Good Cycle Infrastructure

Marco_Panettone

Following on from the 'why don't cyclists use cycle lanes?' thread with its links to the all-too-common crap we have in this country I thought a discussion of what we do want would be both interesting and educational, ideally with pictures.


So, any examples, or any thoughts about what YOU want from cycle infrastructure?

Avoriaz

The architect Norman Foster has proposed a high level cycle highway to be built above existing rail lines in London.

lxpeanut

I think people often get too distracted by cycle lanes buts they aren't really the solution. The most dangerous place for cyclists is junctions and these need to be improved even where there are cycle lanes. The dutch roundabouts and the introduction of lights that have a bike only green light are the best things I've heard of.

Nebulous2

I mix and match my usage of cycle lanes, where they exist with the road, depending on conditions and the particular circumstances. However the best bit for me as cyclist is a local bus lane. I live in a smallish city and do most of my riding on country lanes. On an early morning ride, coming back into town while jostling with the commuter traffic, there is a buslane which just works. It doesn't have a lot of buses, it doesn't have much in the way of cycling specific marking - in fact the bit it does have just confuses the issue, but it works for good unimpeded progress.

I don't want shared paths. I don't want narrow paths with lots of give ways and cyclist dismount signs.

I visited the Netherlands for the first time in the summer and was blown away with the infrastructure and compliance. Pedestrians don't walk on the cycle lanes. That has taken at least two generations though, and a great deal of investment as well as education.

cubegame

Nothing.

I want to share the roads. The best way of achieving this is to make sure motorists (and I am one as well) get proper and severe penalties.

Mids_Costcutter

cubegame wrote: »

Nothing.

I want to share the roads. The best way of achieving this is to make sure motorists (and I am one as well) get proper and severe penalties.

I quite agree that enforcing traffic laws is part of the solution, as are lower speeds and junctions designed for cyclists and pedestrians. However as a regular commuter cyclist, I'd still prefer to have a segregated and well-designed cycle track adjacent to the busiest main roads. In my experience this is the approach used in the Netherlands and Germany too. On the majority of the road network yes share, but the environment still has to be right.

Marco_Panettone

Forcing cyclists to share the roads with fast moving large vehicles isn't the way to encourage people to cycle, and certainly isn't working at the moment.


High-quality integrated segregation where a combination of speed and traffic density reduces the feeling of safety for vulnerable road-users is what is needed, along with better enforcement, stiffer penalties and strict liability to protect people where segregation is not desirable and roads are shared.


Special attention needs to be paid to junctions, where pedestrian and cycle traffic should be prioritised over motor traffic, and segregated in time where physical separation isn't possible.

armyknife

Maybe they could get Dickinson & Morris to sponsor this, then it truly would be pie in the sky.

Mids_Costcutter

Why not? Shows ambition. Still cheaper per kilometre than a lot of other transport infrastructure.

hugheskevi

Agree about wanting enforcement of road rules, especially with regard to careless and dangerous driving, as the current approach from the police seems to be to do nothing unless injury is involved (a subjective opinion, based on a lot of observation of many of the cycle-cams on YouTube).

I think the cycle lane here illustrates some of the best and worst features of our current design system. On the positive side if you consider the west-bound direction in isolation then thought has been put into this lane, there is quite good segregation between traffic and the lane retains priority over side roads with the bollards giving as much segregation as possible without actual separation. I wouldn't say it was perfect, but it is much better than most. However, at some point it looks like it was made 2-way simply by banging down paint in the middle of the lane. I'd never use this to travel eastbound - need to cross carriageway to join it, asking for cars to pull out on you as you approach junctions from the wrong direction, the lane is far too narrow in places for two cycles to safely pass in opposite directions and I don't think I'd fancy having oncoming vehicles to my left and oncoming cycles to my right. And to cap it all off, it ends randomly on the pavement (see here). The path in both directions also has the usual failing of starting and ending at fairly random places, but at least it covers a decent stretch.

Personally I'd like national minimum standards for new cycle lanes covering at least a minimum width/separation from traffic, not to be in the door zone, and to have total parking restriction for at least part of the day. That is far from onerous, but so many of the lanes are so comically bad they shouldn't be built.

Agree with segregation, although I do think well-enforced bus lanes make for good cycling infrastructure even where there are lots of buses so I'm not certain that total segregation is needed in all cases. I wonder if there isn't quite a lot of potential for a shift away from parking at side of road being parallel to traffic changing to bay parking along one side of the road (or both if space allows). That both avoids door zone and allows separation of cycle lanes for at least one direction if you put them on the opposite side of bays to traffic. So often when you see 'problem' roads the issue is parked cars. But these sort of things need to be considered at national level.

I don't see the Skycycle as any sort of solution - the plan works out as building less than 7 miles of infrastructure each year for 20 years and only solves a very limited number of issues whilst leaving many issues unresolved. Whilst good infrastructure takes time, I think more ambition than 7 miles a year is needed - a 20 year time-scale seems more appropriate for national-level plans.

In general, I'd like to see a stop to the building of cycling infrastructure which makes cycling more dangerous and the formation of a coherent infrastructure plan at national level (although the bigger cities probably need to be considered separately as they all start from different places - but trying to get as much consistency as possible between places). I'd expect that plan to be long-term as there is no easy solution, but I think that the reallocation of space for cycling has to underpin those plans rather than shared space plans or any design based around more paint on roads with no real change.

Lord_Baltimore

I'd like to go a step further. I'd like whole side roads designated cycle/pedestrian only with each local Council charged to develop routes with residents. The immediate priority should be routes to schools so our kids can ride bikes in safety.

Cyclists are banned from motorways for safety reasons; motor vehicles could be banned from (whole road) cycleways. A car on a cycle road should be penalised heavily as should cyclists who use motor vehicle routes.

Motor vehicles and bikes just do not mix. Cycleways fail through bad design or indifference to their existence by cars and cyclists.

The whole lot needs radical change and it's needed now.