7 ms·

The arguments for segregated cycle tracks (physical barriers) rather than cycle lanes (paint) can be answered by one question: "Would you let your child cycle h

by awjr 9y ago

The arguments for segregated cycle tracks (physical barriers) rather than cycle lanes (paint) can be answered by one question: "Would you let your child cycle here?" https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/15/urban-planners-let-child-cycle-here-denmark https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/15/urban-planner... However the argument against cycle tracks focuses on resident car parking and becomes extremely political. So a key part of developing a good end to end cycle network, given that a network is only as good as its weakest link, is parking control. This is where paint fails and you create these bitty networks where drivers feel happy to park their cars in the cycle lanes, because they can. A more interesting approach is to look at road capacity. A typical road consists of: footpath|parking|lane|lane|parking|footpath = 19,000 pedestrians + 2000 drivers per hour => 21,000 people. Converting this to: footpath|cycle track|lane|lane|cycle track|footpath = additional 14,000 cyclists per hour = 35,000 people Providing a 67% increase in road capacity while protecting pedestrians, reducing congestion, and making a population healthier is a big win for any urban environment. Politcally this is finally becoming easier, but it is a fundemental recognition that our roads are not there to store private property. More interstingly is that many cities are focusing on routes to centres of employment. The focus needs to be more on connecting schools to communities. An immense amount of congestion is caused by parents dropping their fat little kids off at school. Analysis I did on UK Census 2011 data looking at range traveled across 112 towns and cities in England and Wales indicate 6 million residents drive to work in the city/town they live in. 1 million live within a 20 minute (2km) walk of work 3.5 million live within a 20 minute cycle ride of work. Looking at Bath,UK that's about 20,000 local car journeys in a city that is 3miles in diameter. Add in the 5,000 kids being dropped off at school and you end up with 40,000 local car journeys. BUT unless people feel there is a safe alternative choice this is not going to change and for some reason the UK seems fixated on strategic networks and hub centric public transport systems. Not actually fixing local journeys.

michaelt 9y ago
The arguments for segregated cycle tracks (physical barriers) rather than cycle lanes (paint) can be answered by one question: "Would you let your child cycle here?" Where I live, when segregated cycle tracks meet T junctions the layout is often like so: | C | ----------------------------------| a |-------- Cycles ◅ | r | ▷ ----------------------------------| s |-------- divider | | ----------------------------------- Δ --------- Cars ------------------------------------------------- This means cyclists using the segregated path have to stop to give way to cars at every T junction - whereas cyclists who don't use the segregated path can maintain a constant speed, with joining cars giving way to them. This leads to a demographic split in cyclist behaviour. For children and cyclists who aren't in a hurry, the segregated path is more friendly - but for 'serious' cyclists and people in a hurry, staying on the road makes more sense. Especially if there's a high density of T junctions, which isn't unusual in some urban areas. Fortunately, in my country there aren't any laws that force cyclists into bike lanes, so it generally isn't a problem. But any urban planner who wants 100% of cyclists segregated from traffic is going to have a difficult time on their hands :)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Freak_NL 9y ago
  > This means cyclists using the segregated path have to stop to give way to cars at every T junction That is a very car-centric design. In the Netherlands these kind of junctions within city limits tend to give the bicycle path the right of way. Bicycle lanes are also mandatory when they are provided; this makes everything a lot safer for all parties concerned.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  This always infuriated me. Cyclists are treated like second class citizens even when designing cycling infrastructure. Then we get yelled at for riding on the road. On top of this often the cycling lanes on the edge of main roads also double up as puncture hazards making it risky to use them.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    Why? It's pretty universal that smaller crap yeild to bigger crap. Forklifts yield to service trucks. Service trucks yield to heavy equipment. Heavy equipment yields to bigger heavy equipment. Big heavy equipment yields to trains. Trains yield to ships.
    - Nav_Panel 9y ago
      Cars yield to (much smaller) pedestrians, though. Clearly this model needs some work.
      - ghaff 9y ago
        Depends where you are. The city in Asia where I am at the moment turning cars pretty clearly don't yield to pedestrians walk signs notwithstanding.
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        Only in areas where pedestrians specifically are given the right of way (e.g. crosswalks). Outside of specific structured instances like that small yields to big. Of course if you just ignore that you don't have the right of way and just go people will slam on their brakes for you because that's the least costly option for dealing with the situation. It's like taking a left turn across traffic. Some people may stop and let you go if they deem it appropriate but the burden is on the you to turn when it is clear to do so, not on them to stop.
ghaff 9y ago
As someone who doesn't take a lot of taxis and related services while traveling, I've wondered about how many rides people take when I would just be inclined to walk. I actually don't bike on roads-wasn't in an environment where I really could growing up-but I usually just walk in many of the cities I travel to even if it's a mile or three.
- mabcat 9y ago
  There's a sweet spot for bicycle travel: journeys between 2km and 5km are too far for most people to walk, doable on a bike in most climates/terrains without breaking a sweat, and faster on a bike than a car when you account for parking time. Cycle infrastructure is about enabling that sweet spot at both ends, getting people out of cars as well as enabling non-car owners to travel around their whole neighbourhood.
usrusr 9y ago
Please don't design cycle infrastructure for children. Bikes can be toys, but they can also be so much more. Designing for children locks bikes into the toy-role. Do I have to arm myself with a car to be treated like an adult?
- jnty 9y ago
  Do you object to using sidewalks which are also suitable for children to walk on?
  - usrusr 9y ago
    If that means that you either get a sidewalk covered in the expensive soft rubber floor used on modern playgrounds or no sidewalk at all, then sure, I will definitely prefer a complete network of hard sidewalks where it hurts to fall over insular sprinklings of rubber-sidewalks here and there.
    - jnty 9y ago
      It may have escaped your notice that sidewalks like these don't exist outside of children's playgrounds, yet children successfully use sidewalks safely worldwide. The same can be true of bike tracks - have you not seen any videos of what has been achieved in the Netherlands?
- awjr 9y ago
  This gets into the vehicular cycling argument. If you want an inclusive cycle network that works for all the population, not just the physically fit and brave, design for those that want to cycle but feel they can't as it is too dangerous. That does not mean design a two tier infrastructure, that is kids using shared pavements and real men riding with HGVs. Take a universal approach that enables all ages and all abilities to cycle safely.
  - usrusr 9y ago
    It's indeed somewhat close to the vehicular cycling argument, but far from identical. I see a lot of cycling infrastructure that follows the philosophy of "better force them to dismount, someone might hurt themselves here" and it's really not caring of cyclists but disrespectful towards them. I fear that overuse of childproof-argument will only strengthen that mindset. "Really, you have to take that nice, scenic, ten minutes detour because I would not let my child ride the direct route. If you're in a hurry, take a car". This is not how you make people switch to bikes, this is how you teach them that bikes are merely toys for a nice Sunday afternoon ride. I'm fine with designing for humans, but not all infrastructure has to be child proof, as the interstate network clearly shows. We have the technology to create motor vehicle infrastructure ready for unattended children (bumper car floors, yay!), but for various reasons we chose to take very different tradeoffs. Two tier infrastructure can by the way also mean that children up to a certain age legally share the sidewalk, which is a much better place than sharing even the most segregated bike lanes with texting pedelec pilots.

by awjr 9y ago

michaelt 9y ago

The arguments for segregated cycle tracks (physical barriers) rather than cycle lanes (paint) can be answered by one question: "Would you let your child cycle here?" Where I live, when segregated cycle tracks meet T junctions the layout is often like so: | C | ----------------------------------| a |-------- Cycles ◅ | r | ▷ ----------------------------------| s |-------- divider | | ----------------------------------- Δ --------- Cars ------------------------------------------------- This means cyclists using the segregated path have to stop to give way to cars at every T junction - whereas cyclists who don't use the segregated path can maintain a constant speed, with joining cars giving way to them. This leads to a demographic split in cyclist behaviour. For children and cyclists who aren't in a hurry, the segregated path is more friendly - but for 'serious' cyclists and people in a hurry, staying on the road makes more sense. Especially if there's a high density of T junctions, which isn't unusual in some urban areas. Fortunately, in my country there aren't any laws that force cyclists into bike lanes, so it generally isn't a problem. But any urban planner who wants 100% of cyclists segregated from traffic is going to have a difficult time on their hands :)

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Freak_NL 9y ago
> This means cyclists using the segregated path have to stop to give way to cars at every T junction That is a very car-centric design. In the Netherlands these kind of junctions within city limits tend to give the bicycle path the right of way. Bicycle lanes are also mandatory when they are provided; this makes everything a lot safer for all parties concerned.
rorykoehler 9y ago
This always infuriated me. Cyclists are treated like second class citizens even when designing cycling infrastructure. Then we get yelled at for riding on the road. On top of this often the cycling lanes on the edge of main roads also double up as puncture hazards making it risky to use them.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  Why? It's pretty universal that smaller crap yeild to bigger crap. Forklifts yield to service trucks. Service trucks yield to heavy equipment. Heavy equipment yields to bigger heavy equipment. Big heavy equipment yields to trains. Trains yield to ships.
  - Nav_Panel 9y ago
    Cars yield to (much smaller) pedestrians, though. Clearly this model needs some work.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      Depends where you are. The city in Asia where I am at the moment turning cars pretty clearly don't yield to pedestrians walk signs notwithstanding.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      Only in areas where pedestrians specifically are given the right of way (e.g. crosswalks). Outside of specific structured instances like that small yields to big. Of course if you just ignore that you don't have the right of way and just go people will slam on their brakes for you because that's the least costly option for dealing with the situation. It's like taking a left turn across traffic. Some people may stop and let you go if they deem it appropriate but the burden is on the you to turn when it is clear to do so, not on them to stop.

ghaff 9y ago

As someone who doesn't take a lot of taxis and related services while traveling, I've wondered about how many rides people take when I would just be inclined to walk. I actually don't bike on roads-wasn't in an environment where I really could growing up-but I usually just walk in many of the cities I travel to even if it's a mile or three.

mabcat 9y ago
There's a sweet spot for bicycle travel: journeys between 2km and 5km are too far for most people to walk, doable on a bike in most climates/terrains without breaking a sweat, and faster on a bike than a car when you account for parking time. Cycle infrastructure is about enabling that sweet spot at both ends, getting people out of cars as well as enabling non-car owners to travel around their whole neighbourhood.

usrusr 9y ago

Please don't design cycle infrastructure for children. Bikes can be toys, but they can also be so much more. Designing for children locks bikes into the toy-role. Do I have to arm myself with a car to be treated like an adult?

jnty 9y ago
Do you object to using sidewalks which are also suitable for children to walk on?
- usrusr 9y ago
  If that means that you either get a sidewalk covered in the expensive soft rubber floor used on modern playgrounds or no sidewalk at all, then sure, I will definitely prefer a complete network of hard sidewalks where it hurts to fall over insular sprinklings of rubber-sidewalks here and there.
  - jnty 9y ago
    It may have escaped your notice that sidewalks like these don't exist outside of children's playgrounds, yet children successfully use sidewalks safely worldwide. The same can be true of bike tracks - have you not seen any videos of what has been achieved in the Netherlands?
awjr 9y ago
This gets into the vehicular cycling argument. If you want an inclusive cycle network that works for all the population, not just the physically fit and brave, design for those that want to cycle but feel they can't as it is too dangerous. That does not mean design a two tier infrastructure, that is kids using shared pavements and real men riding with HGVs. Take a universal approach that enables all ages and all abilities to cycle safely.
- usrusr 9y ago
  It's indeed somewhat close to the vehicular cycling argument, but far from identical. I see a lot of cycling infrastructure that follows the philosophy of "better force them to dismount, someone might hurt themselves here" and it's really not caring of cyclists but disrespectful towards them. I fear that overuse of childproof-argument will only strengthen that mindset. "Really, you have to take that nice, scenic, ten minutes detour because I would not let my child ride the direct route. If you're in a hurry, take a car". This is not how you make people switch to bikes, this is how you teach them that bikes are merely toys for a nice Sunday afternoon ride. I'm fine with designing for humans, but not all infrastructure has to be child proof, as the interstate network clearly shows. We have the technology to create motor vehicle infrastructure ready for unattended children (bumper car floors, yay!), but for various reasons we chose to take very different tradeoffs. Two tier infrastructure can by the way also mean that children up to a certain age legally share the sidewalk, which is a much better place than sharing even the most segregated bike lanes with texting pedelec pilots.