

[pwa]

Standard roads (not motorways) are shared facilities, for use by a wide range of vehicles and by horse riders and pedestrians. Everyone has a right to be on them, and all deserve respect. That has to be our fundamental position.

Segregation is a way of providing safer and sometimes quieter facilities for non-motorised transport (and e-bikes, etc). I have no problem with the word. We are not referring to 1960s Alabama.

There already seem to be signs that 20mph areas and traffic calming are changing urban areas, so there is already a distinction between "the open road" and "the street" in some places.

We asked for a 20mph limit around the Green in my village some years ago (school and park nearby) and were told by the Highways Authority that it would have to stay at 30mph because it was rural and the 20mph limit was for towns only. Maybe it has changed since then.

For motorists, and for all road users, I think simple is best. Speed limits clearly displayed, speed bumps where it helps, but no special rules for special places. Just good, sound rules that apply everywhere.

[pjclinch]

Standard roads (not motorways) are shared facilities, for use by a wide range of vehicles and by horse riders and pedestrians. Everyone has a right to be on them, and all deserve respect. That has to be our fundamental position.

Well, on the one hand, okay, but on the other saying everyone should be equal is not the same as them being equal.

So since in practice some users are more equal than others that does not have to be "our fundamental position".

For motorists, and for all road users, I think simple is best. Speed limits clearly displayed, speed bumps where it helps, but no special rules for special places. Just good, sound rules that apply everywhere.

ITYM "common sense". It's great stuff where you can get it, but meanwhile back in 2015 UK, it's not as common or sensible as we'd ideally like.

Pete.

[mjr]

I thought the word was just descriptive rather than a deliberate plot:
from the point of view of a motor vehicle driver/rider, cyclists are seeming to be moved from "their" road to a separate but visible (i.e. segregated) cycle route. But the danger is from motorists and "their" road is a public road: so alternatively instead place limits on motor vehicles when they use those and "segregate" them when they want to go faster.. .

It is only segregated if we are required to use it. There are happily few such routes yet. Attempts to create more should almost always be opposed. If they build decent routes, people would choose to use them.

Cycling beside even rubbish cycling facilities can be "interesting" due to the idea that the public road is for motor vehicles....

I don't find frequency of abuse to be linked to whether there is a cycle facility. Motorists don't seem to kee track of where they are allowed to drive, let alone where we can cycle, so will happily tell me to get off the road even when it is the only option. We need to deal with that road rage whether or not more roadside routes are created.

I remain sceptical that the will to make consistently good cycle routes can exist until there is a will to deal with road traffic law..

Agreed but history tells us they will keep building crap if we oppose everything blindly.

[SA_SA_SA]

Given that the problems leading to some cyclists wishing segregation are caused by motor vehicles:

That doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Could it be rephrased, please? It would be great if "segregation" was replaced with any of the more accurate terms, too.

Ie the risk of injury is to cyclists from motor vehicles, thus it is them whose use of public roads should be seen to be controlled, by lower limits etc on said public road and by only allowing higher speeds when their are on "special" motor vehicle only roads: ie they are segregated due to the danger they pose to others.

Plus, eg for dutch two way roadside cycle tracks (I think even they view them as a compromise of convenience vs safety),

Do they? I can think the moon is made of cheese but it doesn't make it true.

Sorry, I think means I can't remember the link (but I think it was on an otherwise supportive of Dutch Infrastructure blog).

safety at their priority junctions with side roads relies on the motorists behaviour not being bad,

That has little to do with it. Dutch drivers are not saints. https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... attitudes/

I don't see how this supports your argument.
At cycle paths crossing sideroads parallel to main road junctions, Dutch cyclists safety relies on motor vehicles stopping to give them priority: if their drivers are always as careless as UK ones then why would dutch cyclists not worry?

So why do these terrible dutch drivers stop for cyclists crossing priority crossings at side roads when (driver is) turning onto said side road?
Just moving the crossing back a bit etc still relies on drivers not turning too fast etc/
Perhaps they have more reason to have fear of the law than UK drivers?

but segregation was supposed to be protecting the cyclist from bad behaviour/incompetence...)..

Was it? Who by? At best, it seems like one tool among many for Sustainable Safety...

By most of the cyclists/too-scared-to-cycle-on-uk-road-ists who I have ever heard ask for it. Surely any effect in populising cycling is due to that?
This seems a bafflingly unexpected response to me

So, proper road traffic enforcement has to come first anyway...

Does it? Except for where motoring has been banned, I don't think anywhere has ever made cycling popular by enforcing traffic laws before redesigning roads, has it? It would help, but we need other things too: Road Justice and the elements of Space for Cycling seem very much like different pieces of the same puzzle to me.

I wasn't thinking of popularity just safety.

NB I hate being confined by kerbs on a narrow 2 way roadside paths with oncoming cyclists For roadside cycle ways, Single way with flow seems best for the UK IMO.

I'd agree with all those - we need to keep hammering this message home. My local group is currently tackling a route being constructed with stupid kerbs being used to trap people on a two-way mixed-use path being built alongside a restricted-use carriageway when of course it would be better if we could ride on and off freely depending on how busy it was.

I would prefer to only ask for facilities if I know the quality will be OK rather than lose another road layout I could live with previously.

I feel I should dissuade campaigners from invoking such things (and mocking dissenters).

I feel I should dissuade dissenters from building the above sorts of strawmen when we basically agree... and on the other thread I wasn't mocking.

I think at best we only partially agree
NB Isn't a strawman a knowingly created dubious argument used by politricksians etc: my arguments are honest (I grudgingly admit I may be (cough, sometimes) wrong...but you haven't convinced me )

And I do read things like http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/, I just disagree with some ideas:
I think the dutch are wrong to have two way cycle lanes on either side of the road: I prefer the simplicity of with flow only.
Also, a lot of streets shown in the above blog look like a concrete wasteland due to all the extra tarmac for cycle lanes: if they tamed the car, then the road layout would be simpler, their streets prettier/simpler. And why do they need all that space for cars if cycling is so popular?

[SleepyJoe]

Just to have a different view on abuse compared to mjr, I have had a couple of occasions when I have had specific abuse from car drivers because I was on a road and not using the totally separated cycle track.
This was on the Braunton-Barnstaple road with the Tarka Trail running roughly parallel but hidden from view, on an old railway line.
Evidently, cyclists on this section of road is such an issue, we had a moaning letter in the local paper.
What car drivers don't realise is that cycle tracks don't always start & finish where you want, it is roughly surfaced, has pedestrians/dog walkers and is slower than the road. When I stay on the road, it is when I have a tail wind and can manage 20mph+ on the flat, therefore complying with the Government guidance!
You can't win
Mark

[mjr]

Ie the risk of injury is to cyclists from motor vehicles, thus it is them whose use of public roads should be seen to be controlled, by lower limits etc on said public road and by only allowing higher speeds when their are on "special" motor vehicle only roads: ie they are segregated due to the danger they pose to others.

I'd welcome that and I will continue to campaign for 20mph limits on motorists next, in all streets where people live and shop, and for those limits to be enforced.

That has little to do with it. Dutch drivers are not saints. https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... attitudes/

I don't see how this supports your argument.
At cycle paths crossing sideroads parallel to main road junctions, Dutch cyclists safety relies on motor vehicles stopping to give them priority: if their drivers are always as careless as UK ones then why would dutch cyclists not worry?

The bit in bold is false, so the question is misguided. Dutch cyclists safety relies on a combination of design measures, education, enforcement, and vehicle technology. The design measures are not as simple as just marking priority - you also have to design it so that most motorists will want to slow down to enter or exit the side road and expect people to be riding or walking across, and so that people crossing have a realistic chance to see the bad motorists coming and avoid them.

So why do these terrible dutch drivers stop for cyclists crossing priority crossings at side roads when (driver is) turning onto said side road?
Just moving the crossing back a bit etc still relies on drivers not turning too fast etc/
Perhaps they have more reason to have fear of the law than UK drivers?

More reason recently (presumed liability and so on), but we can do more with design than "just moving the crossing back a bit", such as making the turn in tight enough that almost all motorists will slow down for fear of undershooting and clipping the kerb or overshooting and clipping an oncoming car.

but segregation was supposed to be protecting the cyclist from bad behaviour/incompetence...)..

Was it? Who by? At best, it seems like one tool among many for Sustainable Safety...

By most of the cyclists/too-scared-to-cycle-on-uk-road-ists who I have ever heard ask for it. Surely any effect in populising cycling is due to that?
This seems a bafflingly unexpected response to me

I've no illusion that infrastructure is sufficient to protect us. It doesn't need to be, either: when we surveyed local non-riders some years ago, for every person who feared injury by motors, about four disliked riding on roads busy with motorists. Surely we can appreciate that? Even without being unsafe, most people don't find cycling among many motor vehicles much fun. Do you, really? Given a choice between a busy road and a quiet one of roughly equal other character, would you really take the busier one?

Except for where motoring has been banned, I don't think anywhere has ever made cycling popular by enforcing traffic laws before redesigning roads, has it? It would help, but we need other things too: Road Justice and the elements of Space for Cycling seem very much like different pieces of the same puzzle to me.

I wasn't thinking of popularity just safety.

I think they're linked, hence the "Safety In Numbers" effect. If we had cycling so popular that we swamp some streets, as used to happen outside the railway works and printing works in Wolverton, as still happens in some points of Cambridge, the infrastructure would become irrelevant at times.

If we wait for Road Justice before trying to increase the current cycling levels, we'll never increase them. More people on bikes should help to change the approach to traffic laws.

I would prefer to only ask for facilities if I know the quality will be OK rather than lose another road layout I could live with previously.

As has just been proved again in Leeds and Bradford, we currently have no way of knowing that they'll be OK until they're finished - sometimes highway authorities build good stuff and sometimes they develop new and innovative screwups.

While I would rarely ask for facilities, we do have some "barrier roads" where some useful cycling routes are obstructed by layouts that few cyclists live with. So I think we should keep asking to fix those (whether through facilities or otherwise), plus we have to keep on trying to deal with the side-effects of changes that happen at the requests of others.

Far more often that we should need to (aren't highways designers meant to be experts?), we have said no, but they go ahead anyway, so we're now trying three-part replies: 1. NO. 2. TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DEATHS AT LEAST DO X, Y & Z. 3. YOU REALLY SHOULD BUILD C. I think that's worked twice so far and failed at John Kennedy Road, where Norfolk CC just abandoned their plan for a deadly gutter lane and left the current bad on-the-path-off-the-path layout where a cyclist was seriously injured a few years ago (and put a couple of Advance Stop Lines on one junction). Oh well, at least they've not made it worse.

And I do read things like http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/, I just disagree with some ideas:

I don't agree with all the things on that site either, but let's look at the two mentioned:

I think the dutch are wrong to have two way cycle lanes on either side of the road: I prefer the simplicity of with flow only.

That would almost never be enforced! We have a few one-way cycle lanes in King's Lynn and most of them have some people riding "salmon-style". It's probably better to deal with it by design, encourage with-flow and accept that a few people will find reasons to ride wrong-way (accessing properties on the right-hand-side without crossing the road twice, for example).

Also, a lot of streets shown in the above blog look like a concrete wasteland due to all the extra tarmac for cycle lanes: if they tamed the car, then the road layout would be simpler, their streets prettier/simpler. And why do they need all that space for cars if cycling is so popular?

Other blogs like http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com and http://www.copenhagenize.com look at town centres more, but as the name says, David Hembrow's mainly about cycle paths, which tend to be by bigger roads. Our bigger roads tend to be tarmac wastelands in this country too. Spot the grass:


And those roads aren't primarily space for cars, are they? They're conduits for commercial trade traffic, for government and for the military. Private pleasure cars just congest ours more than they need to, more than the Dutch do. But ultimately, would we really care what cars do and don't have, as long as cycling has enough?

Just to have a different view on abuse compared to mjr, I have had a couple of occasions when I have had specific abuse from car drivers because I was on a road and not using the totally separated cycle track.

So how do you know the abuse wasn't just random road rage?

Evidently, cyclists on this section of road is such an issue, we had a moaning letter in the local paper.

We had a moaning letter in the local paper about cyclists using the road rather than the cycle path on the cut bridge between South Lynn and West Lynn.

There is no cycle path on that bridge... or any bridge over the Great Ouse north of Ely...

As you say, you can't win... so given that, I'd rather have protected cycleways where they make some sense.

[SA_SA_SA]

I don't agree with all the things on that site(http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/,) either, but let's look at the two mentioned:

'I think the dutch are wrong to have two way cycle lanes on either side of the road: I prefer the simplicity of with flow only'.

That would almost never be enforced! We have a few one-way cycle lanes in King's Lynn and most of them have some people riding "salmon-style". It's probably better to deal with it by design, encourage with-flow and accept that a few people will find reasons to ride wrong-way (accessing properties on the right-hand-side without crossing the road twice, for example).

I still think the design shouldn't be compromised to suit a few cyclists who ride the wrong way. As for enforcement, other cyclists could mutter/ point out the fact their cycling the wrong way etc / apply some Paddington bear style "hard stares) to the few salmon till they fade away.

I also think the two way designs will make life more awkward for pedestrians (crossing the road is now more like crossing 3 roads).

[SA_SA_SA]

At cycle paths crossing sideroads parallel to main road junctions, Dutch cyclists safety relies on motor vehicles stopping to give them priority: if their drivers are always as careless as UK ones then why would dutch cyclists not worry?

:
The bit in bold is false, so the question is misguided. Dutch cyclists safety relies on a combination of design measures, education, enforcement, and vehicle technology. The design measures are not as simple as just marking priority - you also have to design it so that most motorists will want to slow down to enter or exit the side road and expect people to be riding or walking across, and so that people crossing have a realistic chance to see the bad motorists coming and avoid them.

Well if the drivers don't stop they will hit the Dutch cyclist That seems true enough to me.
Engineering measures might help a bit but they don't make it impossible for a driver to hit a crossing cyclist, so the cyclists are still relying on driver behaviour. And drivers sometimes become airborne in their desire not to slow for speed ramps, and fail to slow even for blind corners. So there must be some risk.
Driver education implies some dependency on Driver behaviour.

[SA_SA_SA]

...
Far more often that we should need to (aren't highways designers meant to be experts?), we have said no, but they go ahead anyway, so we're now trying three-part replies: 1. NO. 2. TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DEATHS AT LEAST DO X, Y & Z. 3. YOU REALLY SHOULD BUILD C. ...'

That seems reasonable.