Parking Bicycles

[Steamport Southport]

But what do you think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich City Centre?

 

 

 

 

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, Steamport Southport said:

But what do you think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich City Centre?

 

I don't - I'm retired, and therefore excused thinking.

 

CJI.

[Nearholmer]

Public servants are accountable to the public through their elected representatives; I know, I was one for forty years. It can sometimes be a vexing position, but I always took the view that since  the public was paying to vex me when it did so, it was bad form to moan about it. The option to leave and take a job elsewhere was always open to me. Besides occasionally vexing me while paying my wages, the public also kindly contributed to my pension pot on a regular basis, so now that I’m drawing on that, I still try not to get bitter and twisted about the GBP.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Nearholmer

[cctransuk]

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Public servants are accountable to the public through their elected representatives; I know, I was one for forty years. It can sometimes be a vexing position, but I always took the view that since  the public was paying to vex me when it did so, it was bad form to moan about it. The option to leave and take a job elsewhere was always open to me. Besides occasionally vexing me while paying my wages, the public also kindly contributed to my pension pot on a regular basis, so now that I’m drawing on that, I still try not to get bitter and twisted about the GBP.

 

Each to their own - I am of the opinion that it should be more widely known what abuse politicians are prepared to visit upon their employees in the pursuit of their political ambitions.

 

I will accept the label of bitter - but not twisted - is it any wonder, given my experiences?

 

John Isherwood.

[whart57]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

I spent forty years dealing with the sector of society which believes that they know far better than those with professional training and practical experience. Very early in that career, I learned that facts mean very little to those with a political agenda.

 

Politics is about choosing which facts to present to support the path you want to go. It is rare that facts are unanswerable.

[whart57]

Cycle paths put in in the last dozen years or so:

 

London:

 

 

Amsterdam:

 

 

I rest my case

[cctransuk]

2 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Cycle paths put in in the last dozen years or so:

 

London:

 

 

Amsterdam:

 

 

I rest my case

 

In the London example, could we have a photo of the other cycle lane on the opposite side of the road?

 

If the widths of the two London cycle lanes were added together, would they not be similar to the Amsterdam TWO-WAY cycle lanes?

 

Once again, selective (misleading) evidence in order to vastly overstate a comparison.

 

Since you have rested your case, I will do likewise.

 

John Isherwood.

[whart57]

Now that might be a valid point if the combined widths were the same but the much more important factor is the separation from the main carriageway.  Aside from the fact that Amsterdam made the decision to ban all motor vehicles, other than local access, from that road and give it over to cyclists and pedestrians, there is a raised paving section to enforce separation. Unlike the painted line that is the norm in England. Now we are starting to do similar things here with Low Traffic Neighbourhoods but, oh my ears and whiskers, what a political row they cause. I'm not saying that Amsterdam city council don't run into problems with voters when they propose traffic schemes but the political climate is totally different. The main differences are, in my opinion anyway, that "every driver is also a cyclist" thing instead of an undeclared war existing between car drivers and cyclists, and secondly the fact that Dutch elections use PR so councils don't change direction completely because of a few hundred votes in a handful of wards.

 

A cycle network, Dutch style, is more than a cycle path next to the main carriageway. It involves designating some streets for bicycles, others for cars. It's also common for a minor road or street to be part of a cycle route without banning cars but then a 20 kph (15 mph) speed limit is applied which becomes a compromise between motor access and cyclist safety. That seems to work. I presume you considered all these when you were working but, truthfully, were the reasons for not following through because they were impractical or because the local elected representatives feared grief at the ballot box? Or because central government, in hock to the car lobby, weighed in?

[Nearholmer]

It’s not just about the sum of widths, it’s about effective segregation for safety reasons, and about what might crudely be called “the balance of power” at interfaces between motor traffic and cyclists and pedestrians.

 

The common UK approach to creating a cycleway is to paint a line down the road, about a metre from the kerb (standards and, more important, practices vary from place to place). In many cases that creates more danger than it removes, because (a) it causes huge problems at side-turnings, where motor vehicles have to cross the bike lane to turn left, and it’s very easy to cut across cyclists, and unfamiliar drivers and cyclists both do the opposite to what the HC says, (b) it gives no ‘flank protection’ to cyclists, because drivers read the white line as protection enough and consistently pass far too close, and (c) often the nominal cycleway is full of sunken drain gratings, potholes, and plenty of other hazards to cycling. There are other issues too.

 

Unless such a “white line lane” is manifestly safe to use, and many aren’t, I won’t use it, and will cycle instead on the main lane as a “very weedy, leg-powered motor vehicle” because it’s safer, and that approach is fully supported by the HC (although some drivers believe otherwise).

 

It is far safer to create a unified (both directions) cycleway (like the second picture above), which may not be any wider than the sum of two “white line lanes”, and keep it separate from motor traffic, with very clear signage and marking of which mode has priority at interfaces, even using traffic signals at extremely busy intersections.  Kerb or bollard segregated lanes sit somewhere between white line lanes and full segregation in utility and safety terms.

 

But ….. any fool can see that to create ideal cycling infrastructure, ideal pedestrian infrastructure, ideal bus infrastructure, and ideal “other motor vehicle” infrastructure, all at once, in most UK towns and cities would be impossible …. You can’t please all of the people all of the time. That’s where choice comes in, elected representatives on behalf of the public have to choose which modes to give priority to, and roughly how, and traffic engineers then have to use their expertise to put that into affect.

 

It’s all very rough and tough around this issue in some towns and cities right now, because “the old order changeth, yielding place to new”. The public, elected representatives, and traffic engineers are all at different paces in different places, and with different degrees of willingness/unwillingness, getting their heads around the idea that unconstrained private car use, and providing infrastructure to facilitate that, is unsustainable at multiple levels (environmental damage, health damage, quality of life damage etc), so the balance of prioritisation has to shift. Traffic engineers are often on the front line of this, with people mega-phoning (sometimes literally) opposite wants, wishes and whims in each ear, so at the moment it’s a tough job, and it will remain a tough job until a new status quo is established …… change is always hard.

 

PS: a test that I think is well worth applying in regard the safety and utility of cycleways is: would I encourage my eleven year old child/grandchild to cycle along that? If the answer is “no”, and for many UK ones it surely must be for all but the least caring parents and grandparents, then it isn’t up to the job.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Nearholmer

[cctransuk]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It’s not just about the sum of widths, it’s about effective segregation for safety reasons, and about what might crudely be called “the balance of power” at interfaces between motor traffic and cyclists and pedestrians.

 

The common UK approach to creating a cycleway is to paint a line down the road, about a metre from the kerb (standards and, more important, practices vary from place to place). In many cases that creates more danger than it removes, because (a) it causes huge problems at side-turnings, where motor vehicles have to cross the bike lane to turn left, and it’s very easy to cut across cyclists, and unfamiliar drivers and cyclists both do the opposite to what the HC says, (b) it gives no ‘flank protection’ to cyclists, because drivers read the white line as protection enough and consistently pass far too close, and (c) often the nominal cycleway is full of sunken drain gratings, potholes, and plenty of other hazards to cycling. There are other issues too.

 

Unless such a “white line lane” is manifestly safe to use, and many aren’t, I won’t use it, and will cycle instead on the main lane as a “very weedy, leg-powered motor vehicle” because it’s safer, and that approach is fully supported by the HC (although some drivers believe otherwise).

 

It is far safer to create a unified (both directions) cycleway (like the second picture above), which may not be any wider than the sum of two “white line lanes”, and keep it separate from motor traffic, with very clear signage and marking of which mode has priority at interfaces, even using traffic signals at extremely busy intersections.  Kerb or bollard segregated lanes sit somewhere between white line lanes and full segregation in utility and safety terms.

 

But ….. any fool can see that to create ideal cycling infrastructure, ideal pedestrian infrastructure, ideal bus infrastructure, and ideal “other motor vehicle” infrastructure, all at once, in most UK towns and cities would be impossible …. You can’t please all of the people all of the time. That’s where choice comes in, elected representatives on behalf of the public have to choose which modes to give priority to, and roughly how, and traffic engineers then have to use their expertise to put that into affect.

 

It’s all very rough and tough around this issue in some towns and cities right now, because “the old order changeth, yielding place to new”. The public, elected representatives, and traffic engineers are all at different paces in different places, and with different degrees of willingness/unwillingness, getting their heads around the idea that unconstrained private car use, and providing infrastructure to facilitate that, is unsustainable at multiple levels (environmental damage, health damage, quality of life damage etc), so the balance of prioritisation has to shift. Traffic engineers are often on the front line of this, with people mega-phoning (sometimes literally) opposite wants, wishes and whims in each ear, so at the moment it’s a tough job, and it will remain a tough job until a new status quo is established …… change is always hard.

 

PS: a test that I think is well worth applying in regard the safety and utility of cycleways is: would I encourage my eleven year old child/grandchild to cycle along that? If the answer is “no”, and for many UK ones it surely must be for all but the least caring parents and grandparents, then it isn’t up to the job.

 

What is not being mentioned here - and I agree with most of what is being proposed as best practice - is cost; and the willingness of taxpayers to fund this.

 

Whilst there would appear to be a concensus that UK cycling facilities could be much better, I doubt that there would be that level of support for funding the facilities on the Netherlands model; (if they could be accommodated).

 

From my professional knowledge, we are talking of a factor of around 1000% when compared to the 'white line' basic provision.

 

John Isherwood.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Just some random thoughts on push-bikes:

1. Secure parking. This needs to be a priority if cycling is to be encouraged. 
2. Cycle lanes need to be maintained. Often they are full of detritus and (at this time of year) leaves, twigs, etc. But they are seldom swept or cleared.

3. I won't talk about cyclists' highway/footpath transgressions, or not wearing bright clothing/having lights...

[whart57]

22 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

What is not being mentioned here - and I agree with most of what is being proposed as best practice - is cost; and the willingness of taxpayers to fund this.

 

Which basically comes back to politics and political will. Without a broad consensus that alternative transport arrangements to private cars are needed in towns and cities  and that the funds need to be provided then English provision of cycle paths is going to be the half-arsed waste of time and money of painting a white line a yard from the kerb and filling in the form for Whitehall that a target has been met.

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

20 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

But what do you think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich City Centre?

 

 

 

 

 

Ah. I see nobody got the comedy reference....

 

 

 

[cctransuk]

Just now, whart57 said:

 

Which basically comes back to politics and political will. Without a broad consensus that alternative transport arrangements to private cars are needed in towns and cities  and that the funds need to be provided then English provision of cycle paths is going to be the half-arsed waste of time and money of painting a white line a yard from the kerb and filling in the form for Whitehall that a target has been met.

 

Politics and politicians are pragmatic - why would you put forward a policy which you know the electorate would not vote to fund?

 

The root problem is us - by which I mean the majority of the electorate - and our failure to value cycling and walking as sustainable modes of transport. The various lobbies can shout as loud as they like - the majority of the electorate are not listening!

 

Sad, but true.

 

John Isherwood.

[Nearholmer]

It’s interesting to watch what happens in practice, and although not all towns/areas go at the same pace (some don’t go at all) there are good things happening in a fair few places, it surprises me how many actually.

 

I live in Milton Keynes, so the best cycling infrastructure in the UK (not perfect, but the best there is), and our council is very committed, filling in the missing bits in the pre-1960s districts as fast as it’s minuscule budget permits.  Aylesbury and Bedford, especially in new-build areas, but attempting elsewhere too, making some solid attempts. Some small bits in Aylesbury were obviously designed by a person who’s never seen a bike, let alone ridden one, but they are trying, and crucially they seem to have got the plot that “white line lanes” and “put up shared use signs on a narrow pavement and hope for the best” don’t work. Northampton is a real mixed bag of good and terrible (they clearly ran out of money when they got to the difficult bits). Leighton Buzzard seem schizophrenic over the subject. Cambridge and Oxford are places apart.

 

So essentially, what is happening is happening slowly, and very patchily, but things are happening.

 

To me, the biggest blocker at the moment seems to be the government, who fire out contradictory messages and when push comes to shove clearly believe that more votes for their party lie in giving succour to the louder sort of motorist than in making active travel, which they pretend to support, a reality. A government that pushed out a loud and clear active travel message could cause a lot more to happen without even spending more money, by showing positive leadership.

 

The way electoral politics work isn’t really about the electorate at large on many cases, it’s about relatively small numbers of voters in marginal constituencies, whether that be at national or local level. Often those seeking  (re)election are very cavalier about the wants/needs of those who they figure will never vote for them in a month of Sundays anyway; they concentrate on attracting just enough votes to win in FPTP. In different towns that can hand immense power to an organised cycling lobby, or immense power to an organised anti-traffic-calming lobby, for instance, in either case probably not strongly representative of the breadth of local opinion. Messy business!

 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Nearholmer

[whart57]

In local government elections too the turn-outs are on the low side and because only a few wards change hands each time politicians know that a concentrated push on a wedge issue can deliver results. (The May elections this year were an exception but it's rare for one of the main parties to have generated so much disgust among voters).

[it's-er]

I came to this thread, thinking it would be about railway modelling.  How wrong I was!  
 

Apart from whart57’s interesting first post on 25 November, it is all about real life cycling in the U.K.!   I’m sure there must be a thread for this somewhere, perhaps on a cycling organisation’s website?

 

John S

[KeithMacdonald]

On 19/12/2023 at 15:30, cctransuk said:

When you start with a blank sheet of paper, anything is possible!

How many times that's happened in the UK can be counted on the fingers of two hands.

 

I think you are exaggerating.

One hand would do.

[KeithMacdonald]

On 20/12/2023 at 13:53, Nearholmer said:

To me, the biggest blocker at the moment seems to be the government, who fire out contradictory messages

 

This is a naturally-tragic consequence of different departments having different agendas, and regulatory capture from different vested interests.

 

We know a "documentary" about that.

 

Quote

Jim Hacker is given responsibility for developing a national transport policy. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0074qp3/yes-minister-series-3-5-the-bed-of-nails?seriesId=b00ltsml

[Binky]

On 26/11/2023 at 16:22, whart57 said:

In the Netherlands bikes from at least the 1930s on had something called terug-trap which translates as back-pedal for braking. You can free wheel but if you pedal backwards you apply a small drum brake inside the backwheel axle. There are still bikes around with that today and it was certainly still standard on the ordinary go-to-the-shops sort of push bike in the 1990s. Never seen them in England though, which made the bikes my mum and dad brought over with them in 1955 somewhat unique.

I've always seen them called a "coaster brake" in English. I remember some BMX bikes and childrens bikes having them in the 1980s. The only bikes I've seen fitted with them more recently are USA style "beach cruisers" with swept back handlebars.

[Michael Hodgson]

On 19/12/2023 at 17:33, cctransuk said:

John Isherwood.

 

(Who regularly turned up on site to find his effigy hanging from a lampost).

Good job you weren't in Caxton!   😉