A Crash Course in Cycling (or, why everyone should be a cyclist)

[Wolfshade]

Yes you assume correctly.

There is no pavements! Just footways/paths and cycleways/paths.

And you are quite right, they are not an issue if done correctly, unfortunately as you seem to infer they are usually not done very well at all.



So you have to content with all kinds of street furniture, let alone what happens if you have a bus stop in the cycle lane and the number of people milling about.

There arises a conflict because the pedestrians can wander freely across either the foot part or the cycle part legally, the issue is that the cyclist technically should not leave the cycle way so can end up impeded by pedestrians and if you are in an area where the cycling density is quite low, (i.e.not cambridge/oxford) then ringing bells and calling warning is seen as quite a hostile action.

Indeed, I have been berated for "not getting out of the way" of oncoming pedestrains, I remain on the cycleway stationary waiting for the pedestrian to move, when I pointed out that I was on the only part I was allowed to be it was suggested that I "go forth and multiply"

The Dutch don't technically have shared facilities, they are each dedicated and appropriate to each others needs.



This is as close as they get to shared use. As you can see the pavement is for the pedestrians and the cycle route is for the cyclists and is demarked in a seperate colour, with a different surface. The pedestrians do not have a right of way on the cycle path and the cyclists don't have a right of way on the pedestrain path.

The closest to a shared provision is outside of urban areas where low speed mopeds (25kph or slower) are permitted to use cycle paths.

[Morgrim]

There was an article in the paper today about how a group of local truck drivers hate cyclists to the point that they will deliberately overtake them, then once the cyclist is clear of the cabin drift left to force the cyclist off the road. And not care if they cycling can't and collides because the body of the truck isn't going to show any markings from a crash so they can't be blamed or proven at fault. :||||

[Wildeybeast]

Yeah, I saw those mopeds on the outskirts of Amsterdam. They weren't going much faster than most of the cyclists, so it didn't seem much of an issue. As you say, when done properly these sorts of things work fine. There are some dedicated cycle lanes on newer road systems that are pretty good, but they are isolated pockets. I don't understand why councils bother with them at all if they are going to make such a half-arsed pigs ear of it.

[Wolfshade]

Exactly, it only causes resentment. I stumbled across one that was literally mind boggling:



What is the point? 246ft.

Really.

Sigh. Though apparently it is scheduled for a massive overhaul and being joined up to a large network.

The worst ones are ones that are dangerous because they pass too close to objects or are a perfect "door zone". Then people see cyclists not using a cycle lane and then go, "well you should be using that" and yet they don't understand why you don't, or indeed that you are perfectly valid not to.



^^ This is an example, 5 crossings where you have to give way, may as well go on the main road and have right of way throughout, it would certainly save on paint and signs.

I think councils do it to make a big show of their "green" endeavours. Unfortunately, a lot of the traffic engineers do not understand traffic flow let alone how pedestrians and cyclists use the space.

Then when it doesn't get used they go "well we did our best, we shan't bother again".

- - - Updated - - -

There was an article in the paper today about how a group of local truck drivers hate cyclists to the point that they will deliberately overtake them, then once the cyclist is clear of the cabin drift left to force the cyclist off the road. And not care if they cycling can't and collides because the body of the truck isn't going to show any markings from a crash so they can't be blamed or proven at fault. :||||

Urgh, it is reasons like this that I have my gopro, yeah i look like a tool with it a top my helmet but sometimes video evidence is all you have.

Oh btw Any joy with the different carrying options on the stairs?

[Morgrim]

Oh btw Any joy with the different carrying options on the stairs?

Sadly not, it's been raining heavily and pretty miserable, given the main bike path I like is by the river I'd like the river to stick to its own waterlane and not invade the bikepath first.

[Wolfshade]

Bristol, has a desire and appetite to become a cycling city and has been putting a fairly pro-cycling agenda forward.

One of it's flag ship projects is the [URL="http://www.bristolbathrailwaypath.org.uk/home.shtml"]Bristol and Bath Railway Path[/URL] [A fairly flat route along a disused railway] shared use pedestrian-cyclist route. Since it has opened it has been recieved plaudits for being a good use of disused railway but even from the get go there were complaints that "cyclists were going to fast" or that "pedestrians wandered unaware all over the path".

A survey for the Royal Geographical Society in London has discovered how much the two groups really but heads.

600 users were surveyed

+ over half of users said that they had experienced frustration as a result of other people using the route on the day they were questioned.
+ over three quarters said that they kept their feelings to themselves and did not confront the other users.

Presenting the findings of the research Delaney stated that: “Government guidelines for shared-use paths are based on research that focuses on the observable conflicts that take place and thus the consensus is that conflict between users is rare. However, this research shows that when shared path relations are examined in more detail there are a great deal of frustrations bubbling beneath the surface.

The survey highlights the difficulty of designing facilities for a mix of mode users. The majority of cyclists would like more information and guidance provided to all users on how to share the path, whereas some pedestrians would prefer to be separated from cyclists. There was also a feeling that some cyclists need to slow down.”

The research showed that cyclists were most likely to experience frustration as a result of other people using the path [this is probably because they would have a higher interaction rate, as cycling is quicker than walking] but they were also the most common cause of complaint.

However, only about a third of respondants said that they would enjoy their journeys more if people on foot and on bike were physically segregated.

This research, which is the first that I am aware of, is set to continue to try and better understand where conflicts and frustation occur and therefore what can be done to resolve these.

[Wolfshade]

Today is National Cycle To Work Day!

[url]https://www.cycletoworkday.org/[/url]

Some news coverage for it:
[url]https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dDYr4SHO00QZX8MrLHm6Y9ghRJAqM&q=cycle+to+ work+day&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XSsIVJOfA9TX7Aa5 0IDACw&ved=0CDIQqgIwAQ[/url]

[Wolfshade]

Couple o bits of news from states side.

California passes 3' rule.



The current law states that you should pass a cyclist at a "safe distance", (similar to the UK law). However, new laws have been passed after two previous versions have failed.

Under the law, if traffic or roadway conditions prevent motorists from giving cyclists 3 feet of clearance, drivers must “slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent” and only pass when the cyclist will not be endangered.

Fines run to $35 for violations, but this rises to $154 with additional fees. Drivers who collide with cyclists and injure them while violating the law will be subject to a $220 fine.

The impact of cycling lanes in NY

Since 2007, NY has put in 31 miles of protected cycle lanes. The point of the scheme was to protect the cyclists and make a safe environment in order to try and encourage cycling use, anything to try and reduce the car usage to try and get the city moving again.

So, firstly, what was the impact of the lanes on safety:



So, overall a 20% decrease, so that is a good thing. The lowest reduction is cycle vs cycle. There are two things to remember here, firstly, cycle lanes don't actually impact the nmber of cycle v cycle interactions and secondly there has been a large upswing in cycling since the routes were put in.

There was also a fringe benefit on motorists



While this isn't in all areas, in another area there was a 35% increase and in all other areas there was at worst a 0 impact.

Which is a bit weird really, so how was it achieved:



In most places the cycling lane didn't take out a driving lane to begin with. Normally smaller lanes lead to lower speeds, but on these roads average speed was down at 11mph anyway so the impact of the smaller lanes was negligable.

Another improvement was something called a pocket lane for left-hand turns: a devoted turning lane at most intersections that takes the place of the parking lane, which gets cars out of the way of moving traffic when they're making a left.

This is shown below on 8th avenue.


So, we have sensible infrastructure that has no impact on the traffic flow, it has increased cycle usage and decreased injury rates

[Psychosplodge]

is the 5' buffer necessary when they're to the left of a parking lane though?

[Wolfshade]

I don't really know to be honest, from the photograph it looks like "left over" road space that gets eaten up by the pocket lane so that the left turning vehicles have the 5' barrier