CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 27 min 28 sec ago

Re: Superhighway

7 February 2015 - 1:00am
TonyR wrote:mjr wrote:It need not make cycling more dangerous, slower or less convenient. Do the cycleways alongside the harbour through Bristol's Castle Park and from Counterslip to Temple Quay do any of that? What about the cycleway by the road up the north side of Temple Meads station?

Show me the data that shows what you claim is true and not just a wishful assumption.
Bristol's Castle Park: cycleway is 500m with priority and no reported collisions, road route (via Newgate) is 800m with at least two sets of traffic lights and a few junctions and 10 reported collisions along route (1 serious at junction with Union Street).

Counterslip to Temple Quay: cycleway is 600m with one road crossing (Friary) and no reported collisions (I wouldn't have been surprised by one on that crossing), road route (via Victoria Street) is 900m with I'm not sure how many traffic lights around Temple Circus, 8 junctions and 14 reported collisions along the route (5 serious).

Distances from http://cycle.travel/map, collisions from http://bristol.cyclestreets.net/collisions (and I think I'm being generous in not counting some which are at the ends of the road routes) and descriptions from maps and memory.

So both seem faster, safer and more convenient. This shouldn't be surprising: I think I've ridden all of those quite a bit over the years and I chose them because I knew they were like heaven and hell!
Wherever people have collected the data it has shown cycle facilities to be more dangerous than the road so why should Bristol be any different?
Now show me your data, but if it's Franklin's Redway data, then I'll laugh at it for reasons me and others give on http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/redways#comments and the earlier page.

Re: Superhighway

7 February 2015 - 12:13am
TonyR wrote:Royal College St in London was the pinnacle of the local activists' achievement until it was found it was causing more accidents than before and then the tired old excuse "but they didn't build it properly" was trotted out yet again and they had another go.
Nice narrative, but is it true? http://www.voleospeed.co.uk/2011/06/und ... -deja.html suggests not.

Re: Superhighway

7 February 2015 - 12:04am
mjr wrote:It need not make cycling more dangerous, slower or less convenient. Do the cycleways alongside the harbour through Bristol's Castle Park and from Counterslip to Temple Quay do any of that? What about the cycleway by the road up the north side of Temple Meads station?

Show me the data that shows what you claim is true and not just a wishful assumption. Wherever people have collected the data it has shown cycle facilities to be more dangerous than the road so why should Bristol be any different?

Re: Superhighway

7 February 2015 - 12:01am
mjr wrote:That's not modal share and Cambridge has quite a lot of infrastructure, although more routes use modal filtering than protected space, but the commuter share has increased to 30% from about 25% since 2001 and during that time, Cambridge has been building more protected space as well as even more modal filtering

So where has this "more protected space" been built exactly?

London has 3.9% cycle-commuting; most people living in Hackney ride to or through Camden which does have some infrastructure; Central London numbers aren't published as such but Inner London is, which at 6.5% seems far from "dominant", doesn't it?

"Bikes now make up around 16% of traffic in Central London, rising to around a quarter or even half of all journeys on some routes during peak hours."
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr ... ords-began

"The biggest ever census of bike use in the city reveals one in four road users during the morning rush hour is a cyclist - and on key routes such as river crossings and roundabouts bikes even outnumber all other vehicles."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/m ... 71069.html

You were saying?

... Bristol has spent a lot of money on cycling infrastructure but doesn't make the top list
I think it's fair to say that Bristol hasn't been spending a lot of money for very long, much of what they spent was spent unwisely (converted paths with trees) until very recently, plus there's been quite a history of favouring motor vehicles to overcome (there was a dual carriageway diagonally through a fine Georgian city centre square 1937-2000).

"Bristol has become England's first "cycling city" in a £100m government scheme aimed at encouraging cycling."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7462791.stm

Bottom line: what really would get the masses out on the bikes again? The answer may vary from place to place, but reallocating some road space from carriageway to cycleway seems like a good idea for London.

What would get the masses out cycling - try reading David Horton's Fear of Cycling.- http://www.copenhagenize.com/search?q=horton
What might get them cycling though is a ubiquitous network that goes wherever you need to go and is safe to cycle the whole way. Its called the road network with controls on motor vehicles.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 11:39pm
profpointy wrote:That's dishonest argument to malign the motives of those (like me) who disagree with you. All I see in towns is infrastructure which makes cycling more dangerous, slower, and less convenient. Apparently I should embrace this extra risk because somehow it will help a mythical six year old.
It need not make cycling more dangerous, slower or less convenient. Do the cycleways alongside the harbour through Bristol's Castle Park and from Counterslip to Temple Quay do any of that? What about the cycleway by the road up the north side of Temple Meads station? Would you prefer to still be mixing it with taxis, buses and confused motorists in front of the station like we used to?

Now, many towns have built some crap, but not all cycleways need be crap. You need not have constant stop start at junctions if there's good intervisibility, but very few yet have been built that way in this country.

Conversely, good cycleways are essential for making cycle journeys practical. Ordinary people get fed up with having motorists tailgating them for large stretches. There are several ways to avoid that but do nothing and claim the current crap is "quite good" isn't one of them!

Now, the real risk is in my view (opinion only = can't back this up) is on roads outside towns, which ain't getting cycle lanes any time soon.
My current home borough is roughly two-thirds rural. If I'm remembering correctly, you're not as likely to be involved in a collision riding on rural roads, but collisions are more likely to be deadly.

Most of the worst A roads are avoidable by using a shorter route, so you don't need to be on them long (especially if care is taken when building bypasses, but that hasn't always happened) and the remaining minority usually have space where cycleways could be built to complete the links. The difficult (=expensive) bits will be widening things like bridges if needed - ideally to add a protected cycleway, but at least to make lanes or add mixed-use paths.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 11:20pm
TonyR wrote:Mark1978 wrote:The only time cycling modal share has had any big impact is when there is the infrastructure to support it.

Really?

Cambridge has a higher modal share than anywhere - up at Dutch levels at about 30% - and yet has very little infrastructure.
That's not modal share and Cambridge has quite a lot of infrastructure, although more routes use modal filtering than protected space, but the commuter share has increased to 30% from about 25% since 2001 and during that time, Cambridge has been building more protected space as well as even more modal filtering
London now has very high levels of cycling with very little infrastructure to help - in Hackney its 14% and in Central London now cycling is the dominant commuting mode.
London has 3.9% cycle-commuting; most people living in Hackney ride to or through Camden which does have some infrastructure; Central London numbers aren't published as such but Inner London is, which at 6.5% seems far from "dominant", doesn't it?
... Bristol has spent a lot of money on cycling infrastructure but doesn't make the top list
I think it's fair to say that Bristol hasn't been spending a lot of money for very long, much of what they spent was spent unwisely (converted paths with trees) until very recently, plus there's been quite a history of favouring motor vehicles to overcome (there was a dual carriageway diagonally through a fine Georgian city centre square 1937-2000). At 7.5% then no, it's not in the top few, but if London "has very high levels" with 3.9% then what is that?
Milton Keynes, East Kilbride, Stevenage have lots of good infrastructure and very little cycling - about 2% modal share.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/20 ... g-to-work-
Ohhhh you can't write that mix of old falsehoods (MK doesn't have good infrastructure but also doesn't have little cycling) and then link to something that shows Milton Keynes a 2.8% national average level of cycle-commuting (not modal share) and doesn't include East Kilbride!

That is also a bit misleading because as well as poor motor-centric plans, both MK and Stevenage have fast trains and commuter services to London. When you look at maps like http://datashine.org.uk/#table=QS701EW& ... at=51.8917 you can see that effect all around London, with all the commuting towns being a bit darker than similar-size towns elsewhere in the country. If you look at the Active People Survey instead, which isn't only commuters, then many of those places show much higher levels of regular cycling.

In short, the statistics paint a rather more complex picture and it seems completely wrong to abuse them to suggest "infrastructure is useless".

What would be more interesting would be how people feel about cycling on routes with different measures. I do ride on the carriageway when I must (including when a cycleway is crap for some reason) but I prefer to ride routes with fewer or no motors. Isn't that true of most people, given the choice?

Bottom line: what really would get the masses out on the bikes again? The answer may vary from place to place, but reallocating some road space from carriageway to cycleway seems like a good idea for London.

Re: Reporting this driver? Road safe or police?

6 February 2015 - 10:58pm
Malaconotus wrote:The 2nd cyclist isn't in the gutter until the overtake puts them there.

I think he was (I full screened it and he's only 18" away AFAICS). I agree with 661-pete that the cyclist should have anticipated the pinch point in the traffic lane ahead and that someone would try to squeeze in.

I don't think it's reportable but it's totally inexcusable and it's sickening nonetheless.

I even wonder whether a bike lane here would be justified to keep the traffic to the right during the inevitable queues.

However, it shows why cyclists take the lane and in that sense it may be a really useful video for any motorist out there still unconvinced.

Re: Any practical advice to reduce heart rate?

6 February 2015 - 10:52pm
Rich_S wrote:The fat commuter wrote:One question, I'm assuming that you're not carrying around excess weight because I know first hand that that makes for a slow ride.

No, I pretty much take what I need.
I actually was being a bit more personal than that - are you overweight? 15 st is a lot of weight to carry around if you want to be a race cyclist (not as much as my 17 st though).
Look at people like Bradley Wiggins - over 6 ft and about 11 stone (if my Google search is correct).

Regarding fat burning and heart rate, I don't go for this 'fat burning range' of 120 - 140 bpm. Yes, as a percentage you will get more calories from fat - however, the total amount of fat burnt would be higher when exercising at a higher intensity - it's just that you'll also burn more readily available energy that is stored in your muscles.

Re: Any practical advice to reduce heart rate?

6 February 2015 - 10:31pm
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Rich_S wrote:Sounds like it's going to be a slow ride this weekend.

Thanks guys!
Only applicable if you aim is to fat burn


That's not a bad plan, I'm about 6ft and just under 15 stone.

The fat commuter wrote:Which bit of you is holding you back? Is it your aerobic capacity or your power or something else?

I guess it's aerobic capacity... Well, I'm not sure anything is 'holding me back' ummm... Might need to give that one some thought - I guess I'd be out of breath when cycling up a steep hill

The fat commuter wrote:Someone else has mentioned varying your training regime. See if you can find a long gentle slope. This is easier in some parts of the UK than others.

Down in the southwest we have flat or hills, Not to many gradual slopes, I'll go 'hunting' and see what I can find to mix it up a bit.

The fat commuter wrote:One question, I'm assuming that you're not carrying around excess weight because I know first hand that that makes for a slow ride.

No, I pretty much take what I need.

By all means - take a look at my strava if it may help.....
https://www.strava.com/athletes/2208629 ... ce=top-nav

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 10:29pm
Mark1978 wrote:I do despair when people trot out the same old things about cycling with heavy traffic being fine etc. Well it isn't. Not for the majority of people.

In fact being against proper provision is rather selfish; it's great that you like city cycling most don't and will never do when they have to cycle with cars and lorries. So opposing it is a good way to keep cycling your exclusive little hobby.

The only time cycling modal share has had any big impact is when there is the infrastructure to support it.

I do feel ashamed on occasion that fellow cyclists are so anti mass cycling.

That's dishonest argument to malign the motives of those (like me) who disagree with you. All I see in towns is infrastructure which makes cycling more dangerous, slower, and less convenient. Apparently I should embrace this extra risk because somehow it will help a mythical six year old.

I am all for mass cycling - the more of us (by us I mean the general population) the better it will be for a whole host of reasons, but building more so called infrastructure which makes cycling worse, won't do it. I don't know where this "proper provision" existing - other than totally non-road routes on (say) disused railway lines - which by their nature go to and from places, bits and pieces of lanes don't help as essentially they make the junctions far more hazardous, and the constant stop start makes any journey longer than a pootle to the shops impractical on a bike.

I live in Bristol - quite good for cycling (mostly) even on seemingly cycle-unfriendly bits - but possibly because (again opinion) a fair few of us cycle. And by the way I'm talking practical cycle-to-work journey's here, not roadies out for a Sunday, nor pootling round the park as a leisure pursuit.

Now, the real risk is in my view (opinion only = can't back this up) is on roads outside towns, which ain't getting cycle lanes any time soon.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 9:55pm
honesty wrote:Since we've been mixed in with other traffic for almost 150 years and currently cycling is grumbling along at 2% share and drivers still try to kill you regularly, no.

No. If they are trying to kill you regularly they are remarkably unsuccessful at it. Their success rate is only about 1 in 20 million.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 9:51pm
Mark1978 wrote:I do despair when people trot out the same old things about cycling with heavy traffic being fine etc.

No it isn't but the answer is not to confine the cyclists to small ghettos and make everywhere else off limits, its to deal with the traffic, as the Dutch have done, to make it fine to cycle everywhere. If we're talking about the same old things being trotted out, segregated facilities have been trotted out as the answer and built for over 70 years now and it hasn't worked. Royal College St in London was the pinnacle of the local activists' achievement until it was found it was causing more accidents than before and then the tired old excuse "but they didn't build it properly" was trotted out yet again and they had another go. Its time to admit if you can't get it right in 70 years you probably won't do any better in the next seventy years and try a different approach. One of controlling the motorised traffic, not the cyclists.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 9:45pm
Mark1978 wrote:The only time cycling modal share has had any big impact is when there is the infrastructure to support it.

Really?

Cambridge has a higher modal share than anywhere - up at Dutch levels at about 30% - and yet has very little infrastructure.

London now has very high levels of cycling with very little infrastructure to help - in Hackney its 14% and in Central London now cycling is the dominant commuting mode.

Oxford has very little infrastructure but modal share of around 17%

Bristol has spent a lot of money on cycling infrastructure but doesn't make the top list

Milton Keynes, East Kilbride, Stevenage have lots of good infrastructure and very little cycling - about 2% modal share.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/20 ... g-to-work-

Re: Any practical advice to reduce heart rate?

6 February 2015 - 9:41pm
Which bit of you is holding you back? Is it your aerobic capacity or your power or something else?

Are you out of breath when you train or is it that you haven't got enough strength? If you are training with an elevated heart rate at the level that you say you are then I would say that you maybe need to look at other aspects of your training.

Someone else has mentioned varying your training regime. See if you can find a long gentle slope. This is easier in some parts of the UK than others. Where I live in Sheffield about half of my eight mile ride home is up a constant uphill slope - that's about four miles of continual uphill. I can use this for strength training for legs - obviously also raises my heart rate. Going the other way, I can pedal with little load on my legs but fast - improves my aerobic capacity. Also look at fartlec interval training.

There is more than just cardio to think about with training. I'm no sports scientist but I'm sure that there are things like how much glycogen your muscles can store. How easily can they get rid of lactic acid.

I'm wondering whether strength training at a gym maybe of some use.

One question, I'm assuming that you're not carrying around excess weight because I know first hand that that makes for a slow ride.

Re: Reporting this driver? Road safe or police?

6 February 2015 - 9:31pm
The 2nd cyclist isn't in the gutter until the overtake puts them there. The driving is careless. The video should go to the police.

Re: Any practical advice to reduce heart rate?

6 February 2015 - 9:17pm
Hi,
Rich_S wrote:Sounds like it's going to be a slow ride this weekend.

Thanks guys!
Only applicable if you aim is to fat burn
I spent all last year on a 50 Ib MTB bike, road course with 20 % off road lots of stop starts and a couple of step hills thrown in, all at 80 % Max HR.
For me this has been my best training...................for road endurance on a road bike.
Its thought that working in one zone improves the other as you sway in and out of zones.
I don't think it needs to be religiously sticking to a particular HR.

Re: How Heavy is too Heavy?

6 February 2015 - 8:54pm
In the whole year of 2012 that I was with the club, only once was I sat in a position that allowed me to keep an eye on the bike and that was during the height of summer when we were sitting outside the cafe soaking up the sun.
The worst cafe stop was locking the bikes to typical town centre bike stands, walking 3-4 mins to a supermarket (Booths I think), down past all the tills, up a flight of stairs and then walking to the back of a large cafe area were there enough room for all of us. I'll not be doing that ride again unless there's a change of cafe stop

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 8:53pm
I do despair when people trot out the same old things about cycling with heavy traffic being fine etc. Well it isn't. Not for the majority of people.

In fact being against proper provision is rather selfish; it's great that you like city cycling most don't and will never do when they have to cycle with cars and lorries. So opposing it is a good way to keep cycling your exclusive little hobby.

The only time cycling modal share has had any big impact is when there is the infrastructure to support it.

I do feel ashamed on occasion that fellow cyclists are so anti mass cycling.

Re: Superhighway

6 February 2015 - 8:40pm
TonyR wrote:honesty wrote:Part of this change is we need to affect how people drive around and with people on bikes, for example turning across cycle lanes without checking - it'll take many many years for this to percolate into society.

And do you think that will happen faster if cyclists are segregated away in their ghettos where motorists don't have to think about them or where cyclists are mixed in with other traffic so motorists are constantly reminded of their presence and required to learn to interact with them?

Since we've been mixed in with other traffic for almost 150 years and currently cycling is grumbling along at 2% share and drivers still try to kill you regularly, no.

Re: Reporting this driver? Road safe or police?

6 February 2015 - 8:14pm
aspiringcyclist wrote:Although it might appear so, I was not trying to filter up the left hand side of the van. The claim that 'over eager' camera users bring hostility onto themselves is nonsense. Those drivers simply have anger management problems and cannot stand when someone reports their criminal and dangerous behaviour.

Still not sure why you were where you were on the road.
In my opinion it is not the responsibility of other road users to take someone else to task over their actions. The response is almost always going to be defensive or aggressive. Up to the point you had words with the driver he (assuming it was a he) probably didn't have too much of an issue with cyclists. He may well do now.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions