Cycling .... and rubbish UK infrastructure

[Dave2002]

Chris Boardman doesn't let his daughter go cycling - http://beta.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29848778

Cyclists are a problem on our roads - but they, and the rest of us who use motorised transportd, eserve better.

Painting a few lines on our roads may have made a marginal improvement in some areas, but overall many of the roads are unsafe and inadequate for a mix of motorised vehicles and bicycles. Our road and traffic infrastructure is, in many parts of the UK, totally inadequate. Roads which started off as dirt tracks for carts have now been converted into 2 way roads, in many cases with minimal road widening, and the volumes of traffic which some now have to handle far exceed their safe capacity. Yet, in our usual British way, we bumble on, with either no solutions to the problems, or at best totally inadequate ones, and miserable compromises.

[Risorgimento]

But how would you widen roads particularly in towns, cities and villages when properties are as close to the roadside as they often are? Take smaller roads in rural areas...grub up even more hedges ?

As Chris Boardman says, though, his is an emotional decision and not based on statistics. The article also talks about the Netherlands. Guess what..it's very flat. Population density much less than over here in this very over-crowded island. I agree though that designing physical exercise into daily living should be given far higher priority given the fat lard-arses I see shuffling around the streets.

[Richard Barrett]

Population density much less than over here in this very over-crowded island.

Actually the population density of the Netherlands is around 50% greater than that of the UK - 403/sq km as opposed to 259.

[MrGongGong]

Chris Boardman doesn't let his daughter go cycling -.

He also thinks that West Kirby is a "coastal village"
erm I don't think so

[jean]

What else would you call it? It's hardly big enough to be a town!

[ahinton]

Actually the population density of the Netherlands is around 50% greater than that of the UK - 403/sq km as opposed to 259.

Indeed. Odd, is it not, how some people blithely trot out statistics that presume to suit their agenda (even if on a different topic, as here) without even bothering to check the facts first and regardless of how incorrect they may be?! In this instance, there appears to be an ill-concealed attempt to drag the matters of population density that have lately been bandied about elswhere on this forum in discussions of immigration, emigration and general population movement freedoms and restrictions, despite it being well less than obvious that such issues have any conceivable connection with cycling and the provision of safe places to cycle...

[Flosshilde]

But how would you widen roads particularly in towns, cities and villages when properties are as close to the roadside as they often are? Take smaller roads in rural areas...grub up even more hedges ?

Yes - in new towns cycling has been taken into account, but otherwise how do you do it? In most towns & cities it would involve wholesale demolition to widen roads & put in proper cycle routes.

[jean]

Or just by allowing less of the available road space to cars? Really, there should be no need for cars in cities at all.

Amsterdam isn't a particularly new town, is it?

[ahinton]

Or just by allowing less of the available road space to cars? Really, there should be no need for cars in cities at all.

Amsterdam isn't a particularly new town, is it?

Whilst it can be possible to dedicate certain existing city roads to cyclists' use and divert car traffic elsewhere within those cities, the problem in rural areas is far greater. That said, there still has to be the means for delivery and emergency vehicles as well as taxis, coaches, buses et al to go anywhere within cities and adequate provision for "park-and-ride" type facilities needs to be made without that resulting in massive traffic jams outside cities as vehicles try to approach them.

[MrGongGong]

What else would you call it? It's hardly big enough to be a town!

It's a town
when I sang in the choir there in the 1970's it was a town

it has a station
swimming pool
several schools of various sizes and types
several banks
the branch of Boots where Glenda used to work
a large Victorian park
and so on and so on

[teamsaint]

building suitable infrastructure is just a question of will, really. If governments want things to happen , they will happen.

Here is an example of, in my opinion, a really great use of public money (approx £1m) for a project which wasn't really "necessary", but which has brought huge benefits for many different user groups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FMqblXufEY

I like many football fans, use the route to walk from portswood to St Mary's stadium. I took a professional landscape architect aalong this route recently, and he was bowled over by the facility.
Its just a matter of will. As somebody who drives a great deal for work, I would love to see better facilities for cyclists, for the benefit of all.

Carless cities aren't necessary, IMO,but good planning and excellent alternatives are. Barcelona is a fantastic example of how things can work well.

[Serial_Apologist]

An awareness course for lorry drivers, involving them cycling London's roads, was mentioned on today's local lunchtime news on BBC1, though it missed out how easy it is to get onto it, or if it is free.

It might have been this one:

https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/transport/cycling-revolution/making-cycling-in-london-safer

[Dave2002]

building suitable infrastructure is just a question of will, really. If governments want things to happen , they will happen.
...
Its just a matter of will. As somebody who drives a great deal for work, I would love to see better facilities for cyclists, for the benefit of all.

Carless cities aren't necessary, IMO,but good planning and excellent alternatives are. Barcelona is a fantastic example of how things can work well.

I don't think I can agree with this. A lot is to do with money, or in many cases lack of it, and also vested interests.

In cities, with an existing infrastructure, it can be hard to change things, unless areas are marked for redevelopment as brownfield sites, which will probably involve some demolition. In towns and villages there can still be problems, though they may be surrounded by greener areas. Here we have, probably quite rightly, considerations such as Green Belt legislation to take into account.

In many areas though, some commercial firms have bought up the land, or the land is owned by people who won't give it up without what they consider to be a good price. There is quite a lot of jostling for money by landowners of various kinds which does tend to be in opposition to sensible development.

Just for once I'd say that the Boris idea of going upwards to make dedicated cycleways in towns and cities is not actually a bad one, but there still has to be both the political will and financial willingness to make it happen. It's doubtful that many other cities will adopt such a strategy. In more rural areas it would probably be a nonsense to use such an approach, but taking slices of land off the edge of fields which might be sensible for cycle lanes, or putting cycle tracks through/across such fields would probably bring on cries of "it's good farming land ..." - which in many cases hasn't been used for sensible agricultural purposes for decades, but is there solely for the future benefit of the landowners trying to get the best price when and if they eventually want to, or have to, sell up. Forgive me if I'm being too cynical here.

[teamsaint]

Dave, I'm not sure what it is you don't agree with. If there is political will , it means that the money is available. We seem to find the money where the politicians want to find it, EG Nukes, foreign adventures, MP pay rises, etc etc etc. And political will includes taking on vested interests, such as those holding land banks.

Of course there will sometimes be practical difficulties, and hard decisions to make. But we could at least start with things that have a clear benefit, such as cycle lanes on major routes to and within towns and cities , and connecting with transport hubs for instance.

[Serial_Apologist]

taking slices of land off the edge of fields which might be sensible for cycle lanes, or putting cycle tracks through/across such fields would probably bring on cries of "it's good farming land ..." - which in many cases hasn't been used for sensible agricultural purposes for decades, but is there solely for the future benefit of the landowners trying to get the best price when and if they eventually want to, or have to, sell up. Forgive me if I'm being too cynical here.

Actually, arable field margins hadn't occurred to me. These have been urged for use for wildflowers anbd threatened insects by conservation bodies for several decades now, grants for permanently setting aside were available and made economic sense for farmers to take up in the 1990s, as I remember, though I imagine these have been removed/cut/incorporated under different schemes. Considerably less land would need earmarking for like-located, hoggin-surfaced cycle paths, as already pertain in country parks and community forests, and could probably be incorporated into field margins already set aside in this way.