would like to contribute to politics of road-sharing

[sopht]

Hello, have been a long time follower of electric bike technology (15 yrs +!), and an admirer of the path taken by the Dutch - and an equally dismayed follower of the antagonism in this country between car/pedestrian/cycle users. My particular desires are to see a Netherlands-style network policy in this country - and a development of the security and ease of parking higher value ebikes so that they can form part of everyday life in Britain.

 

[Fat Rat]

Hi welcome to the site

 

[flecc]

My particular desires are to see a Netherlands-style network policy in this country - and a development of the security and ease of parking higher value ebikes so that they can form part of everyday life in Britain.

Goverment policy is in the direction of The Netherlands, but as ever we do things half-heartedly at best, usually much worse. London is where the greatest effort and expenditure is made, but it's still minimal, blighted by the age of the city with often narrow overcrowded streets, poor layouts and a surfeit of old buildings we seem obsessed with preserving so can't be bulldozed.

I don't hold out much hope for the second part, e-bikes or any cycling being a part of everyday life. The British population tends to be largely anti- cycling, regarding bikes as a general nuisance on both roads and pavements. There's also a widespread view that cycling is dangerous, leading to generations of kids who've been prevented from cycling by parents. Those adults who've never learned to ride a bike are highly unlikely to abandon their cars and learn to ride bikes now. It could only happen with draconian enforcement, but any government trying that would be quickly slung out of office.
.

 

[Wicky]

as ever we do things half-heartedly at best, usually much worse.

Case in point where I live the County Council built a shared foot / cycle path on a now quiet road (due to a bypass nearby having been built a few years previously) at a cost of £750,000 - despite local Council, cycle groups and local residents saying it wasn't the best idea or even needed.

Council to press ahead with controversial £750,000 cycle path scheme in Mile End Road, Colchester

£750,000 cycle path 'unwanted by cyclists' in Mile End Road dug up after just seven months

 

[Benjahmin]

I was in Cardiff yesterday and saw some of the painted on 'cycle lanes', which were parked on, driven over and roundly ignored by all. Where there was a cycle path specific (in the redeveloped bay area) there was the usual abrupt 'Cyclists dismount here' sign as the path approached a shared use bridge. It gave me the perception that cyclists are perceived to be both a danger and in danger. We will get nowhere until this perception is changed. It made me think that what is needed is a move to the Netherlands style, if you're in a car and you hit a bike, it's your fault - no arguement. People accept that if you run into the back of another car you are at fault, why not this? It would have to go hand in hand with a nudge type re-education of existing cyclists to not be so aggresive/beligerent with a combined governmental push towards cycling as transport not just sports.
The tendency , in this country, to put some paint on the road and call it cycling infrastructure, is a total joke. Shared paths are also a typical fudge/joke, especially when strolled all over by families who then act surprised and annoyed when a 'highly dangerous' bike comes along (this I also saw in the Bay area yesterday). What happened to the good old public information film that did so much to change the underlying attitude to drink driving over the years?

 

[Laser Man]

My particular desires are to see a Netherlands-style network policy in this country - and a development of the security and ease of parking higher value ebikes so that they can form part of everyday life in Britain.

Unless Sustrans (supposedly THE experts on cycle ways) change their attitude dramatically, there is no way that this can happen.
On our local cycle path (a Sustrans job only some 10 years ago) at each road junction the cycle path veers AWAY from the road junction, effectively making two separate junctions about 30 yards apart. Having cleared the road junction, there is no way that cars are going to stop again at the bike crossing.
Had the cycle path been brought to the edge of the main road at the junctions, then there would have been the possibility of a Dutch style arrangement where cyclists going straight on have priority over cars turning.

 

[flecc]

What happened to the good old public information film that did so much to change the underlying attitude to drink driving over the years?

These were made by the Central Office of Information which was closed by the government for economy reasons seven years ago this coming Sunday, 30th December.

The information film function is being left to independent organisations and companies, so we still see a few on such as rail safety, fire danger, gas leaks, child protection etc.
.

 

[flecc]

On our local cycle path (a Sustrans job only some 10 years ago) at each road junction the cycle path veers AWAY from the road junction, effectively making two separate junctions about 30 yards apart.

I'm sure the thinking here is that cars stopping won't be stuck out behind into the lane they are exiting, blocking that traffic. But as you say, the drivers aren't stopping anyway.

In my area there's one roundabout dangerous to cyclists which has a bypass route on the right, crossing the roads each side of the roundabut and well away from it. The magic difference is that both crossings are light controlled Toucans and quick acting, so cars have to stop. Just a hint of The Netherlands cycling preference.
.

 

[Deleted member 128]

It made me think that what is needed is a move to the Netherlands style, if you're in a car and you hit a bike, it's your fault - no arguement. People accept that if you run into the back of another car you are at fault, why not this?

We'd need many more cyclists to start behaving responsibly first, how can it be the drivers fault if a cyclist going through the lights on red runs into them?

 

[Robbieg]

I was in Cardiff yesterday and saw some of the painted on 'cycle lanes', which were parked on, driven over and roundly ignored by all. Where there was a cycle path specific (in the redeveloped bay area) there was the usual abrupt 'Cyclists dismount here' sign as the path approached a shared use bridge. It gave me the perception that cyclists are perceived to be both a danger and in danger. We will get nowhere until this perception is changed. It made me think that what is needed is a move to the Netherlands style, if you're in a car and you hit a bike, it's your fault - no arguement. People accept that if you run into the back of another car you are at fault, why not this? It would have to go hand in hand with a nudge type re-education of existing cyclists to not be so aggresive/beligerent with a combined governmental push towards cycling as transport not just sports.
The tendency , in this country, to put some paint on the road and call it cycling infrastructure, is a total joke. Shared paths are also a typical fudge/joke, especially when strolled all over by families who then act surprised and annoyed when a 'highly dangerous' bike comes along (this I also saw in the Bay area yesterday). What happened to the good old public information film that did so much to change the underlying attitude to drink driving over the years?

Think one problem could be that those that make the ultimate decision of the type of and configuration of cycle lanes and junction types etc, may not ride a bicycle.

 

[Robbieg]

We'd need many more cyclists to start behaving responsibly first, how can it be the drivers fault if a cyclist going through the lights on red runs into them?

A very good point