Cycling and the law: Is improved infrastructure the only real solution to improve road safety?

Burke wrote:

The infrastructure isn't the problem. The issue is road users of all types not paying attention to what is around them. The cost of upgrading and introducing cycling related infrastructure should be used to increase education and monitoring of road users. In my country you need to pass a painfully simple paper test and road exam in your teen years, then are free to drive like an idiot for the rest of your life unless a (rare) concerned physician decides that you are a hazard on the road once you are blind and deaf in your 80's.

 

I don't buy that.  The cost of upgrading and introducing infrastruture is a one-off capital cost.   Education and monitoring is an ongoing, constant expense.  The latter is going to rapidly add up to far, far more than the former.  A bollard does not need to be paid the yearly salary of a police officer (and will probably know more about the law relating to cycling).

Furthermore we upgrade and reubild infrastructure all the time, it's just that it keeps being done without consideration for cyclists (and, often, pedestrians).

And finally, I don't believe education works.  It doesn't overcome self-interest.

Argus Tuft wrote:

Europe has citizens,Britain has subjects.

Actually Britain has citizens too. Subject is a status that has been inactive for some time now. Not to mention that, as is so often the case in this country, it was never as simple as British people are subjects not citizens.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Not this again - all Dutch cycle lanes are circuitous. No, they're not. The ones I rode for several weeks in Utrecht were often more direct than the road, for example through Wilhelmina Park.

Segregated Dutch cycle lanes are incredibly successful in getting people to ride bikes, and I couldn't disagree more with the constant and unjustified criticism.

who said ALL, you don't read very well do you, but look at the screen grab, this was the suggested shortest route for cycling from the outskirts of Amsterdam to the city boundary. Are you going to suggest that the cycle lane is shorter/less circuitous than the 'motor' roads? Are you going to deny that this route does not cross multiple major roads and many minor roads?

Are you also going to deny the facts with respect to the number of deaths on segregated routes when they cross motor roads aand why they cross motor roads so often thus causing the problem?

Well?

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Not this again - all Dutch cycle lanes are circuitous. No, they're not. The ones I rode for several weeks in Utrecht were often more direct than the road, for example through Wilhelmina Park.

Segregated Dutch cycle lanes are incredibly successful in getting people to ride bikes, and I couldn't disagree more with the constant and unjustified criticism.

Yes, I agree with you.  Having cycled and driven in the Netherlands there are lots of examples around towns in particular where cycle infrastructure goes directly through the town centre and cars are required to go the circuitous route.

Once BTBS gets something in to his head, you will never move him though.

I do agree that presumed liability is an excellent idea.  It is not an either or though.

Improved infrastrucure won't solve all problems and is not the solution for everywhere, but it might solve some problems in some places.

John Smith wrote:

Who said anything about inconsiderately parked cars? However, I guess that attutued says everything. That is the same attitude that leads to punishment passes.

Er, that was me - you can tell by the name at the top of the comment.

I don't quite follow your reasoning - how is wanting to do something about inconsiderate parking related to punishment passes?

(I think that wanting to cause damage to inconsiderately parked vehicles is entirely different to wanting to frighten/bully/hurt people for cycling in the road)

John Smith wrote:

I would be weary about comparing skateboarders to cycling. I used to skateboarders in my yonger days (well, fall off a skateboarder mostly) and at the time I got upset. Skateboarders (as well as BMXs and scooters) do, however, cause damage to buildings. If you have a look at any street furnature, walls and ledges where skaters gather you will see scars, cuts and large chips on edges and in the middle of walls, along with skate wax over the place.

Providing appropriate facilities for skateboarding to avoid damage to buildings is very different to segragating cycling from traffic.

Yep, cycling and skateboarding are totally different, but are both considered out-groups. BMX-ers kinda bridge the gap though.

Personally, I don't care about damage to buildings - it's part and parcel of the interaction between people and their surroundings. To put a stone structure ahead of the wants and needs of people seems harsh and un-feeling. Seems to me more like rich people wanting to protect their capital, comrade.

hawkinspeter wrote:

John Smith wrote:

I would be weary about comparing skateboarders to cycling. I used to skateboarders in my yonger days (well, fall off a skateboarder mostly) and at the time I got upset. Skateboarders (as well as BMXs and scooters) do, however, cause damage to buildings. If you have a look at any street furnature, walls and ledges where skaters gather you will see scars, cuts and large chips on edges and in the middle of walls, along with skate wax over the place.

Providing appropriate facilities for skateboarding to avoid damage to buildings is very different to segragating cycling from traffic.

Yep, cycling and skateboarding are totally different, but are both considered out-groups. BMX-ers kinda bridge the gap though.

Personally, I don't care about damage to buildings - it's part and parcel of the interaction between people and their surroundings. To put a stone structure ahead of the wants and needs of people seems harsh and un-feeling. Seems to me more like rich people wanting to protect their capital, comrade.

Do you feel the same when it is council owned benches being renderd unusuable because of damage, and the tax payer having to spend thousands to repair them? I don't agree that it is part of peoples interaction with their surroundings. It is not accidental, it is knowingly doing something that will cause damage. Would you feel the same were we talking about free runners causing damage by running and jumping over parked cars? Being able to practice grinds and wall rides is not exactly a human right.

John Smith wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

John Smith wrote:

I would be weary about comparing skateboarders to cycling. I used to skateboarders in my yonger days (well, fall off a skateboarder mostly) and at the time I got upset. Skateboarders (as well as BMXs and scooters) do, however, cause damage to buildings. If you have a look at any street furnature, walls and ledges where skaters gather you will see scars, cuts and large chips on edges and in the middle of walls, along with skate wax over the place.

Providing appropriate facilities for skateboarding to avoid damage to buildings is very different to segragating cycling from traffic.

Yep, cycling and skateboarding are totally different, but are both considered out-groups. BMX-ers kinda bridge the gap though.

Personally, I don't care about damage to buildings - it's part and parcel of the interaction between people and their surroundings. To put a stone structure ahead of the wants and needs of people seems harsh and un-feeling. Seems to me more like rich people wanting to protect their capital, comrade.

 

Do you feel the same when it is council owned benches being renderd unusuable because of damage, and the tax payer having to spend thousands to repair them? I don't agree that it is part of peoples interaction with their surroundings. It is not accidental, it is knowingly doing something that will cause damage. Would you feel the same were we talking about free runners causing damage by running and jumping over parked cars? Being able to practice grinds and wall rides is not exactly a human right.

At least when skateboarders render a bench unusable (seems like it'd take a lot of damage to do so), they've taken quite a while to do so and the bench has been fully usable in the meantime. In contrast, benches now seem to be designed to only be comfortable for a short period of time and are specifically not suitable to lie down on (nobody wants to actually see homeless people). So yes, the upkeep cost is reduced and so is their utility.

Personally, I'd laugh if I saw free runners running and jumping over inconsiderately parked cars. I'd be more than happy if "keying" badly parked cars was made legal.

John Smith wrote:

I would be weary about comparing skateboarders to cycling. I used to skateboarders in my yonger days (well, fall off a skateboarder mostly) and at the time I got upset. Skateboarders (as well as BMXs and scooters) do, however, cause damage to buildings. If you have a look at any street furnature, walls and ledges where skaters gather you will see scars, cuts and large chips on edges and in the middle of walls, along with skate wax over the place.

 

Providing appropriate facilities for skateboarding to avoid damage to buildings is very different to segragating cycling from traffic.

But regardless of 'why' you are there, once there, you will be expected to stay there. Like the example of glass in the cycle lanes being similar to the skatepark now being full of smashed bottles , dog shit and thugs - people won't initially understand why you aren't using it.

There's a sustrans route near me that goes for about 3 miles along an old railway line and at times is almost a parallel to the road. I'll be on the road though as it's faster and I want to go fast but the sustrans is full of dogs, dog shit, shit people and those enjoying a gentle cycle rather than doing 20+ 

ktache wrote:

But Rick, the Dutch don't have separate infrastructure everywhere, but the stuff they do have is of such quality that loads of people cycle, so that all drivers, if not cyclists themselves, know many cyclists, often loved ones, so find it difficult to dehumanise them.

We already have intolerance everywhere, it would just be nice to have some proper stuff somewhere.

But, of course, unlike the Dutch, we have accepted all those slaughtered children, because, you know, cars...

And despite that 'quality' infrastructure when it criss crosses 'motor' roads this is precisely where the Dutch have the greatest number of deaths, almost a third of all deaths are at these junctions. And why do they junction, because of segregation and meandering cycle lanes that don't go in straight lines.

So even the Dutch drivers whom are massively fewer than here in the UK and likely ride themselves on occasion are as likely to kill/injure as their UK counterpart when they actually interact with people on bikes.

You also have the problem of out of sight, out of mind, in places where there is little/no segregated infra the problem is as bad as here, because drivers don't know how to act around road cyclists, they give little respect and close passes etc are still a thing.

The ultimate solution is basically what they are doing in Copengahen, Oslo and other cities, removing motor vehicles completely, segregating away the motorist, not the cyclist. The Dutch model of segregated infra is only good to a point, as I said it meanders often (see the screenshot from a cycle route compared to a road to the South East of Amsterdam ... guess which one is which!) and due to its nature has to cross motor roads many times over which is where much of the danger arises from.

We still need to accept that in the greatest cycling nation in the modern era, that's still only 26% modal share, that's 30% less than what we did have in the UK on roads - with virtually no segregated paths of note in the late 40s/early 50s and 15 Billion miles travelled (so a lot of short/er trips).

Taking back through roads OR taking back one side of the highway with absolute priority at turns/junctions would work out to be massively safer than even segregated AND it would be far more convenient and direct thus making it more attractive. Mickael Coalville Anderson is implicit in this as part of the solution to encourage people to cycle more. They want direct lines of travel, this is why in places like Stevenage despite the wide segregated infra it's hardly used. because it meanders, it has built in obstacles, it has built in steep slopes, it's often used by peds etc AND the motor roads are straight, direct, wide and access everywhere.

My own estate could easily have a one way system for motors on the existing loop road, with cycling in both directions on the other side, no need to build anything, just squeeze the motors out/off. We already see how planners are already accepting narrow strips of cycle lanes even for the much touted Manchester and Cardiff offerings, no thanks, it's shit and simply not wide enough, not direct enough and still doesn't join up everywhere, unlike the road network.

You can add local segregation if you want to but taking back that existing bit of road or even whole road would make that less necessary. They already relaxed cycling on the footpaths on my estate when there was a TRO when the estate was built but forcing motorists to only ever be able to travel at 20mph in built up areas (residential, industrial, mixed use) as well as strengened justice system/presumed liability is an overall better system than wholly segregating which as I said, even in the greatest modern cycling nation is still flawed. Adding e-bikes into the equation has made matters even worse, not better (and I've said why about that elsewhere).