cycle madness

[avtur]

It is one thing having schemes in place around town but there is also the matter of out on the open road.

If I think about my local journeys on the A272, A259, A273, A275, these and all their interconnecting B-roads simply do not have the width for 1 cycle and two cars. This means that whenever there is even a single cyclist two-way opposing traffic is not possible. This leads to huge frustration in car drivers, some of whom, like me will always wat until there is a one car one cyclist passing opportunity, but this will often take time, I personally don't have a problem with this but I find that following drivers often do have a problem and I end up subject to the wrath of another car driver because I hold back on passing a cyclist. As I have stated many times before on these pages I understand that a 'coming together' of cyclist and car is only likely to end up in pain and suffering for the cyclist, I never want that to be on my conscience (whatever the rights or wrongs). I don't mind giving way to cyclists (or other road users) who may be in the wrong in order to avoid confrontation and possible injury, hopefully, that is a sign of a mature responsible driver)

But regardless of what measures (cycle lanes or whatever ever) may be taken in urban settings, there is an overwhelming number of other cyclist/motorist 'pinch points' on thousands of miles of UK roads.

I am a cycling enthusiast but there's no way I will ride the local roads because there are too many points of conflict and on average car drivers don't give a monkeys about cyclists.

So, self-preservation tells me that cycling on cycle tracks is leisurely and relatively risk-free, cycling on the roads is not.

[marconaf]

It is one thing having schemes in place around town but there is also the matter of out on the open road.

If I think about my local journeys on the A272, A259, A273, A275, these and all their interconnecting B-roads simply do not have the width for 1 cycle and two cars. This means that whenever there is even a single cyclist two-way opposing traffic is not possible. This leads to huge frustration in car drivers, some of whom, like me will always wat until there is a one car one cyclist passing opportunity, but this will often take time, I personally don't have a problem with this but I find that following drivers often do have a problem and I end up subject to the wrath of another car driver because I hold back on passing a cyclist. As I have stated many times before on these pages I understand that a 'coming together' of cyclist and car is only likely to end up in pain and suffering for the cyclist, I never want that to be on my conscience (whatever the rights or wrongs). I don't mind giving way to cyclists (or other road users) who may be in the wrong in order to avoid confrontation and possible injury, hopefully, that is a sign of a mature responsible driver)

But regardless of what measures (cycle lanes or whatever ever) may be taken in urban settings, there is an overwhelming number of other cyclist/motorist 'pinch points' on thousands of miles of UK roads.

I am a cycling enthusiast but there's no way I will ride the local roads because there are too many points of conflict and on average car drivers don't give a monkeys about cyclists.

So, self-preservation tells me that cycling on cycle tracks is leisurely and relatively risk-free, cycling on the roads is not.

As a cyclist, commuter and enthusiast at different times over the years, I’m entirely happy on the road with cars, even in pinch points. Ive had just two run in’s with drivers in over 30 years of cycling. First time ended with a pedal scrape down the side of the car after he tried to run me off with nowhere to go, second with a pulling over of the driver by Police.

I don’t feel a need for much of a gap when they pass me so perhaps I don’t get worried by ones cutting it close, I’d rather they go past and lower frustration to be honest. I also aim to get through junctions and pinch points at max speed so as to not to hold things up, indeed sub 30mph can hold my own anyway (I pull out so as to occupy the road and act as a car), then pulling well to the side on a wider section and slowing to cruise a bit (recovery).

Cycle tracks tend not to be suited to road tires, although did the Caledonian canal with panniers without issue on it so they can be tough!

It depends what we want, families with kids needs are very much different from adult commuters. I’d never take mine near “on road” cycle routes for many years, but even at 4/6 they can safely go on pavement or separate cycle tracks. Over time that exposure to cycling will hopefully mature them into expecting to cycle more and thus graduate to roads for their trips.

I do find it hard to consider letting them cycle on roads - I started at age 10. That seems crazy now, but then from age 7 I’d be out all day with friends in the streets and fields. That also seems crazy now.

[trickstat]

Clearly there are plenty of marked cycling routes that are not really suitable for any cyclists for reasons discussed above. However, one major theme that for me has emerged from this thread is the varying types of cyclists and whether it is practical and realistic for any one cycling route to suit all of them and, if this is the case, who should it be aimed at?

I would think that, when Stevenage New Town was first laid out in the 1950s, that the planners anticipated the most regular users of the cycle tracks would be people commuting to the industrial area to work and secondary school pupils going to and from school and, to me, it is much more suited for that use than it is for a keen club rider or a small child who's just lost his or her stabilisers. I suppose that many of the urban cycling routes mentioned should have a broadly similar target demographic but, if they are not fit for this purpose, because of discontinuity, obstructions etc they will just not get used and I suspect this is already happening.

[jervi]

It is one thing having schemes in place around town but there is also the matter of out on the open road.

If I think about my local journeys on the A272, A259, A273, A275, these and all their interconnecting B-roads simply do not have the width for 1 cycle and two cars. This means that whenever there is even a single cyclist two-way opposing traffic is not possible. This leads to huge frustration in car drivers, some of whom, like me will always wat until there is a one car one cyclist passing opportunity, but this will often take time, I personally don't have a problem with this but I find that following drivers often do have a problem and I end up subject to the wrath of another car driver because I hold back on passing a cyclist. As I have stated many times before on these pages I understand that a 'coming together' of cyclist and car is only likely to end up in pain and suffering for the cyclist, I never want that to be on my conscience (whatever the rights or wrongs). I don't mind giving way to cyclists (or other road users) who may be in the wrong in order to avoid confrontation and possible injury, hopefully, that is a sign of a mature responsible driver)

But regardless of what measures (cycle lanes or whatever ever) may be taken in urban settings, there is an overwhelming number of other cyclist/motorist 'pinch points' on thousands of miles of UK roads.

I am a cycling enthusiast but there's no way I will ride the local roads because there are too many points of conflict and on average car drivers don't give a monkeys about cyclists.

So, self-preservation tells me that cycling on cycle tracks is leisurely and relatively risk-free, cycling on the roads is not.

I'll never cycle on any part of the A273 between HH & BH. It's suicide. On one of my driving lessons I almost had an incident on the A273 with a cyclist (and taxi). I was indicating to overtake, waiting for a space to overtake the cyclist and the idiot of a taxi driver behind me thought it would be a great idea to try and overtake me as I was waiting. That's when I learnt that Taxi drivers are of a special variety of driver (at least most of them)

But, as you said most roads Haywards Heath aren't wide enough. Heading out of town the best routes I've found are:
SW - Tylers Green (A272) -> Copyhold Lane then onto the bridleways across to the B2036 or Cuckfield road down to Goddards Green then along the the NCN 20
SE - Lewes Road (A272) -> Slugwash Lane
NE - B2028 -> Park Lane towards Horsted Keynes
NW - B2036 isn't too bad, however avoid Hanlye Lane and Borde Hill Lane (when they re open)

Apparently Burgess Hill Town Council are improving the cycle links between the towns, however weirdly the route they have chosen is using Theobalds Road and then paving the Bridleway to Fox Hill, I wouldn't use a road bike or narrow wheels on it, even if it is being paved. Once you are out on Fox hill you then have to cycle up the B2112 into town where there are no cycleways or lanes. I though the best route would be a new 3m shared cycle path running beside the railway between Valebridge Road and the new bypass, that is shorter and ties into the cycle network on the southern side of Haywards Heath, but I guess common sense is out the window.

Any move to make it mandatory for cyclists to use cycle infrastructure where is provided would have very grave consequences. Some shared cycleways aren't signed clearly, some only run for short distances (like here), some have very rough paving, some are extremely narrow and don't allow passing of two-way cycling. If it is deemed that cyclists shouldn't be on a road, then there should be a TRO to prevent them, and appropriate cycle infrastructure to allow them to use the road.

[owen b]

Clearly there are plenty of marked cycling routes that are not really suitable for any cyclists for reasons discussed above. However, one major theme that for me has emerged from this thread is the varying types of cyclists and whether it is practical and realistic for any one cycling route to suit all of them and, if this is the case, who should it be aimed at?

Interesting question. We don't have the cycling culture that the Netherlands has. In the Netherlands as I understand it (I have never cycled there), provision is aimed primarily at utility cyclists rather than the more sporting types. I tend to think that UK policy should be more aimed at encouraging cycling for all as a normal part of daily life. So that would mean focusing on good quality urban cycling routes which are usable and attractive for all cyclists but aimed primarily at commuters, shoppers, pupils, students etc. etc.

I'm rather more sceptical about the bang for the buck you get by spending money on long distance out of town routes. I don't think cycling long distances will ever be much more than a minority leisure pursuit for cyclists who by and large are confident enough to use the road network and whose bikes are better suited for roads. Sure, if a new road or guided bus route is being built then put in a cycle route as part of the project where practicable, affordable and where cyclists are likely to use it in reasonable numbers. No doubt there are some specific locations on main out of town roads where cyclists are particularly at risk where improvements could be justified also.

[Nwallace]

The Dutch facilities are largely aimed at utility cycling, I have seen cycling clubs using them though they seem to choose their routes to be ones where you can go at a decent pace,any of the ones put beside busier country roads are as wide as a single track road and segregated from pedestrians, in town you get similar shared as house access.

The vehicular cycling concept makes some sense, there is a riding speed at which you need at least 2m to operate in, but in NL that's a minority, they would rather wheel their bike out to ride 200m to a shop than walk it! Also beacaue of that it's rare to find walkers on the shared use paths, it's usually runners and brommers you're conflicting with.

Compulsion to use in NL and De is based on signage, in Germany many have lost the sign because they can't be bothered funding upkeep. Similar happened in France but the French have a different attitude to legal compulsion from the Germans any way so...

Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[solocle]

Clearly there are plenty of marked cycling routes that are not really suitable for any cyclists for reasons discussed above. However, one major theme that for me has emerged from this thread is the varying types of cyclists and whether it is practical and realistic for any one cycling route to suit all of them and, if this is the case, who should it be aimed at?

Interesting question. We don't have the cycling culture that the Netherlands has. In the Netherlands as I understand it (I have never cycled there), provision is aimed primarily at utility cyclists rather than the more sporting types. I tend to think that UK policy should be more aimed at encouraging cycling for all as a normal part of daily life. So that would mean focusing on good quality urban cycling routes which are usable and attractive for all cyclists but aimed primarily at commuters, shoppers, pupils, students etc. etc.

I'm rather more sceptical about the bang for the buck you get by spending money on long distance out of town routes. I don't think cycling long distances will ever be much more than a minority leisure pursuit for cyclists who by and large are confident enough to use the road network and whose bikes are better suited for roads. Sure, if a new road or guided bus route is being built then put in a cycle route as part of the project where practicable, affordable and where cyclists are likely to use it in reasonable numbers. No doubt there are some specific locations on main out of town roads where cyclists are particularly at risk where improvements could be justified also.

Thing is, I live near a long distance road, the A30 (not the primary bit). Most people travelling on the A30 are making local journeys, and if I want to cycle to various local towns, the A30 serves those destinations. While some have alternative routes, with Sherborne, the alternative is a load of hilly back roads, followed by a section on the A3030 and A352 - avoiding A roads entirely is virtually impossible.
Incidentally, that could be sorted out by Sherborne Castle allowing cycles to use the public footpath/private road through their estate.

[A303Chris]

I don't think you get the point, the Sustrans national cycleway network is not any us for serious road cyclists. Yesterday I cycled 110 miles from my home near Reading to Hayling Island at back, using a mixture of country lanes, A roads and B roads, but as a serious cyclist who averages 18 miles an hour on the flat, the national cycle way network is a waste of space.

Within towns, cycleways are basically for non confident cyclists, while confident cyclists use the carriageway as it is safer and quicker.

Yeah, I'm not really impressed at being characterised as not "serious", or "non confident" simply because my bikes aren't made of carbon fibre, I average under 18mph and I try not to get squashed by inattentive drivers. It's great that you like riding 110 miles a day, but try not to be so condescending to the rest of us!

I am sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick, but as a Highway Engineer for over 30 years, in the design process, which is used by the DfT there are two types of cyclists "confident" and "non confident" and I did not refer to serious in my comments.

Confident, mean they usually have a faster average speed and prefer the road as they do not have to stop, and many cycling organisations push for some form of on road cycleway for "confident" cyclists. Off road provision is for "Non Confident" cyclists, children and those taking up cycling again and because of there speed and handling are not confident on the road. Sir Chris Broadman states that we need both.

Here is an excellent example of an urban situation where all bases are covered, a shared footway for non confident cyclists, on road for confident, negating the need to stop at every side crossing and two way traffic flow which is unaffected. I cycle this with my teenage daughters, two cycle on the road and the youngest started on the footway and has now moved on the road.

I therefore was not being condescending but describing how cyclists are catered for.

[crb11]

I'm rather more sceptical about the bang for the buck you get by spending money on long distance out of town routes. I don't think cycling long distances will ever be much more than a minority leisure pursuit for cyclists who by and large are confident enough to use the road network and whose bikes are better suited for roads. Sure, if a new road or guided bus route is being built then put in a cycle route as part of the project where practicable, affordable and where cyclists are likely to use it in reasonable numbers. No doubt there are some specific locations on main out of town roads where cyclists are particularly at risk where improvements could be justified also.

I'd agree with this. I think you've probably got two main communities of long-distance cyclists: the "racers" or "audaxers" who want to do long distances at high speeds, and "tourers", people like me, who are more after a decent ride of say 30-50 miles at 15mph. Personally, although I can cover decent distances on the guided bus path or a good quality cycle path alongside a main road, it's not something I find that interesting for more than a few miles - I much prefer the variety of back roads and country lanes like many of the NCN routes. The problem is that they don't always join up well or involve awkward crossings of major routes, so this is where I'd like to see a bit more money spent.

[Chris Bertram]

I'm seeing mention of "road tyres". As opposed to what kind of tyres?

[Nwallace]

I'm seeing mention of "road tyres". As opposed to what kind of tyres?

Hybrid tyres, knobbly cx tyres, knobbly mtb tyres, fat bike tyres.



Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[Bryn666]

I'm seeing mention of "road tyres". As opposed to what kind of tyres?

Off-road ones? The same kind you can get for a Range Rover so it can cross soft surfaces like grass?

[Nwallace]

I'm seeing mention of "road tyres". As opposed to what kind of tyres?

Off-road ones? The same kind you can get for a Range Rover so it can cross soft surfaces like grass?

The difference between a bike being ridden on tar with off road tyres and a range rover being driven on off road tyres on tar is the range rover driver feels it in their fuel consumption not their legs

Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[owen b]

I'm seeing mention of "road tyres". As opposed to what kind of tyres?

Off-road ones? The same kind you can get for a Range Rover so it can cross soft surfaces like grass?

The difference between a bike being ridden on tar with off road tyres and a range rover being driven on off road tyres on tar is the range rover driver feels it in their fuel consumption not their legs

Nice way of putting it. Road tyres used on road bikes are typically 25-28mm wide (if I recall correctly) and slick. The contact patch with the road is small. They are great on a good surface. Tyres on hybrid or touring bikes, and more so on mountain bikes are wider and knobblier and therefore much grippier and generally more puncture resistant, so much better suited for wet weather or rougher or looser surfaces but requiring much more effort from the cyclist to get anywhere near the same speed.

[Debaser]

Here is an excellent example of an urban situation where all bases are covered, a shared footway for non confident cyclists, on road for confident, negating the need to stop at every side crossing and two way traffic flow which is unaffected. I cycle this with my teenage daughters, two cycle on the road and the youngest started on the footway and has now moved on the road.

I therefore was not being condescending but describing how cyclists are catered for.

See, I'd describe that as a poor case of dual provision. I know I keep banging on about it, but no-one, absolutely no-one, (apart from Local Authorities strapped for cash and engineers) likes shared footway/cycleways.

That footway looks wide enough that some width could be pinched, while still keeping it 1.8m wide, and the cycleway could be widened and raised to create a stepped track. I'd take both of these across the next junction (and every side road and private access) as a continuous footway and cycleway, giving both peds and cyclists priority and negating the need to use the road. Separating the footway from the cycleway by a 60mm upstand 30-degree splayed kerb caters for people who are blind and use a cane or dog and using a contrasting coloured surface on the cycleway caters for partially-sighted pedestrians, whilst still allowing cyclists to take avoiding action into the footway, if necessary, and not into the carriageway.

Not cheap, but would provide for 90% of the people who might want to cycle but under no circumstances want to share the same space as motor vehicles.

[marconaf]

Here is an excellent example of an urban situation where all bases are covered, a shared footway for non confident cyclists, on road for confident, negating the need to stop at every side crossing and two way traffic flow which is unaffected. I cycle this with my teenage daughters, two cycle on the road and the youngest started on the footway and has now moved on the road.

I therefore was not being condescending but describing how cyclists are catered for.

This is exactly what the problem is.

Road cycleway - painted line acheived by making the road narrower. Ends at first obstacle (bus stop). Larger vehicles do what?

Pavement cycleway - nothing at all has been done to the pavement. Still has poles all over the place and the bus stop. Bikes needing to miss/pass pedestrians would have to use the grass sides.

Literally this is just paint thrown away, any space being there by default from the wide original layout. An “easy” win for the Council and I doubt anyone ever had an issue cycling along this beforehand!

That this is being suggested as an “excellent” example just serves to highlight why provision is so poor.

[Micro The Maniac]

Here is an excellent example of an urban situation where all bases are covered, a shared footway for non confident cyclists, on road for confident, negating the need to stop at every side crossing and two way traffic flow which is unaffected.

I'm curious to know what the measured carriageway lane widths are, especially since the cycle-way has a "do not cross" solid white line.

Google Earth doesn't give the resolution, but this looks less than the 3.25m desirable minimum, and possibly even less than the 3.0m absolute minimum cited in DMRB

[KeithW]

Here is an excellent example of an urban situation where all bases are covered, a shared footway for non confident cyclists, on road for confident, negating the need to stop at every side crossing and two way traffic flow which is unaffected.

I'm curious to know what the measured carriageway lane widths are, especially since the cycle-way has a "do not cross" solid white line.

Google Earth doesn't give the resolution, but this looks less than the 3.25m desirable minimum, and possibly even less than the 3.0m absolute minimum cited in DMRB

Using the google maps measure function the distance between the solid white lines appears to be around 6.3m.

[Debaser]

Here is an excellent example of an urban situation where all bases are covered, a shared footway for non confident cyclists, on road for confident, negating the need to stop at every side crossing and two way traffic flow which is unaffected.

I'm curious to know what the measured carriageway lane widths are, especially since the cycle-way has a "do not cross" solid white line.

Google Earth doesn't give the resolution, but this looks less than the 3.25m desirable minimum, and possibly even less than the 3.0m absolute minimum cited in DMRB

Note that DMRB is for trunk roads. Manual for Streets and MfS2 are the documents commended for use for lesser roads.

[Bryn666]

Here is an excellent example of an urban situation where all bases are covered, a shared footway for non confident cyclists, on road for confident, negating the need to stop at every side crossing and two way traffic flow which is unaffected.

I'm curious to know what the measured carriageway lane widths are, especially since the cycle-way has a "do not cross" solid white line.

Google Earth doesn't give the resolution, but this looks less than the 3.25m desirable minimum, and possibly even less than the 3.0m absolute minimum cited in DMRB

A painted gutter lane isn't ideal for cyclists though - and it puts them right in the blind spot of drivers turning left at junctions, which still have generous radii to allow high speed turns. This, to me, is not great design. It's average at best.