CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

On wanting to have your cake and eat it

(42 posts)

  1. fimm
    Member

    Arellcat's comment on the "meanwhile in Telford" thread: "It's made me wonder if the rising tide against Franklin has come about because he has long proselytized vehicular cycling because of his own experience and the times in which he has lived: a boom time for car driving in urban planning, and survival methods in that environment. Even I don't actively enjoy cycling amongst cars and lorries and buses, but until we can have a real alternative we have to learn to cope. It ought to be no more than that: a panacea, not a goal."

    brought the following somewhat off-topic rant from me:
    "The thing is, I as a cyclist want both. I want to cycle on the road because for me it is the quickest and most convenient way to get from A to B. I fear being banned from the road because then I would have to go the long way round, I'd have to share space with pedestians and dogs, I'd have to keep slowing down for all these people who are even more vulnerable than I am. So I want to go on the road and make other vehicles slow down for me.

    But, I also see that the 8 year old cycling to school, or the person returning to cycling who maybe doesn't have the fitness that I have, doesn't necessarily want these things. They're happy to slow down and avoid the dogs and what have you.

    Yet, somehow there seems to be a sense that you can't be both an advocate of vehicular cycling and ask for good cycling facilities, and I'm not sure why this is. Or is it just me who feels like this? "
    which brought a number of responses and a suggestion that a new thread was needed.

    So here is a new thread and I've copied a few responses from the original thread (not including the diversion to the Forth Road Bridge...)

    Dave: It's certainly a puzzle that people fear being banned from the roads. If cycling ever becomes popular enough that politicians commit to building segregated infrastructure on a wide scale, it will be far too popular to ban cycling on the roads.

    However, it's also worth pointing out that road cycling (as a sport, carbon frames and shaved legs ahoy) is apparently significantly more popular in the Netherlands than it is here, and Hembrow at least believes that you can ride at a higher average speed on segregated paths than on the roads, in practice.

    When going up to Roseburn from Leith I used to set a target of averaging 20mph (uphill). My average getting to the top of Leith Walk, on the other hand, is about 10mph, however much I ride in front of the buses ;-)

    sallyhinch: I don't think the 8-year olds want to have to deal with dogs or go the long way round either. If we build stuff that's good enough, it should be good enough for both, and wide enough for the roadies to overtake the 8-year olds (for the average value of 8-year old) and direct enough that everyone uses them. It's only in the UK that we seem to feel that off-road automatically has to mean slow, circuitous and shared with pedestrians.

    That said, I don't that means banning bikes from the roads either. After all we have fully segregated pedestrian facilities, aka pavements, but we don't have any jaywalking laws - pedestrians can walk where they choose. They just mostly don't choose to walk in the road when there's a good pavement to use instead. As, I suspect, most cyclists will choose to use decent segregated paths when they're made available.

    PS: What slows you down is interaction with others - be it junctions, traffic lights, getting stuck behind buses. If the segregated paths are of a good standard (well laid and smooth, unlike so many cyclepaths like the A90 path, the front at Newhaven etc...) and well designed, these interactions will be limited so you maintain a good speed.

    The Netherlands also has a lot of out of town segregated path, along which you often see roadies cycling. You'd be able to get a fair head of speed up along those.

    Uberuce: I cite myself on many occasions but including one less than half an hour ago, as an example of that you mean. I habitually ride the Union towpath to the wee Tesco near my flat and bimble along surprising people by giving them lots of notice that I'd like to be pass once it's convenient, but can rarely be bothered with that once I've got to get the shopping back, so I use the road.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin

    @fimm - thanks for posting all that.

    This is IMPORTANT - it really isn't either or.

    There are those you think ' build and they will come' - who are largely right, but there is no immediate future (especially in Edinburgh) where there will be separate paths 'everywhere' (or even anywhere - getting significant cycle 'infrastructure' on Leith Walk is still a challenge).

    I've just spent two days at a "symposium" on cycling (will take some time to digest) where this and other things were talked around.

    One thing that 'appeared' is a feeling that there is a push for commuting/transport infrastructure which may (or may not) be at odds with less 'pressured' cycling.

    One interesting thing about CCE is that a lot of people are commuter cyclists who (more or less) want to get somewhere fast without cars, traffic lights, dogs - other cyclists - in the way.

    BUT many have children, ride for fun, do Audaxes etc.

    So not really 'two sides' - more multifaceted.

    How planners and politicians view cycling, cyclists and infrastructure is a different matter and, again, important.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  3. This is spot on. Cycling isn't simply black and white. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have your cake and eat it (though I'm not sure the segregated pavements for pedestrians while them still having every right to walk in the road is quite the same thing).

    Riding in places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen you can still ride on the road (I think?), but the segregated facilities are so good, and are alongside pretty much every road (and indeed are so structured that they generally take the more direct route while it is cars that are taken the circuitous route - a conscious decision was taken to do that in Copenhagen), so fast/easy/safe/pootle/direct/wander all co-exist on their cycle facilities.

    There is a belief when cycle facilities are called for in the UK it's asking for more of what already exists, which does meander, with dodgy surfaces, and motorised traffic still taking precedence (note the number of 'END' markings on cycle lanes just as they would be most needed). Anytime anyone tells me that cyclists should have to use cycle lanes and shouldn't be on the road I don't actually disagree - I ask them if that means they'd support public funding of segregated cycle lanes alongside most roads of the country so that that can happen. That achieves their utopian ideal of no cyclists in their way on the roads after all.

    But no, it would appear they just want us off the road and couldn't care less how we then get to where we want to go (at which point their argument becomes one based purely on irrational dislike and tumbles like a house of cards) ;)

    Posted 12 years ago #
  4. Uberuce
    Member

    I'd settle for traffic planners who cycled their kids to school and thence rode onto work every day.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  5. Bhachgen
    Member

    When I was commuting from work in Livingston home to Leith (most of last year) I generally found that if I was leaving the office before 6pm I used the off-road, circuitous routes and/or circuitous but quiet road routes.

    So I would use the canal (outside the bypass), the Newbridge-Kirkliston path, NCN1 from Cramond Brig into town, quiet lanes around Ratho, 'H2EP' route, NEPN etc. The joys of a lengthy cycle commute are that you can always vary the route to keep it interesting. It was at least as quick as using the shorter main road option and a hell of a lot more pleasant and less stressful.

    But if I was on a late shift I would just take the straight line route along the A89 and A8 (yes, even past the airport). I could just get the head down and get home quickly (just over 40 mins on one occasion when I had a stonker of a tailwind) without being held up by buses, taxis, traffic queuing across all the lanes at lights and roundabouts and all the other obstacles better known as other road users.

    Segregated provision is great for urban areas with a lot of motorised traffic and folk that aren't in a hurry anyway. But if you actually like cycling at a decent pace or are riding for "vehicular" purposes then it generally doesn't work. Especially not the way we do it on this country where cycle lanes alongside main roads have to "Give Way" at every side road. Why would I choose to ride in that lane when if I ride on the road all those cars have to give way to me?

    I can't see a situation arising where bikes would be banned from roads where there is a segregated alternative but it does sometimes lead to (even) less respect from motorised road users - "Why are you getting in my way when you have your own lane over there with the dog walkers and kids with stabilisers?".

    Posted 12 years ago #
  6. LaidBack
    Member

    The entrances to the paths we have are degraded and show no signs of improvement (apart from one drop kerb at MMW).
    1% of the 'other' transport project could have opened up and improved access, 'connectivity' and the surfaces on what we already had. In fact it's gone the other way. I'd argue that a prime example of this is the Russell Road ramp - designed to make access tricky and keep numbers down. Ocean terminal - yet another fearful use of bike lanes.

    Do any transport consultants use bikes I wonder? Statistically they must I suppose.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  7. pjmatthews
    Member

    I'm with the "have your cake and eat it brigade here". In response to @Bhachgen - I know what you mean, I cycle down Calder Road every evening and not the canal because it is a lot quicker (if not terrifying at the roundabouts). But to bang on with infrastructure, I can't see why we can't have cycle superhighways a la Copenhagen next to main roads like this:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/jul/18/london-copenhagen-cycle-superhighways
    Basically dual carriageways for bikes.

    The other thing I noticed in the Netherlands is that cycling in their bike lanes is also policed like traffic because they're treated as a class of traffic. As a cyclist if you do something daft or illegal in the cycle path you'll quickly be picked up by the Police and given a ticking off and sent on your way (witnessed when someone tried to go the wrong way over Erasmus Bridge in Rotterdam).

    Posted 12 years ago #
  8. Instography
    Member

    If only it were a question of having cake and eating it. It's more like staring into a patisserie window while sucking on a dry Cream Cracker.

    At some point, whether in the Netherlands in the 70s or now in cities like New York and Paris, where significant investments are being made in cycling, senior politicians decided that 'this is how our future will be' and started to organise their priorities and budgets in a way that reflected that. Until that happens, we will always be struggling to extract shoddy compromises from politicians who would really rather not be spending anything on cycling. I'll worry about whether I should eat the cake when someone gives me some.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  9. crowriver
    Member

    If only it were a question of having cake and eating it. It's more like staring into a patisserie window while sucking on a dry Cream Cracker.

    Hah! Or staring into that same window while having to make do with a few crumbs of chocolate from the discarded wrapper of someone else's chocolate éclair. Think Charlie from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory before he found the golden ticket...

    Posted 12 years ago #
  10. shuggiet
    Member

    In Netherlands they have their cake , eat it and lick their lips.. So in Amsterdam they have a mix of segregated infrastructure (often shared with small motorbikes) and roads.. A lot of the signed bike routes in Amsterdam involved cycling on roads besides canals, which were/are not wide enough to provide segregation. Outside Amsterdam in the countryside some of the brilliant long distance paths are dedicated to bikes, which were filled with leisure riders of all types. The long distance routes (think NCN1) though are a mix of paths and quiet roads. On the quiet roads we'd occasionally come across a car driven too fast...

    I'm with Uberuce... I'd like my son to be able to commute to school, in the same way I can commute to work.. After commuting he could then cycle to his friend's house, and they could all cycle together.. They can't do that today in Edinburgh ,and won't even with the planned family network because they need to be escorted to the start points.....

    Posted 12 years ago #
  11. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Sounds like you want New town's, but without the ugliness!

    In Livingston (for all it's faults), cyclists are allowed to use the entire path network. It is possible to cycle from Dedridge in the south, to Deans in the north without having to cross a main road, and also east to west, or any combination to any area. Children can cycle where ever they like without fear of cars, utopia it is I tell you! ;)

    And you all thought folks were moving out of town because of the prices...

    Posted 12 years ago #
  12. fimm
    Member

    I think it was my first post on here where I pointed out that I am both WISOB (Woman In Suit On Brompton) and MAWIL...

    Interestingly, I actually ride more on off road cycle paths on my road bike, because I use the north Edinburgh Path out to Crammond Brig (but then divert away to Kirkliston, I've never cycled the path to South Queensferry). On the other hand, there is very little off-road infrastructure on any of the routes I cycle regularly on the Brompton (the exception being when I go to the Commie, when I use the Leamington Lift Bridge and the bit of shared use path that takes you to the crossing at the west end of the Meadows - but at that point I prefer to use the road (even the WISOB is a bit of a speed merchant)). I guess this illustrates what everyone else is saying - if the infrastructure is good and takes you where you want to go, people will use it.

    I actually work in Livingston. I cycle on the roads here (with the exception of a short cut I use sometimes) because
    1) I can't get from the cycle path to the office without pushing my bike along a muddy little path
    2) one of the few falls I've had was on black ice on a cycle path so I keep well away from them in winter
    3) using the road is quicker - the cycle path goes the long way round
    4) I don't know where the cycle paths are or where they go, if I want to go somewhere different, while I can access and read road maps easily

    @Bhachgen 40 minutes from Livingston to Leith!!! Wow... I thought I was doing well with 53ish minutes wind assisted Livingston to Gorgie...

    Posted 12 years ago #
  13. fimm
    Member

    Oh yes, and the other thing about off-road cycle paths - you just don't know what you are going to get.

    Let me tell you a story...

    My friend G decided to come and meet me in Gullane and we cycled back to Edinburgh together. Just as we were approaching the place where the main road (A199) bears left away from following the coast, G noticed a blue sign for a shared use path (you can see it on Streetview but I can't read what it says).
    "Let's go that way," says G, "It should bring us out on the Innocent Path."
    Sp we did. It was a nice tarmac path. Then it became a rather rougher path. Then it became a muddy path up a bit of a slope. G was on a broad-tyred touring bike and could just spin up. I was on my thin-tyred road bike with not-very-low gears and couldn't. So I had to get off and walk.

    And then we had to carry the bikes over a railway bridge at Brunstane station.
    Fun for a friendly cycle. Not what I would want to do for my regular commute!

    Maybe we sould provide motorists with a road that becomes a motorway, then a single track road with passing places, then a normal road. See how they like it?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

    "And then we had to carry the bikes over a railway bridge at Brunstane station"

    There is a (longer) alternative -.but you are right about that route.

    The tarmac bit is the 'planning gain' from the nearby houses. No chance of any such money for the next bit.

    Of course in Council terms this route will be seen as 'cross boundary' (East Lothian) so lower priority than others in Edinburgh...

    Posted 12 years ago #
  15. fimm
    Member

    "There is a (longer) alternative -.but you are right about that route."
    We'd spent several minutes puzzling about where we were meant to go as it was, before admitting defeat.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

    "
    We'd spent several minutes puzzling about where we were meant to go as it was, before admitting defeat.
    "
    Obviously no 'alternative flat route' signs. Basically it's along the road by the railway, over the bridge and there happens to be a path on the other side.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  17. cc
    Member

    Imagine that your bidirectional cycle path is gorgeously smooth and is 4 metres wide - 2 metres in each direction. Imagine that it has a separate pavement or footpath nearby for pedestrians. Imagine that it has priority over all minor roads - so you just keep cycling - and that it avoids major roads (goes over or under them). Imagine that it's the only short, direct route from one part of the town to the other - cars have to go round the long way. Imagine that it's always kept clear of obstructions such as snow, ice, wet leaves, burnt out motorbikes, cars, vans and lorries. Imagine that there's either one of these, or a speed-limited street which is a dead end for cars, close enough to take you conveniently from anywhere to anywhere.

    This is what I want for Edinburgh. It's perfectly possible, because it's been done in other places.
    It's not unreasonable, because the benefits would be so massive, for everybody.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  18. Dave
    Member

    As a matter of pride I ride over that railway bridge (even with the trailer) - provides a bit of spice for life. Useless as a general principle though!

    Posted 12 years ago #
  19. Instography
    Member

    It's not even cake. Driving is cake. This is wholemeal.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  20. chdot
    Admin

    "
    This is what I want for Edinburgh. It's perfectly possible, because it's been done in other places.
    It's not unreasonable, because the benefits would be so massive, for everybody.

    "

    Think people might find this interesting -

    Healthy and Bicycle-Friendly School Roads - Guide with ideas for healthy and active transport

    It's from Denmark. It's by a cancer charity that is determined to get children more active - especially by cycling. Of course the political and legislative climate is different. Somehow they manage to make local infrastructure spending easier if it has (money saving) health benefits.

    "
    It is important that the municipalities work across departments, so that the municipality’s ongoing work on infrastructures is seen in connection with the municipality’s multifaceted interests in safe routes to and from school for children who are healthy and ready to learn. By compiling the many interests, the biggest benefit is achieved for the citizens.

    Healthy and active children are an investment that extends into the future because the children grow up and become adults and parents themselves. The physical improvements are permanent, and good traffic habits are often inherited.

    "

    More info

    In the UK/Scotland I think there is a growing public 'demand' for this sort of joined-up-action - and a need for politicians to demonstrate better leadership.

     

    Posted 12 years ago #
  21. Roibeard
    Member

    @cc - I could hear the inspiring music and I could see the "magic hour" lighting as the camera panned to match the voice-over...

    Ah, the vision to make one's heart proud - maybe one day!

    If PoP ever needs a promo video director, I think you may have the job!

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #
  22. cc
    Member

    @Roibeard *laugh* why thank you :-)

    @chdot I'm reading that with great interest, thank you.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  23. wee folding bike
    Member

    The Highway Code was nearly worded so that we would have to use segregated facilities.

    http://beta.ctc.org.uk/campaign/new-highway-code

    Posted 12 years ago #
  24. minus six
    Member

    "Wanting your cake and eating it" is what the status quo of high speed motoring culture demands.

    They don't want cycling on the main roads, you're just in their way, and the off road shared paths are where they walk their untethered dogs, so you'll get short shrift there also.

    Its a farcical backwards provincial country that we live in, and nothing is going to change, bar the occasional cosmetic QBC here and there.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  25. minus six
    Member

    ... but far be it for me to put anyone off fighting the good fight.

    "pushing at an open door" as the SNP administration would have it...

    Posted 12 years ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

    "
    "pushing at an open door" as the SNP administration would have it...

    "

    Been thinking about that -

    Perhaps people have -

    And discovered the door was at the edge of a cliff.

    Not suggesting that any government would have such low regard for the safety of its citizens...

    Posted 12 years ago #
  27. chdot
    Admin

    Earlier I wrote -

    "
    Somehow they manage to make local infrastructure spending easier if it has (money saving) health benefits.
    "

    This isn't about cycling but the fact that the sums can be done and someone is doing them is interesting!

    "
    He said the group had carried out an analysis of the social benefit of the pool, based on a model used by Edinburgh Leisure, and calculated that Waterworld produced a return to the public purse of around £242,000, through savings to the NHS and savings to employers from reduced absences from work.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/campaign-tests-the-water-in-effort-to-save-pool-1-2499314

    Any health economists on here?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  28. Instography
    Member

    I think this is the model they might be referring to. http://www.edinburghleisure.co.uk/detail-456

    You might want a salt cellar handy.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  29. chdot
    Admin

    "You might want a salt cellar handy"

    Thanks.

    Not a good model then??

    Anything better?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  30. Instography
    Member

    Actually, it's OK. In the summary, the consultants provide their own salt.

    Data and assumptions provided by staff at EL have been relied upon in our analysis; Baker Tilly have acted to facilitate EL’s understanding of the methodologies used to evaluate the impact but Baker Tilly are not responsible for the assumptions used in the evaluations shown in this report.

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin