Pedestrians on Motorways

[Conekicker]

...and yet a national cycle network already exists. I'm not sure how old this image is and it clearly doesn't include local cycle routes, but cyclists do seem to be reasonably well provided for.

Now there will clearly be gaps in the network. I'd suggest the likes of Sustrans should be identifying said gaps and lobbying for them to be filled in. This would be a far greater benefit, dare one suggest, than allowing currently banned traffic onto motorways.

[Chris5156]

To say that you should be able to walk on a motorway because you can walk on a high-speed A-road misses the point. Walking along either is very dangerous, and in the case of a motorway will involve walking on a surface not designed for walking, so you'll be negotiating slopes, drains, gullies, crash barriers and other inconvenient things. The question is why we ever allow vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians, and sometimes animals) on any roads that are designed for high speed traffic (or, to turn it around, why we ever build roads for high speed traffic without separate provision for vulnerable road users).

Motorways are the safest class of road because they allow high speed motor traffic to travel in isolation. As soon as you start mixing that high speed traffic with anything else you increase the risk to everyone involved. It isn't a good thing that people can, and sometimes have to, walk along a road like the A1; but just because you can do that, it absolutely does not follow that people should also be allowed to walk along the M1.

"high speed" doesn't really encapsulate it. The singletrack road over Fleet Moss is national speed limit. In fact, I hit 55 mph on the descent, on my bicycle. The difference between 60 and 70 mph is fairly negligible, once you consider that dual carriageways typically have far better sight lines.

But busy doesn't really encapsulate it, either.

By "high speed" I'm really referring to roads that have been designed and built to allow motor traffic to travel at high speed. Existing all-purpose roads that happen to be aligned in a way that allows you to drive fast on them are a very different question. Equally, if a road designed for high speed travel is then swamped with traffic and for part of the day the vehicles on it are not moving at high speed, that's sort of beside the point - if you are deciding whether it's safe for pedestrians or cyclists to use a road, you have to make a rule that applies all the time, and you can't therefore base your rule on what the road is like when there's a traffic jam.

Noisy and smelly, yes. But dangerous? It's quite likely that you'd be safer cruising up the hard shoulder of the M25 past a queue, rather than get caught up in the frenzied rat running on adjacent roads to avoid the M25 queue....

Fast moving dense traffic is hellish on a bicycle, of course, particularly on a motorwayesque road where the chance of anyone slowing down is little to none. The hard shoulder handily bypasses the worst of that. Of course, there are issues such as junctions, but cyclists are already allowed to negotiate monstrosities such as this one - A27/A3(M)

And yes, fundamentally the argument is for better provision, rather than being allowed on the motorways. But in the absence of said provision, I personally have found myself in a situation where cycling down the motorway would probably have been far safer than what transpired. Most people are only going to cycle on a motorway if it's the best route - so you'd hardly expect massive numbers of cyclists starting to use the motorway. However, those sections that did get used could highlight important cycle links...
Of course pedestrians are likely to be even more rarified on such roads.

All of which I take on board and most of which I broadly agree with. But I think it's one thing to say that, given the roads as they are now, there might be situations where a specific cyclist in a specific place would be placed in less danger on the hard shoulder of a specific motorway than by taking another route; it's another thing to extrapolate that out and argue that as a result motorways should be opened up to cycling. If that is the case, then (just like the existence of footpaths alongside the A1) it is an unfortunate outcome of transport policy over time that has put us in the position we're in now, one that with hindsight we would probably rather not be in.

Or to put it another way - as a cyclist or a pedestrian I can completely see that one might be placed in an invidious position where walking or cycling on a motorway might end up being the least worst option. But I don't think I can agree that we should deal with that by permitting walking and cycling on motorways.

This is exactly the issue though. The government spending billions on road projects to allow more, faster, motor traffic on all purpose roads, but being too stingy to build an alternative route for vulnerable users. The end result is that there is virtually no demand, as most people will do almost anything to avoid such routes.

I think, though I'm willing to be corrected, that road projects developed and built now will all have provision for NMUs and vulnerable road users. It might not always be perfect but it will usually be decent. The new A14 in Cambridgeshire, for example, came with all sorts of improvements to walking and cycling infrastructure nearby, and other HE projects I've looked at in detail seem to have the right sort of intentions in place. IMO the bigger issue is that for most of the last 70 years road schemes haven't made any such provision, so what gets built now is inevitably disjointed, and we have a road network full of things like the A64 from Leeds to York that has hard strips marked as cycle lanes and deathtrap crossovers on sliproads in an attempt to reverse-engineer cycle provision onto a road designed without a single thought for NMUs.

How many people have to die, as a result of government "improvement" projects over the decades, for that spend to be justified?

I'd say it is justified, on a great many existing major roads that were improved in past decades to enable fast movement of motor traffic. Highways England have published some very nice words as part of their expressways policy to do with adding provision for NMUs to existing dual carriageway A-roads for exactly that reason. I would very much like to see them follow it up with some meaningful projects to do that. We'll see whether they ever do

[ajuk]

Are there any long stretches of Motorway that have foot or cycle paths built along side them that aren't bridges?

[Chris5156]

Are there any long stretches of Motorway that have foot or cycle paths built along side them that aren't bridges?

The only one I can think of is the A74(M), which has a long distance cycle track running parallel that was formed out of one carriageway of the old A74. It's not part of the motorway formation and sometimes runs a mile or so from the motorway, but it's near enough alongside.

[Debaser]

Then a gentleman complained that the "cycle lanes" on the A616 had been narrowed. Said "cycle lanes" being the hardstrip. The complete and utter pig-ignorance of the general public never fails to amaze and amuse me in equal measure.

As I pointed out upthread. The pig ignorance of the public is exceeded only by that of some engineers.

[Debaser]

...and yet a national cycle network already exists. I'm not sure how old this image is and it clearly doesn't include local cycle routes, but cyclists do seem to be reasonably well provided for.
unnamed.jpg
Now there will clearly be gaps in the network. I'd suggest the likes of Sustrans should be identifying said gaps and lobbying for them to be filled in. This would be a far greater benefit, dare one suggest, than allowing currently banned traffic onto motorways.

This would be the National Cycle Network - 70% of which is on-road by the way - of which Sustrans' own report (commissioned by the then new in post Chief Exec.) found 68% of that on-road length was 'very poor'? And of the total on-road and off-road lengths the condition report stated;
1% Very Good
53% Good
4% Poor
42% Very Poor

This would also be the same NCN from which 4.5% of its length was removed overnight on the basis it was unsafe? Imagine the Chief Exec. of Highways England doing that to the trunk road network, "Sorry about this. Obviously the motorways still exist physically, but frankly, they're unsafe. Use them at your own risk". I'm sure nary a whisper of criticism would be heard.

[KeithW]

Are there any long stretches of Motorway that have foot or cycle paths built along side them that aren't bridges?

Sort of, most of the A1(M) between J46 and the Darlington bypass has a local access road that is part of the old A1, moreover you can cycle down the old Great North Road as far as Ferrybridge the only gap is between Dishforth and J51 and even there you can use the back roads through Rainton and Balderby St James.

In addition if course much of the southern old A1 is still usable alongside the southern section of A1(M) the between Baldock and Barnet. Of course it no longer has a contiguous number with some sections being unclassified and others under various numbers including the B197 and A1000.

In the North West the A6 between Preston and Carlisle is much quieter now the M6 is open although I wouldnt fancy cycling over Shap. It was bad enough on a motorbike

[solocle]

...and yet a national cycle network already exists. I'm not sure how old this image is and it clearly doesn't include local cycle routes, but cyclists do seem to be reasonably well provided for.
unnamed.jpg
Now there will clearly be gaps in the network. I'd suggest the likes of Sustrans should be identifying said gaps and lobbying for them to be filled in. This would be a far greater benefit, dare one suggest, than allowing currently banned traffic onto motorways.

The NCN often isn't worth the signs it's posted on.

And the most direct NCN route to my parents' house (until recently would have been my commute):

Good

Acceptable

And this one is no longer NCN, despite being, to me, one of their better ones! Their focus is on lesiure rides with kids, not getting somewhere quickly.

And as for gaps, well, local links obviously are only coincidentally catered for. But national links? Just try following the A303/A30 on the NCN... even if you compromise and follow route 2, you only get as far as Exeter before encountering gigantic gaps in Cornwall. Not to mention it being significantly longer. And no guarantee of it being passable on your bike...

The only one I can think of is the A74(M), which has a long distance cycle track running parallel that was formed out of one carriageway of the old A74. It's not part of the motorway formation and sometimes runs a mile or so from the motorway, but it's near enough alongside.

Which was NCN 74... but has been declassified as "unsafe".

[c2R]

The only one I can think of is the A74(M), which has a long distance cycle track running parallel that was formed out of one carriageway of the old A74. It's not part of the motorway formation and sometimes runs a mile or so from the motorway, but it's near enough alongside.

Which was NCN 74... but has been declassified as "unsafe".

And that's where sustrans aren't helping themselves... That'd be like downgrading the A1 to non-trunk and not providing any alternative because it doesn't meet motorway standards. They should be producing maps to indicate the quality of their routes - I've no problem with signed cycle routes on mud with gates and no traffic, provided that the mapping and classification system makes users aware of that.

[Conekicker]

...and yet a national cycle network already exists. I'm not sure how old this image is and it clearly doesn't include local cycle routes, but cyclists do seem to be reasonably well provided for.
unnamed.jpg
Now there will clearly be gaps in the network. I'd suggest the likes of Sustrans should be identifying said gaps and lobbying for them to be filled in. This would be a far greater benefit, dare one suggest, than allowing currently banned traffic onto motorways.

The NCN often isn't worth the signs it's posted on.

And the most direct NCN route to my parents' house (until recently would have been my commute):
IMG_5433.JPG
Good
IMG_5431.JPG
Acceptable
Capture4.JPG
And this one is no longer NCN, despite being, to me, one of their better ones! Their focus is on lesiure rides with kids, not getting somewhere quickly.

And as for gaps, well, local links obviously are only coincidentally catered for. But national links? Just try following the A303/A30 on the NCN... even if you compromise and follow route 2, you only get as far as Exeter before encountering gigantic gaps in Cornwall. Not to mention it being significantly longer. And no guarantee of it being passable on your bike...

The only one I can think of is the A74(M), which has a long distance cycle track running parallel that was formed out of one carriageway of the old A74. It's not part of the motorway formation and sometimes runs a mile or so from the motorway, but it's near enough alongside.

Which was NCN 74... but has been declassified as "unsafe".

Which makes one wonder if there is actually a (suppressed?) demand for a high quality cycle network that isn't "leisure use only". Ignoring leisure use, I can't imagine cycling being used for anything "serious", other than commuting, to any large extent. Would many people commute more than, say, 20 miles by cycle all year round to justify the creation of such a network? I'm not saying cyclists don't need good quality routes - they clearly do - but the location of them needs some serious consideration before we launch into building the 21st century equivalent of the post-war motorway construction programme for cyclists.

[M4Simon]

Then a gentleman complained that the "cycle lanes" on the A616 had been narrowed. Said "cycle lanes" being the hardstrip. The complete and utter pig-ignorance of the general public never fails to amaze and amuse me in equal measure.

As I pointed out upthread. The pig ignorance of the public is exceeded only by that of some engineers.

This detail also exists on the A10 Ware bypass, and is there to deter cyclists from riding through the middle of the merge zone ahead. It is a poor level of provision but it is definitely a better idea than allowing them to ride in lane 1 alongside a merging slip.

A couple of weeks ago I was driving down the A1 near Grantham on a Saturday and came across what appeared to be a club ride. Conditions were good and they were easy to see, with traffic being light enough not to be disrupted. Clearly the cyclists were happy to be there, but its not something I'd want to do on a bike.

Simon

[Debaser]

Then a gentleman complained that the "cycle lanes" on the A616 had been narrowed. Said "cycle lanes" being the hardstrip. The complete and utter pig-ignorance of the general public never fails to amaze and amuse me in equal measure.

As I pointed out upthread. The pig ignorance of the public is exceeded only by that of some engineers.

This detail also exists on the A10 Ware bypass, and is there to deter cyclists from riding through the middle of the merge zone ahead. It is a poor level of provision but it is definitely a better idea than allowing them to ride in lane 1 alongside a merging slip.

A couple of weeks ago I was driving down the A1 near Grantham on a Saturday and came across what appeared to be a club ride. Conditions were good and they were easy to see, with traffic being light enough not to be disrupted. Clearly the cyclists were happy to be there, but its not something I'd want to do on a bike.

Simon

But as you say, the average person for whom this is meant is unlikely to be cycling on a dual carriageway. I mean, how likely would any of those club riders have been to deviate into a 1m wide 'lane' - narrowed further by gully grates - to file slowly across the slip road while trying to make two instantaneous 90 degree turns to remain in the thing, as opposed to putting their heads down and remaining in Lane 1? This isn't engineering, it's doing something for the sake of being seen to do something. And in doing so, those cyclists who are on the dual carriageway are then led to believe that hard strips may in fact be cycle lanes. Leading to them being called pig-ignorant when they do.

[M4Simon]

As I pointed out upthread. The pig ignorance of the public is exceeded only by that of some engineers.

This detail also exists on the A10 Ware bypass, and is there to deter cyclists from riding through the middle of the merge zone ahead. It is a poor level of provision but it is definitely a better idea than allowing them to ride in lane 1 alongside a merging slip.

A couple of weeks ago I was driving down the A1 near Grantham on a Saturday and came across what appeared to be a club ride. Conditions were good and they were easy to see, with traffic being light enough not to be disrupted. Clearly the cyclists were happy to be there, but its not something I'd want to do on a bike.

Simon

But as you say, the average person for whom this is meant is unlikely to be cycling on a dual carriageway. I mean, how likely would any of those club riders have been to deviate into a 1m wide 'lane' - narrowed further by gully grates - to file slowly across the slip road while trying to make two instantaneous 90 degree turns to remain in the thing, as opposed to putting their heads down and remaining in Lane 1? This isn't engineering, it's doing something for the sake of being seen to do something. And in doing so, those cyclists who are on the dual carriageway are then led to believe that hard strips may in fact be cycle lanes. Leading to them being called pig-ignorant when they do.

I wouldn't fancy putting a wheel of anything I am riding/driving in the metre strip - it's where all the rubbish including nails and other sharp objects will collect.

On the A1, the club riders took up a sizeable chunk of the lane to give themselves a strong visible presence - safer than wobbling on or close to the rumble strip.

Simon

[crb11]

Which makes one wonder if there is actually a (suppressed?) demand for a high quality cycle network that isn't "leisure use only". Ignoring leisure use, I can't imagine cycling being used for anything "serious", other than commuting, to any large extent. Would many people commute more than, say, 20 miles by cycle all year round to justify the creation of such a network? I'm not saying cyclists don't need good quality routes - they clearly do - but the location of them needs some serious consideration before we launch into building the 21st century equivalent of the post-war motorway construction programme for cyclists.

Depends what you define as "leisure" and "serious". There are people who want to go out for a 5-10 mile circular afternoon trip with their young family, people who want to do a cycle touring holiday and cover 50-60 miles in a day, and there are people who want to do 100+miles at 30+mph on their performance bikes. Clearly they have different priorities as to safety, speed, directness of route or indeed where the route goes at all. The problem with Sustrans and the NCN is that it was trying to cover both the first two simultaneously - marked routes were typically along minor routes outside towns (suitable for tourers, often not safe for families) but then reverted to off-road shared paths inside towns (safe for families, too slow or inconvenient for tourers, who would be comfortable cycling down the side of most 30mph roads).

Personally, I think Sustrans should have kept the original idea of NCN - a 'B road' network of reasonable quality routes that a confident cyclist can use at reasonable safety giving good coverage of the entire country, i.e., mainly back roads in rural areas, with enough work done on junctions and crossing major roads so that they joined up (even if you had to dismount and wheel across, provided there was a safe way to cross as a pedestrian). The "under-12" community could be catered for by a second 'A road' network of higher quality off-road provision but in/near towns or where suitable routes could be put in - I don't think it would be feasible to attempt this with national coverage, nor would it get enough use to make it worthwhile.

[solocle]

Which makes one wonder if there is actually a (suppressed?) demand for a high quality cycle network that isn't "leisure use only". Ignoring leisure use, I can't imagine cycling being used for anything "serious", other than commuting, to any large extent. Would many people commute more than, say, 20 miles by cycle all year round to justify the creation of such a network? I'm not saying cyclists don't need good quality routes - they clearly do - but the location of them needs some serious consideration before we launch into building the 21st century equivalent of the post-war motorway construction programme for cyclists.

Depends what you define as "leisure" and "serious". There are people who want to go out for a 5-10 mile circular afternoon trip with their young family, people who want to do a cycle touring holiday and cover 50-60 miles in a day, and there are people who want to do 100+miles at 30+mph on their performance bikes. Clearly they have different priorities as to safety, speed, directness of route or indeed where the route goes at all. The problem with Sustrans and the NCN is that it was trying to cover both the first two simultaneously - marked routes were typically along minor routes outside towns (suitable for tourers, often not safe for families) but then reverted to off-road shared paths inside towns (safe for families, too slow or inconvenient for tourers, who would be comfortable cycling down the side of most 30mph roads).

Personally, I think Sustrans should have kept the original idea of NCN - a 'B road' network of reasonable quality routes that a confident cyclist can use at reasonable safety giving good coverage of the entire country, i.e., mainly back roads in rural areas, with enough work done on junctions and crossing major roads so that they joined up (even if you had to dismount and wheel across, provided there was a safe way to cross as a pedestrian). The "under-12" community could be catered for by a second 'A road' network of higher quality off-road provision but in/near towns or where suitable routes could be put in - I don't think it would be feasible to attempt this with national coverage, nor would it get enough use to make it worthwhile.

It's worth noting that 100 miles at 30 mph would be an extremely rare group of pros! The fastest "long" ride I've done was from Oxford to Cambridge on February 29th 2020.

In that case, I averaged 20.2 mph for 85 miles, and 4h 20m elapsed. Notably, my route was mostly on minor roads, with just a short section on the A507 that I had thought nasty on an audax, but wasn't bad at all on the day. Which somewhat negated the tailwind advantage... given a flat exposed piece of road I was doing 30 mph.

Had I really been raring for speed I could have gone up the A34 to Bicester, A421, then A428, knocking the distance down to 80 miles. I might even have beaten the X5 (3h 50m)... but it would probably have been less enjoyable.

As for the NCN, the local example is again route 25 (red), which between Poole and Wimborne is gravel.

My preferred route is in orange - it takes in 1 mile on the A31(T), in blue! But that's preferable to multiple miles on the primary A350 (green), certainly between Upton and Sturminster Marshall. The really ideal route is in black, which is mostly B roads... but alas, there's no bridge across the Stour.

I'd actually put up with the gravel beyond Blandford, because the route is flatter and more pleasant than the adjacent A357. However, on my new tyres, which seem really quite susceptible to punctures, I'm not so sure.

Fortunately, TSRGD 2016 allows cycle routes in a full range of colours, the question being "not forming part of a national cycle network", but you're allowed letters too. So something like "FGQ357" - flat gravel quiet paralleling A357... I'd think a colour coding scheme might be easier!

[FleetlinePhil]

Which makes one wonder if there is actually a (suppressed?) demand for a high quality cycle network that isn't "leisure use only". Ignoring leisure use, I can't imagine cycling being used for anything "serious", other than commuting, to any large extent. Would many people commute more than, say, 20 miles by cycle all year round to justify the creation of such a network? I'm not saying cyclists don't need good quality routes - they clearly do - but the location of them needs some serious consideration before we launch into building the 21st century equivalent of the post-war motorway construction programme for cyclists.

Depends what you define as "leisure" and "serious". There are people who want to go out for a 5-10 mile circular afternoon trip with their young family, people who want to do a cycle touring holiday and cover 50-60 miles in a day, and there are people who want to do 100+miles at 30+mph on their performance bikes. Clearly they have different priorities as to safety, speed, directness of route or indeed where the route goes at all. The problem with Sustrans and the NCN is that it was trying to cover both the first two simultaneously - marked routes were typically along minor routes outside towns (suitable for tourers, often not safe for families) but then reverted to off-road shared paths inside towns (safe for families, too slow or inconvenient for tourers, who would be comfortable cycling down the side of most 30mph roads).

Personally, I think Sustrans should have kept the original idea of NCN - a 'B road' network of reasonable quality routes that a confident cyclist can use at reasonable safety giving good coverage of the entire country, i.e., mainly back roads in rural areas, with enough work done on junctions and crossing major roads so that they joined up (even if you had to dismount and wheel across, provided there was a safe way to cross as a pedestrian). The "under-12" community could be catered for by a second 'A road' network of higher quality off-road provision but in/near towns or where suitable routes could be put in - I don't think it would be feasible to attempt this with national coverage, nor would it get enough use to make it worthwhile.

I can't argue with your analysis of the different groups and their needs, but surely all these are "leisure" purposes? Unless I suppose the 100+ mile group are actually paid professionals in training.

I may be wrong, but I believe Conecicker was defining "serious" use as something essential - shopping, hospital visits, seeing Mum in the old folks' home, etc, using cycling as a means of transport rather than an end in itself? That would certainly be my definition.

[Herned]

Which makes one wonder if there is actually a (suppressed?) demand for a high quality cycle network that isn't "leisure use only". Ignoring leisure use, I can't imagine cycling being used for anything "serious", other than commuting, to any large extent. Would many people commute more than, say, 20 miles by cycle all year round to justify the creation of such a network? I'm not saying cyclists don't need good quality routes - they clearly do - but the location of them needs some serious consideration before we launch into building the 21st century equivalent of the post-war motorway construction programme for cyclists.

The thing is for most of England south of the M62, there are generally towns every 10 miles or so, so building decent links between neighbouring towns will help both local commuters/leisure riders who will be the vast majority of users. That would also benefit people who are doing bigger rides and develop into a proper network. It doesn't take much engineering in most places to put something useful in place - and newer roads generally have a bit of space within the boundaries. Older ones usually don't of course but the land needed is pretty minimal - something like this on the A39 near Bridgwater is all that is needed

[solocle]

Which makes one wonder if there is actually a (suppressed?) demand for a high quality cycle network that isn't "leisure use only". Ignoring leisure use, I can't imagine cycling being used for anything "serious", other than commuting, to any large extent. Would many people commute more than, say, 20 miles by cycle all year round to justify the creation of such a network? I'm not saying cyclists don't need good quality routes - they clearly do - but the location of them needs some serious consideration before we launch into building the 21st century equivalent of the post-war motorway construction programme for cyclists.

Depends what you define as "leisure" and "serious". There are people who want to go out for a 5-10 mile circular afternoon trip with their young family, people who want to do a cycle touring holiday and cover 50-60 miles in a day, and there are people who want to do 100+miles at 30+mph on their performance bikes. Clearly they have different priorities as to safety, speed, directness of route or indeed where the route goes at all. The problem with Sustrans and the NCN is that it was trying to cover both the first two simultaneously - marked routes were typically along minor routes outside towns (suitable for tourers, often not safe for families) but then reverted to off-road shared paths inside towns (safe for families, too slow or inconvenient for tourers, who would be comfortable cycling down the side of most 30mph roads).

Personally, I think Sustrans should have kept the original idea of NCN - a 'B road' network of reasonable quality routes that a confident cyclist can use at reasonable safety giving good coverage of the entire country, i.e., mainly back roads in rural areas, with enough work done on junctions and crossing major roads so that they joined up (even if you had to dismount and wheel across, provided there was a safe way to cross as a pedestrian). The "under-12" community could be catered for by a second 'A road' network of higher quality off-road provision but in/near towns or where suitable routes could be put in - I don't think it would be feasible to attempt this with national coverage, nor would it get enough use to make it worthwhile.

I can't argue with your analysis of the different groups and their needs, but surely all these are "leisure" purposes? Unless I suppose the 100+ mile group are actually paid professionals in training.

I may be wrong, but I believe Conecicker was defining "serious" use as something essential - shopping, hospital visits, seeing Mum in the old folks' home, etc, using cycling as a means of transport rather than an end in itself? That would certainly be my definition.

The last ride I did was 40 miles, started at home, and ended at my parents' home. It was 40 miles rather than 25-30 miles for leisure purposes. To be precise, I've been trying to cycle into every Veloviewer map square (~ square mile) in Dorset for about 1 year now. I had a little set of 5 off to the side of the C13 which I picked up, thus completing NE Dorset.


I also stopped to pick up a drink at a petrol station in Blandford - "fuel", if you will.
And what about driving to the gym? Is not exercise "essential", as the government deem?

In fact, my 1st 100 mile ride was very purposeful - riding home from uni. Sure, I did it for fun, but it was still an "actual journey".

I just don't think it's a relevant distinction. The A30/A303 isn't buckling under the pressure of HGVs supplying Cornwall with food - I cycled on the A303 last April, and despite a cheeky caravan passing, it was surreally quiet. The traffic weight on that road justifying upgrades will in a significant percentage be holiday traffic.

[Bryn666]

Which makes one wonder if there is actually a (suppressed?) demand for a high quality cycle network that isn't "leisure use only". Ignoring leisure use, I can't imagine cycling being used for anything "serious", other than commuting, to any large extent. Would many people commute more than, say, 20 miles by cycle all year round to justify the creation of such a network? I'm not saying cyclists don't need good quality routes - they clearly do - but the location of them needs some serious consideration before we launch into building the 21st century equivalent of the post-war motorway construction programme for cyclists.

The thing is for most of England south of the M62, there are generally towns every 10 miles or so, so building decent links between neighbouring towns will help both local commuters/leisure riders who will be the vast majority of users. That would also benefit people who are doing bigger rides and develop into a proper network. It doesn't take much engineering in most places to put something useful in place - and newer roads generally have a bit of space within the boundaries. Older ones usually don't of course but the land needed is pretty minimal - something like this on the A39 near Bridgwater is all that is needed

The A39 example was funded mostly by Hinkley Point if memory serves; it was part of the Cannington Bypass scheme.

[crb11]

I can't argue with your analysis of the different groups and their needs, but surely all these are "leisure" purposes? Unless I suppose the 100+ mile group are actually paid professionals in training.

I may be wrong, but I believe Conecicker was defining "serious" use as something essential - shopping, hospital visits, seeing Mum in the old folks' home, etc, using cycling as a means of transport rather than an end in itself? That would certainly be my definition.

Yes - I originally meant to say something about that but didn't get round to it. Basically, this introduces further groups with differing needs, but they are broadly the same categories - those who need the higher quality provision are going to be doing the shorter trips in towns, and anyone willing to cycle ten miles on a regular basis is going to be confident enough to cope with my "B roads". (Having a network of higher-quality routes for those who want to commute 10-15 miles from villages into the nearest town would be nice to have, but it's down the priority list - having a safe network inside towns so that kids can cycle to school and grow up cycling around is a prerequisite for this kind of "adult" route to get suitable use anyway.)