Excessive restrictions

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 5699
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Herts

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by trickstat » Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:08

Piatkow wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 19:46
aj444 wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 18:11
WHBM wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 20:17
The whole of the bus lane network on TfL-maintained roads being arbitrarily made 24x7, including ones where there is no 24 hour service.
I wonder just how many drivers are inconvenienced by the bus lane being 24/7 at 2am when there is little traffic of any description about?
Not 2AM but I have seen lorries delivering to shops at midnight in London. Also many bus lanes have parking allowed when not in use.
I've driven quite a few times on S4 roads in London with part time bus lanes, where myself and other drivers haven't bothered using the bus lane out of hours, because there is little point doing so with the hassle of moving in and out to avoid parked vehicles.

fras
Member
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by fras » Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:15

Herned wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:01
fras wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 19:37
But surely road space provision should match the traffic classes ? Making 15% for cyclist when cycling traffic is less than 10% is wrong in my very humble opinion. And whilst we're at it, when are we going to enforce use of expensively provided cycling lanes. Just thinking....
Yes, good idea. Cycling probably has dedicated use of 0.05% of the road network nationwide, so let's get it to 5% as a sensible mid-term goal
Yes. but what about mandatory use of cycle-specific facilities ?

User avatar
Stevie D
Active Member
Posts: 7925
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by Stevie D » Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:29

fras wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:15
Yes. but what about mandatory use of cycle-specific facilities ?
When the dedicated cycling facilities offer cyclists as good a journey as cycling on the road, come back and ask again.

At the moment, most so-called cycling facilities are worse than sticking to the road, at least for confident and capable cyclists, because
1️⃣ they take a less direct route, meaning more effort needed and a slower journey – especially if they include overbridges or underpasses putting additional gradients on the route
2️⃣ they are often shared with pedestrians who wander all over the place and let their dogs run off the lead (or on the lead, creating a nice tripwire effect)
3️⃣ the design speed is typically low, with a narrow carriageway, sharp corners, obstacles and poor visibility, meaning a slower journey
4️⃣ points where you cross or rejoin the road network are often poorly designed and unsafe
5️⃣ off-road routes and on-road lanes are rarely maintained to the same standard as roads, or swept clear of rubbish (or snow/ice in winter)
In some cases, dedicated cycle facilities in the UK do offer a better journey for slower and less confident cyclists, particularly those making leisure journeys, who are less worried about it taking a bit longer and are certainly not bothered that they can't power along at 20mph, and just want to get away from the traffic – although many of them are objectively worse even for those cyclists. And they are certainly not an adequate replacement for the option to ride in the road.

That isn't to say that dedicated cycle facilities can't be good enough to replace road cycling, just that in the UK they pretty much never are.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31256
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by Bryn666 » Thu Jun 17, 2021 21:09

fras wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:15
Herned wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:01
fras wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 19:37
But surely road space provision should match the traffic classes ? Making 15% for cyclist when cycling traffic is less than 10% is wrong in my very humble opinion. And whilst we're at it, when are we going to enforce use of expensively provided cycling lanes. Just thinking....
Yes, good idea. Cycling probably has dedicated use of 0.05% of the road network nationwide, so let's get it to 5% as a sensible mid-term goal
Yes. but what about mandatory use of cycle-specific facilities ?
What about mandatory use of motorways for car drivers too? We spend all that money on the M6 and people still drive through Knutsford.

Does your argument make sense now?
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

WHBM
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by WHBM » Thu Jun 17, 2021 21:16

aj444 wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 18:11
I wonder just how many drivers are inconvenienced by the bus lane being 24/7 at 2am when there is little traffic of any description about?
Well certainly, the substantial number of main road shops, who over many years had been consulted by the local boroughs and TfL, had bus lane hours set which actually reflected usage and benefit, had arranged all their deliveries etc to be outside the bus lane hours, whether between the peaks, after 6.30pm, etc, when both shopowner and delivery driver stayed on late. All swept away in a One Size Fits All moment of "We are the Masters now", under the guise of "essential Covid measures".

From a radio discussion the week after it was introduced it seemed the Green Loonies at TfL, desperate to stick one on anyone who used a car instead of their marvellous, so inviting, so drug-pusher in the back seat free, so strike free, bus service, had completely forgotten about shop deliveries.
Last edited by WHBM on Thu Jun 17, 2021 21:21, edited 1 time in total.

Herned
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by Herned » Thu Jun 17, 2021 21:19

fras wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:15
Yes. but what about mandatory use of cycle-specific facilities ?
Provide decent facilities and they will be used, whether mandatory or not. How many roads insist that drivers get out and push each time you get to a side turning?

WHBM
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by WHBM » Thu Jun 17, 2021 21:29

Herned wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 21:19
fras wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:15
Yes. but what about mandatory use of cycle-specific facilities ?
Provide decent facilities and they will be used, whether mandatory or not.
This approach always seems two-faced. When used about road traffic it's "If this road is built/widened etc it will only encourage more cars and fill up with traffic straight away", which is considered to be a bad thing. When used about cycle facilities it's "If this cycle lane is built it will encourage more cycling", which is somehow now considered to be a good thing. Although the chances of the cycle facility ever being used to a fraction of the usage and community value of the new road are fanciful. Look at London Cycle Superhighway CS3, out along the A13 across Newham to Barking & Dagenham. Never see a bike on it.

Herned
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by Herned » Thu Jun 17, 2021 22:04

WHBM wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 21:29
This approach always seems two-faced. When used about road traffic it's "If this road is built/widened etc it will only encourage more cars and fill up with traffic straight away", which is considered to be a bad thing. When used about cycle facilities it's "If this cycle lane is built it will encourage more cycling", which is somehow now considered to be a good thing.
Cycling is better for both the individual and the environment, both locally and in the wider sense. It also requires far less infrastructure, far less land for both travelling and storage when not in use. So its not remotely two faced.

The A13 route looks like a horrible place to cycle, I'm not surprised it isn't popular, I would far prefer to cycle along quieter streets with the traffic rather than on the pavement of what is practically a motorway

User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: Lincoln / Haywards Heath

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by jervi » Thu Jun 17, 2021 22:15

WHBM wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 21:29
Herned wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 21:19
fras wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:15
Yes. but what about mandatory use of cycle-specific facilities ?
Provide decent facilities and they will be used, whether mandatory or not.
This approach always seems two-faced. When used about road traffic it's "If this road is built/widened etc it will only encourage more cars and fill up with traffic straight away", which is considered to be a bad thing. When used about cycle facilities it's "If this cycle lane is built it will encourage more cycling", which is somehow now considered to be a good thing. Although the chances of the cycle facility ever being used to a fraction of the usage and community value of the new road are fanciful. Look at London Cycle Superhighway CS3, out along the A13 across Newham to Barking & Dagenham. Never see a bike on it.
Using motor vehicles = air pollution, noise pollution, difficulty crossing roads as an NMU, dangerous for NMUs, takes up more room per person in transit. - Also requires somewhere to park then, either on the road in the way of others, or land designated to storing of vehicles that could be better utilized as something else.

Using bicycles or small electronic vehicles = no air pollution, practically no noise pollution, safer & easier to cross roads & cycleways for NMUs, reduced the amount of space required for vehicles or room for more people to pass through the same space without widening. And bikes and small electronic vehicles can easily be stored in smaller places and easier to introduce a bike hire or scooter hire scheme, reducing the amount of bikes or scooters needed to be parked.

Its not about getting people cycling, its about reducing the amount of motor vehicles on the road.

fras
Member
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by fras » Thu Jun 17, 2021 22:19

Bryn666 wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 21:09
fras wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:15
Herned wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:01

Yes, good idea. Cycling probably has dedicated use of 0.05% of the road network nationwide, so let's get it to 5% as a sensible mid-term goal
Yes. but what about mandatory use of cycle-specific facilities ?
What about mandatory use of motorways for car drivers too? We spend all that money on the M6 and people still drive through Knutsford.

Does your argument make sense now?
Erm, I don't think they do ! Anyway, Knutsford is a nice place. Anyway, your argument is flawed. We are talking about cycle facilities on or near the road that they run down or alongside. Germany shows the way, but unfortunately I can't show any GSV links because there aren't any. Should the tail wag the dog ?

someone
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:46
Location: London

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by someone » Thu Jun 17, 2021 22:51

The bus lanes which TfL extended to 24 hour operation as part of their 18-month trial were on red routes where stopping is not allowed except in marked bays. Loading bays were not removed by the trial, so shops could continue to take deliveries at the same times of the day. In many location regular parking bays were also unaffected.

The bus lanes in the main northern shopping section of A23 Streatham High Road still allow parking. They used to operate 7am – 7pm Mon – Sat northbound and 4 – 7pm Mon – Fri southbound but both allowed parking from 10am – 4pm Mondays to Saturdays. Although the bus lanes now operating 24 hours, the allowed parking times remain unchanged.

That section has twelve daytime bus routes. It also has five routes operating at night plus another weekend-only night service that, as with all such routes, is currently suspended.

This very point was also discussed on this forum when the trial was introduced, and explained with appropriate links. To repeat the same falsehoods makes it difficult to confuse ignorance for lying.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31256
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by Bryn666 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 00:25

When people are blinded by entitlement as a motorist the truth is just inconvenience you see.

It is perfectly legal to cross a 24 hour bus lane to access private accesses or parking bays behind it - it is not legal to drive down the bus lane unless permitted to do so..

Talk of "war against the motorist" is privileged people seeing equality as oppression again.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
Chris5156
Member
Posts: 14698
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by Chris5156 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 01:14

WHBM wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 21:29
Look at London Cycle Superhighway CS3, out along the A13 across Newham to Barking & Dagenham. Never see a bike on it.
Here's six in one shot.

User avatar
solocle
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 18:27

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by solocle » Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:07

fras wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 22:19
Bryn666 wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 21:09
fras wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:15

Yes. but what about mandatory use of cycle-specific facilities ?
What about mandatory use of motorways for car drivers too? We spend all that money on the M6 and people still drive through Knutsford.

Does your argument make sense now?
Erm, I don't think they do ! Anyway, Knutsford is a nice place. Anyway, your argument is flawed. We are talking about cycle facilities on or near the road that they run down or alongside. Germany shows the way, but unfortunately I can't show any GSV links because there aren't any. Should the tail wag the dog ?
Take this example of a cycle ride I did.
Capture.JPG
For the midsection, the A40, which was my route, runs parallel to the M40. Let's forget the centre of High Wycombe - why were there any car drivers using the A40, when there was a perfectly good motorway 500m away?

Or was it just not convenient for the purposes of their journey?

fras
Member
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by fras » Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:22

Or was it just not convenient for the purposes of their journey?
This will be the reason. Motorways are intended for longer distance traffic and have far fewer junctions that connect to the rest of the road network. I would think most of the cars you see are on local journeys, although obviously there will be a few people who dislike motorway driving. If you live in Stokenchurch are you going to use the M40 to go shopping in Hugh Wycombe ? I would think most people won't. There is an enormous amount of local car traffic nowadays and it's better kept off the motorways rather than encouraged; the M40 is busy enough as it is !

Also motorway driving is not that pleasant, and gets more unpleasant the older I get !

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31256
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by Bryn666 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:27

fras wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:22
Or was it just not convenient for the purposes of their journey?
This will be the reason. Motorways are intended for longer distance traffic and have far fewer junctions that connect to the rest of the road network. I would think most of the cars you see are on local journeys, although obviously there will be a few people who dislike motorway driving. If you live in Stokenchurch are you going to use the M40 to go shopping in Hugh Wycombe ? I would think most people won't. There is an enormous amount of local car traffic nowadays and it's better kept off the motorways rather than encouraged; the M40 is busy enough as it is !

Also motorway driving is not that pleasant, and gets more unpleasant the older I get !
But this points out the fallacy of your argument. Those mandatory cycle routes you are talking about would be the cycle equivalent of motorways in terms of connectivity, and in any case, why should cyclists who have a legal right to use all-purpose roads be forced onto a dirt strewn 'track' cobbled together by Sustrans?

I take it that you are aware there is less cycling in Germany where mandatory cycle lane use is enforced than in the Netherlands where it isn't.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
solocle
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 18:27

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by solocle » Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:32

fras wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:22
Or was it just not convenient for the purposes of their journey?
This will be the reason. Motorways are intended for longer distance traffic and have far fewer junctions that connect to the rest of the road network. I would think most of the cars you see are on local journeys, although obviously there will be a few people who dislike motorway driving. If you live in Stokenchurch are you going to use the M40 to go shopping in Hugh Wycombe ? I would think most people won't. There is an enormous amount of local car traffic nowadays and it's better kept off the motorways rather than encouraged; the M40 is busy enough as it is !

Also motorway driving is not that pleasant, and gets more unpleasant the older I get !
Frankly, I tend to hop on the motorway whenever I get the chance. But the point I'm making - convenience.

Take the best cycleway in Oxford.
Marston Ferry Road.

Typically one I would use. However, to get to the thing when heading Eastbound, there's even an underpass - which still isn't hugely convenient, due to the gradients and tight corners. Then you've got an at-grade turning to do to rejoin the road at the other end. So even that one is less convenient than the road. But it's so marginal that most people use it, although the local chaingang (i.e., riding at 25-30 mph), didn't when I joined them.

On the other hand, we have the cycle tracks just off the road, that give way at every side turning or even driveway. This is equivalent to the road being the motorway on a longer journey - far fewer junctions to slow you down.

Herned
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by Herned » Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:32

fras wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 20:15
Yes. but what about mandatory use of cycle-specific facilities ?
Can you give an example of a cycling facility that you think should be mandatory to use?

fras
Member
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by fras » Fri Jun 18, 2021 13:11

Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:27
fras wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:22
Or was it just not convenient for the purposes of their journey?
This will be the reason. Motorways are intended for longer distance traffic and have far fewer junctions that connect to the rest of the road network. I would think most of the cars you see are on local journeys, although obviously there will be a few people who dislike motorway driving. If you live in Stokenchurch are you going to use the M40 to go shopping in Hugh Wycombe ? I would think most people won't. There is an enormous amount of local car traffic nowadays and it's better kept off the motorways rather than encouraged; the M40 is busy enough as it is !

Also motorway driving is not that pleasant, and gets more unpleasant the older I get !
But this points out the fallacy of your argument. Those mandatory cycle routes you are talking about would be the cycle equivalent of motorways in terms of connectivity, and in any case, why should cyclists who have a legal right to use all-purpose roads be forced onto a dirt strewn 'track' cobbled together by Sustrans?
I take it that you are aware there is less cycling in Germany where mandatory cycle lane use is enforced than in the Netherlands where it isn't.
I think the topography has more to do with high cycle use in the Netherlands than Germany.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31256
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: Excessive restrictions

Post by Bryn666 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 13:28

fras wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 13:11
Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:27
fras wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:22

This will be the reason. Motorways are intended for longer distance traffic and have far fewer junctions that connect to the rest of the road network. I would think most of the cars you see are on local journeys, although obviously there will be a few people who dislike motorway driving. If you live in Stokenchurch are you going to use the M40 to go shopping in Hugh Wycombe ? I would think most people won't. There is an enormous amount of local car traffic nowadays and it's better kept off the motorways rather than encouraged; the M40 is busy enough as it is !

Also motorway driving is not that pleasant, and gets more unpleasant the older I get !
But this points out the fallacy of your argument. Those mandatory cycle routes you are talking about would be the cycle equivalent of motorways in terms of connectivity, and in any case, why should cyclists who have a legal right to use all-purpose roads be forced onto a dirt strewn 'track' cobbled together by Sustrans?
I take it that you are aware there is less cycling in Germany where mandatory cycle lane use is enforced than in the Netherlands where it isn't.
I think the topography has more to do with high cycle use in the Netherlands than Germany.
Complete canard, prior to the 1970s the Netherlands had comparable car ownership and usage to us, with cycling in decline. A mix of the oil crisis and series of protests about road safety shifted the balance back towards cycling.

Lincolnshire is identical to the Netherlands but has virtually no cycling. Why might that be? Using your logic it should be riddled with cyclists. Our obsession with cars was nothing to do with ensuring that our American 'friends' profited from North Sea Oil of course. Now compare us to Norway, and see what they did with their oil money.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

Post Reply