Is It Just Me That Thinks This Cycle Highway Is A Joke?
Discussion
Banana Boy said:
So you've posted on a cycling forum looking for support rubbishing a scheme designed to help and protect cyclists...
Also we're ALL paying for the building and maintenance of the highways through VED, Council Tax, Income Tax and VAT etc. 'Road Tax' hasn't existed for over 75 years! (Like many cyclists I pay all of these taxes, I suspect that unless you can find a tree hugging hippie that has manufactured their entire existence from hemp and handouts, most cyclists have contributed in one way or another!)
www.ipayroadtax.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438
While I think your tone is aggressive and misplaced (it's not the common cyclists fault that schemes like this are dreamt up!) I agree that integration is generally better than separation.
We all have two major problems when it comes to government road building schemes; firstly the motorist has ruled the roost for too long, for many reasons (money, money, money) our road networks have been tailored to suit the motor industries. Secondly, while the rest of the world is building wider more open roads to accommodate all road users our government and planners are making our highways narrower and less inclusive?! I suspect this is mostly down to the all powerful property boom that puts the value of a square meter of retailable land above everything else.
Ultimately the real answer is an increased awareness and respect from all sides of the divides. A change in attitudes would be a million times cheaper than any road scheme!
No, he didn't post it here. He posted it in General Gassing but for some reason it was moved here, I don't see why considering these new cycle roads effect all road users. Also we're ALL paying for the building and maintenance of the highways through VED, Council Tax, Income Tax and VAT etc. 'Road Tax' hasn't existed for over 75 years! (Like many cyclists I pay all of these taxes, I suspect that unless you can find a tree hugging hippie that has manufactured their entire existence from hemp and handouts, most cyclists have contributed in one way or another!)
www.ipayroadtax.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438
While I think your tone is aggressive and misplaced (it's not the common cyclists fault that schemes like this are dreamt up!) I agree that integration is generally better than separation.
We all have two major problems when it comes to government road building schemes; firstly the motorist has ruled the roost for too long, for many reasons (money, money, money) our road networks have been tailored to suit the motor industries. Secondly, while the rest of the world is building wider more open roads to accommodate all road users our government and planners are making our highways narrower and less inclusive?! I suspect this is mostly down to the all powerful property boom that puts the value of a square meter of retailable land above everything else.
Ultimately the real answer is an increased awareness and respect from all sides of the divides. A change in attitudes would be a million times cheaper than any road scheme!
Hoofy said:
True. But it only lasts the length of the bridge in this example then it's back to narrow streets. 
And if they put a segregated cycle lane on the narrow streets, I'm not sure how any motorised transport would manage to pass by.
It's clearly there because it's the only way over the Thames for some miles in either direction, between the two largest royal parks, to a huge shopping center, to many schools either way, to one of the counties most popular cycle shops etc etc. And if they put a segregated cycle lane on the narrow streets, I'm not sure how any motorised transport would manage to pass by.Anyway, I think having scooters and motorbikes in the cycle lane is a terrible idea. They're bigger and heavier and often have worse awareness than cyclists and if one hits me it's going to hurt much more than a push bike.
mygoldfishbowl said:
No, he didn't post it here. He posted it in General Gassing but for some reason it was moved here, I don't see why considering these new cycle roads effect all road users.
The mods leave the clickbait cycling topics (fatalities) in General Gassing, but this stuff (which is about general road use) they tend to move out of General, presumably as it won't act as an internet traffic magnet to juice the advertising revenue.
mygoldfishbowl said:
Banana Boy said:
So you've posted on a cycling forum looking for support rubbishing a scheme designed to help and protect cyclists...
Also we're ALL paying for the building and maintenance of the highways through VED, Council Tax, Income Tax and VAT etc. 'Road Tax' hasn't existed for over 75 years! (Like many cyclists I pay all of these taxes, I suspect that unless you can find a tree hugging hippie that has manufactured their entire existence from hemp and handouts, most cyclists have contributed in one way or another!)
www.ipayroadtax.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438
While I think your tone is aggressive and misplaced (it's not the common cyclists fault that schemes like this are dreamt up!) I agree that integration is generally better than separation.
We all have two major problems when it comes to government road building schemes; firstly the motorist has ruled the roost for too long, for many reasons (money, money, money) our road networks have been tailored to suit the motor industries. Secondly, while the rest of the world is building wider more open roads to accommodate all road users our government and planners are making our highways narrower and less inclusive?! I suspect this is mostly down to the all powerful property boom that puts the value of a square meter of retailable land above everything else.
Ultimately the real answer is an increased awareness and respect from all sides of the divides. A change in attitudes would be a million times cheaper than any road scheme!
No, he didn't post it here. He posted it in General Gassing but for some reason it was moved here, I don't see why considering these new cycle roads effect all road users. Also we're ALL paying for the building and maintenance of the highways through VED, Council Tax, Income Tax and VAT etc. 'Road Tax' hasn't existed for over 75 years! (Like many cyclists I pay all of these taxes, I suspect that unless you can find a tree hugging hippie that has manufactured their entire existence from hemp and handouts, most cyclists have contributed in one way or another!)
www.ipayroadtax.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438
While I think your tone is aggressive and misplaced (it's not the common cyclists fault that schemes like this are dreamt up!) I agree that integration is generally better than separation.
We all have two major problems when it comes to government road building schemes; firstly the motorist has ruled the roost for too long, for many reasons (money, money, money) our road networks have been tailored to suit the motor industries. Secondly, while the rest of the world is building wider more open roads to accommodate all road users our government and planners are making our highways narrower and less inclusive?! I suspect this is mostly down to the all powerful property boom that puts the value of a square meter of retailable land above everything else.
Ultimately the real answer is an increased awareness and respect from all sides of the divides. A change in attitudes would be a million times cheaper than any road scheme!
No I don't see that a separate cycling route should have any effect on motorists (including bikers) other than potentially there will be fewer cyclists to avoid) - I do feel that generally integration is better but absolutely, separation can be a good alternative.
Unless of course the OP is actually suggesting that he will be more at risk because car/van/lorry drivers will be aiming for bikers instead of cyclists!?
okgo said:
Hoofy said:
True. But it only lasts the length of the bridge in this example then it's back to narrow streets. And if they put a segregated cycle lane on the narrow streets, I'm not sure how any motorised transport would manage to pass by.
It's clearly there because it's the only way over the Thames for some miles in either direction, between the two largest royal parks, to a huge shopping center, to many schools either way, to one of the counties most popular cycle shops etc etc. And if they put a segregated cycle lane on the narrow streets, I'm not sure how any motorised transport would manage to pass by.
Dammit said:
You mean pass by as in overtake?
I mean pass through a street that's quite narrow at the best of times when you have people parked (in parking bays).Someone mentioned that segregated lanes were to encourage people to take up cycling. It's no good if they're not everywhere but at the same time, it's physically impossible to put such lanes everywhere unless you want to, for instance, stop delivery lorries and buses doing their thing.
Beyond Kingston bridge there is a cycle route right through the town and the roads in Hampton Wick are generally slow moving and fine. Kingston bridge is 5 lanes of traffic sometimes moving quickly and seeing as people have no other way of crossing the bridge, as I said many will be kids and stuff it's good to make it safe given no quiet alternative is possible.
Banana Boy said:
Ah ok, my apologies - it doesn't say that it was originally posted in General Gassing?! I think the mods could have picked a better place to put it maybe?
No I don't see that a separate cycling route should have any effect on motorists (including bikers) other than potentially there will be fewer cyclists to avoid) - I do feel that generally integration is better but absolutely, separation can be a good alternative.
Unless of course the OP is actually suggesting that he will be more at risk because car/van/lorry drivers will be aiming for bikers instead of cyclists!?
First off they've got to build the thing which will inconvenience everyone which is fair enough I guess, but the embankment (for example) will go from a duel two lane in each direction to a non duel single lane in each direction which will effect the flow of traffic considerably. No I don't see that a separate cycling route should have any effect on motorists (including bikers) other than potentially there will be fewer cyclists to avoid) - I do feel that generally integration is better but absolutely, separation can be a good alternative.
Unless of course the OP is actually suggesting that he will be more at risk because car/van/lorry drivers will be aiming for bikers instead of cyclists!?
okgo said:
Beyond Kingston bridge there is a cycle route right through the town and the roads in Hampton Wick are generally slow moving and fine. Kingston bridge is 5 lanes of traffic sometimes moving quickly and seeing as people have no other way of crossing the bridge, as I said many will be kids and stuff it's good to make it safe given no quiet alternative is possible.
And similarly, if there were no lane, it'd be wider still and drivers should still be able to avoid hitting cyclists. As it stands, you get cyclists on the road and you have to drive round them, anyway.No, that's a common fallacy - it's not a case of "either this extreme or that extreme", it's a case of making a sensible decision based on the environment and the needs of the road users.
On broad roads such as Embankment where it's easy to reduce the space available to motorised traffic then it's fine.
On narrow roads then it's not a valid option, unless you can ban parking, including pick-up/drop-off.
So narrow roads are better suited to a 20mph limit rather than a dedicated lane.
On broad roads such as Embankment where it's easy to reduce the space available to motorised traffic then it's fine.
On narrow roads then it's not a valid option, unless you can ban parking, including pick-up/drop-off.
So narrow roads are better suited to a 20mph limit rather than a dedicated lane.
Dammit said:
No, that's a common fallacy - it's not a case of "either this extreme or that extreme", it's a case of making a sensible decision based on the environment and the needs of the road users.
On broad roads such as Embankment where it's easy to reduce the space available to motorised traffic then it's fine.
On narrow roads then it's not a valid option, unless you can ban parking, including pick-up/drop-off.
So narrow roads are better suited to a 20mph limit rather than a dedicated lane.
I agree but then you quoted "should".On broad roads such as Embankment where it's easy to reduce the space available to motorised traffic then it's fine.
On narrow roads then it's not a valid option, unless you can ban parking, including pick-up/drop-off.
So narrow roads are better suited to a 20mph limit rather than a dedicated lane.
"and drivers should still be able to avoid hitting cyclists", "should" is the issue as drivers can't avoid hitting cyclists, it happens all the time.
Which rather makes the case for segregated infra where it is possible to have it.
For the record I don't personally support segregation, but the better alternative (actual enforcement of road traffic regs) is clearly not going to happen, so it's the next best thing we have available.
Which rather makes the case for segregated infra where it is possible to have it.
For the record I don't personally support segregation, but the better alternative (actual enforcement of road traffic regs) is clearly not going to happen, so it's the next best thing we have available.
Dammit said:
"and drivers should still be able to avoid hitting cyclists", "should" is the issue as drivers can't avoid hitting cyclists, it happens all the time.
Which rather makes the case for segregated infra where it is possible to have it.
For the record I don't personally support segregation, but the better alternative (actual enforcement of road traffic regs) is clearly not going to happen, so it's the next best thing we have available.
Sorry, just that when you quoted "should", it sounded like you were taking the extreme opinion. Which rather makes the case for segregated infra where it is possible to have it.
For the record I don't personally support segregation, but the better alternative (actual enforcement of road traffic regs) is clearly not going to happen, so it's the next best thing we have available.
I think some kind of training or education needs to be implemented but aimed at which groups is down to people paid to do the research.
Ah, ok - no, I think it'd be great if we could all share the road, the problem comes when we get crazily polarised views shouting about banning this/that etc.
I'm just in the process of building a race bike, cross bike and training bike - all of which will be on display at Bespoked.cc this year.
I'll be taking them to said show in a Volvo estate, which I am currently debating whether or not needs an upgrade from the existing ~340 bhp to ~420.
I'm just in the process of building a race bike, cross bike and training bike - all of which will be on display at Bespoked.cc this year.
I'll be taking them to said show in a Volvo estate, which I am currently debating whether or not needs an upgrade from the existing ~340 bhp to ~420.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff