Dutch-style cycle lane planned for Manchester's Oxford Road in major revamp

bambergbike wrote:

It isn't realistic to expect faster cyclists to use the road while slower ones share the path with the zombie pedestrians. Drivers will see the path, decide that all cyclists should be on it and hassle the cyclists who don't use it, so some fast cyclists will be deterred from using the road, maybe after a near miss.

Essentially what happens now then?

I see punishment passes of people who don't take to the path by Oxfam/Whitworth Park pretty regularly. The difference is that the facility in that case is meandering and indirect - heading towards Rusholme, in particular, it's somewhat better going into the city, admittedly, although a bit interesting at funfair time.

TfGM haven't built this yet - so it's a chance to say "Please make it wider" "maintain it properly" and so on. It's also a chance to fold our arms and declare that it'll never work, ever, of course.

notfastenough wrote:

.. I don't disagree that it's the mainstreaming of cycling for transport that this is aimed at. My concern is that once this is in place, there is a risk that drivers will be less tolerant of those of us that choose to use the road rather than the path. Amongst rush-hour pedestrians, I wouldn't be happy riding that path at more than maybe 10mph - great as you say, for the masses that ought to be cycling.

So in summary, I'm not suggesting it's all about me - I'm suggesting that other road users will think that one size fits all, when that's not the case.

However it's these arguments that have left us where we are today. Arguments once supported by the CTC but now rejected, or at least sidelined.

I agree that one size does not fit all but the present situation suits nobody and I would hazard a guess that a Vehicular Cyclist like yourself (?) and indeed me who is capable of (and possibly even quite enjoys) asserting their rights against several tons of steel every day will continue to do so in a way that kids and parents who just want an alternative never will.

Cranky Acid wrote:

Well open your eyes and brains and think about others for a minute. Cycling is not banned from the road and the point is to draw more people into cycling as a mass transport not cater for minority enthusiasts. The vast majority of people who would like to commute and shop by bike do not do so because the current situation scares them off and no amount of 'taking the lane' training will help.

Having seen people get hassled for remaining on the road rather than taking the circuitous Whitworth Park path, I understand the misgivings.

But let's hold TfGMs feet to the fire and make this a decent facility that *all* of us can get some use out of.

"let's hold TfGMs feet to the fire and make this a decent facility that *all* of us can get some use out of"

Agree completely. I'm not a flag waver for TfGM but all the knee jerk reactions against smack of self interested groups of enthusiasts not interested in the needs of the vast majority of people out there who are interested in cycling but scared off.

bambergbike wrote:

the capacity of a lane like this is not adequate for mass cycling.

Nice problem to have though

Cranky Acid wrote:

bambergbike wrote:

the capacity of a lane like this is not adequate for mass cycling.

Nice problem to have though

I see where you're coming from - mass cycling does sound like a pipe dream in some places.

I live in a German town that has a modal share of around 25% and loads of relatively outdated cycling infrastructure. The places with dedicated infrastructure are often much more dangerous than other places where there is none or modern infrastructure that keeps cyclists on-road.

Munich is similar, but on a grander scale - really dicey infrastructure that took decades to build is now gradually being dismantled. It simply led to too many accidents once the modal share hit 20% and the capacity was no longer adequate. Freiburg is another similar case - what worked (sort of) when it was built in the 80s is not fit for purpose now and the new message is that cyclists belong on the road.

Is it really necessary to spend thirty years building dangerous infrastructure which gives people a subjective feeling of safety in order to get numbers up to the point where it becomes necessary to take it all away again because its capacity is so hopelessly limited? Is there really no other way of increasing numbers?

Just by way of clarification: I wouldn't describe actual Dutch infrastructure as built by Dutch engineers as dangerous. But copies of it elsewhere ...

bambergbike wrote:

Just by way of clarification: I wouldn't describe actual Dutch infrastructure as built by Dutch engineers as dangerous. But copies of it elsewhere ...

So you're saying only the Dutch can do decent bike-specific infra and that's the way it will always be, even if we make a good job of following their examples and get their help? We're stuck with 2% of journeys by bike, and kids and pensioners will always be exluded from cycling here (anywhere outside center parcs)?

Because the Dutch certainly aren't closing cycle paths and putting cyclists back in amongst fast busy motor traffic. Check out this bridge... and consider me jealous.

Do you have any links to back up your comments that German cycle infrastructure is considered dangerous and the Germans are giving up on the idea?

pmanc wrote:

Do you have any links to back up your comments that German cycle infrastructure is considered dangerous and the Germans are giving up on the idea?

My point - I may not have made it very clearly - was that the Germans are increasingly moving away from off-carriageway infrastructure and towards putting cyclists on the road (in urban contexts). There is a portal site with information on current German design guidance here:
http://www.nationaler-radverkehrsplan.de/

It's cautiously worded - the powers that be aren't going to admit outright that they have come round to the campaigners' point of view - but it's revealing all the same.

To quote from one of those documents (http://www.nationaler-radverkehrsplan.de/en/transferstelle/downloads/cye...):

"Active press and PR work must be used to inform the
public why it is often safer for cyclists to ride on the carriageway than on old, unsafe off-carriageway cycle facilities. It is crucial to address the reservations of motor vehicle drivers as well as experienced cyclists that have grown accustomed to off-carriageway cycling."

My point about capacity is contained in the same document:

"Where space is lacking, the default option is to
provide on-carriageway facilities rather than a separated cycle path of poor quality. Given the increases in
cycle traffic, cycling facilities introduced today should
also be able to meet future demand, making costly investments at a later stage unnecessary."

Space is often lacking in urban contexts. In rural contexts, where vehicle speeds are likely to be higher, stretches of road between junctions longer, and space less of a consideration, segregated facilities still make perfect sense and are very popular with many cyclists.

pmanc wrote:

So you're saying only the Dutch can do decent bike-specific infra and that's the way it will always be, even if we make a good job of following their examples and get their help?

Dutch-style facilities can obviously be built anywhere the political will to do so exists. That is usually the case where doing things that genuinely benefit cyclists is a clear vote-catcher. That implies that there are enough people already cycling that can tell the difference between something that benefits cycling and something that makes drivers happy, say by removing cyclists from the carriageway and removing priority at side roads from cyclists. In the UK and Ireland, it can, at times, be easier to marshall example of schemes that call themselves "Dutch" than schemes that actually adhere to Dutch design guidelines. This is an Irish example:

http://cyclingindublin.com/2013/03/14/royal-canal-greenway-ramp-double-d...

David Hembrow has lots of excellent posts on various UK misinterpretations of Dutch guidance, and also on the willingness of the Dutch to spend serious money on cycling.

The European Cycling Federation had a press release recently about how Germany might be a more useful model for the UK and Ireland than Holland and possibly Denmark precisely because it isn't a country that has already had a high modal share and very good infrastructure and drivers who think like cyclists for decades already. German cities, rather, are "on the jump" - they have recently seen big increases in the number of people who cycle, from a low base - and that's what I hope will happen in the UK and Ireland, too. That document is here:

http://www.ecf.com/news/cycling-solutions-why-germany-has-all-the-answers/

bambergbike wrote:

pmanc wrote:

Do you have any links to back up your comments that German cycle infrastructure is considered dangerous and the Germans are giving up on the idea?

My point - I may not have made it very clearly - was that the Germans are increasingly moving away from off-carriageway infrastructure and towards putting cyclists on the road (in urban contexts)...

I'm not being deliberately obtuse here, but the problem here seems to be that the cycle specific facilities in question are "old" or "poor quality", and then you appear to be moving on to say that on-carriageway infrastructure is the best alternative. Why not "newer" or "better-quality" facilities? One reason given is the lack of space in an urban environment. The PDF you link to doesn't appear to write off segregated paths altogether, but it does seem, to me, to be badly misguided. The use of the term "protection lane" appears to describe a lane which offers no protection (since cars are allowed to drive in it)? FFS. If the space exists for cars then surely it exists for bikes? It just depends on your priorities. And surely, if you're pushed for space, prioritising smaller lighter forms of traffic which pollute less is a good idea?

We all know that most people will not regularly cycle sharing a carriageway with motor vehicles over a certain speed or volume, and all the "active press and PR work" in the world won't convince them otherwise. Like these people who keenly go on bikeability courses only to cycle home on the pavements afterwards and sadly lock the bike away in the shed again for another decade. The photos in that ECF article do not show cyclists next to lorries. Wouldn't it be a shame if, having seen a dramatic increase in the modal share of cycling, German cities force all the cyclists into the traffic and put everybody off again.

pmanc wrote:

We all know that most people will not regularly cycle sharing a carriageway with motor vehicles over a certain speed or volume.

Absolutely. A blanket speed limit of 20 mph or 30 kph in urban areas (properly enforced and supported by cyclist-friendly traffic-calming measures) would be hugely helpful. So would a big clampdown on dangerous overtaking.

I also fully agree with you that "protection lanes" or "advisory lanes" are rubbish. In Germany they seem to work, more or less. Cars have enough room to overtake cyclists properly, and lorries and buses usually wait behind cyclists until it is safe to pass. But they probably work despite rather than because of the design - I've certainly seen helmet camera videos of advisory lanes not working very well in Dublin (close passes by high-sided vehicles). If cyclists and large vehicles are sharing the carriageway and there isn't enough space for a large vehicle to overtake a cyclist safely, I think "share the road" bicycle "sharrows" work better than lines that wrongly suggest that there is space for large motor vehicles to overtake.

I cited official German guidance to show general trends, but that's not to say that I (or most German cycle campaigners) find it all good. I'm just enthused by the increasing reliance on on-carriageway provision because it seems to result in facilities that are more comfortable and convenient to use.

I cycled across town and today and at one point I had a choice:
I could use a (mostly) on-carriageway cycle lane on a road used by cars, trucks and buses. Or I could use a quieter road designated as a "bicycle street", meaning that cars are only allowed use it at bicycle speeds and must yield to cycle traffic. The latter road is also "residents only", I think. There is on-street car parking, but not much traffic. Both of these solutions reflect strands of current German thinking, as they both cross bridges that have just been rebuilt; neither facility is outdated.

I opted to use the busier road with no physical separation from motor vehicles beyond a white line(marked with stone rater than paint, but not raised). Even though it was a longer route, it was still more convenient: better sightlines, no zombie pedestrians, no on-street car parking, no clumsy street furniture, no need to use my brakes or my bell.

Hey guess what. It's probably not ALL ABOUT YOU.

Ghedebrav wrote:

I'm an experienced cyclist and tend to use the road, often when cycle facilities are available, because it's quicker and, as pointed out, avoids other *ahem* 'hazards'(I've talked about that stretch of cycle path on Oxford Road elsewhere - useless ending at Rusholme indeed, but the rest would be quite useful, were it not for the hordes of studes blithely strolling along it at all times).

I'm an experienced cyclist, and I use the path there, after a frank exchange of views with a bus driver some years ago, in which he made it clear that he regarded cyclists using the road to have surrendered any right to safety, or consideration.

TBH, in a 12 mile journey, it amounts to bugger all inconvenience/delay, and that's with me pottering along being nice to pedestrians too. And it's less, er, interesting than taking the road can be. Although things have improved a great deal lately, I've seen a lot of "punishment driving" around cyclists that stay on the road - not sure why, as no one is going anywhere above walking pace once they hit Rusholme anyway.

as for the new thing - make sure minicabs & delivery vehicles don't park up in it (Fallowfield off road "facility", I'm looking at you) and I daresay it'll get enough use to keep it clear of ambling peds.

Animal wrote:

notfastenough is correct

Waste of money. Just another gerrofftheroad scheme.

And one mile? What use is it anyway?

How about they just ENFORCE THE LAWS?????

Whilst I agree that one mile is hopeless (the key to Dutch style infrastructure is that it is a coherent network that's faster and more direct than the routes cars are allowed to use), it isn't a "gerrofftheroad" shceme- the picture clearly shows that cycles are explicitly allowed in the bus/taxi lane.