Cycle facilities
I am in favour of establishing a segregated and integrated cycle network.
I know that this proposal is somewhat controversial, for there is a widespread fear among cyclists that it may be a way of removing them from the roads so that motorists can have the roads to themselves. No, that's not the intention, the intention is to give cyclists an additional choice, so that they can choose to use the roads or rely on the segregated cycle facilities. The Highway Code's stance on this, i.e. cyclists are encouraged, but not mandated, to use segregated facilities where they are provided, appears reasonable enough. I am a frustrated ex-cyclist who quite enjoys cycling where cycle paths are available but has significant problems cycling on roads, and would certainly cycle a lot more if I lived somewhere with an extensive cycle network and there will be others in a similar position, who would cycle more if they were not required, by law, to cycle on the roads.
I know that this proposal is somewhat controversial, for there is a widespread fear among cyclists that it may be a way of removing them from the roads so that motorists can have the roads to themselves. No, that's not the intention, the intention is to give cyclists an additional choice, so that they can choose to use the roads or rely on the segregated cycle facilities. The Highway Code's stance on this, i.e. cyclists are encouraged, but not mandated, to use segregated facilities where they are provided, appears reasonable enough. I am a frustrated ex-cyclist who quite enjoys cycling where cycle paths are available but has significant problems cycling on roads, and would certainly cycle a lot more if I lived somewhere with an extensive cycle network and there will be others in a similar position, who would cycle more if they were not required, by law, to cycle on the roads.
The main problem with the UK's "cycle networks" is that, for the most part, they are poorly-maintained, and not integrated- where's the benefit in providing a cycle network if it is only partial and so there are various points where the cycle path/lane just disappears? Indeed, such "segregated cycle facilities" are often used, in my experience, as a way of restricting car use by taking away road space, rather than to encourage cycling.
Having researched around the subject, it appears that segragated cycle networks in which pedestrians and cyclists share facilities are often associated with a statistically significant, though often small, increase in the number of accidents, this being due to clashes between cyclists and pedestrians as well as cyclists not dealing well with situations where they have to cross roads. However, if the cyclists are also segregated from pedestrians, as is common in Amsterdam for example, then the impact on accident rates tends to be near-neutral. There is often the question, "While places with segregated cycle facilities tend to feature more frequent bicycle journeys, do people cycle more because of these facilities, or is it that the facilities are provided because people cycle more and demand them in greater numbers?", but I think it is most likely a positive feedback mechanism- more facilities, if integrated and well-maintained, encourages more cycling which in turn results in more demand for more of them.
In the UK, where we have a high population density, sometimes we simply don't have enough land to be able to create fully segregated cycle networks without narrowing the roads and/or pavements, so some of the facilities will have to consist of shared cycle/pedestrian routes and/or cycle lanes on the side of the roads. However, even if there is a marginal increase in accidents, if it does succeed in encouraging more people to cycle more (which is likely to produce considerable social, recreational and health benefits, as many cyclists enjoy the physical process of cycling and it helps them to get exercise, as well as getting them from A to B) then the benefits will most likely be sufficient to outweigh the downsides associated with accident rates and reduced space for drivers and pedestrians.
Pedestrian/cycle-friendly areas in residential zones and town/city centres
In part 2 I argued that there is a strong case for selective use of traffic restrictions in residential areas, to create "home zones", and in town/city centres, and provision of relatively unrestricted routes for traffic nearby, so as to encourage traffic to stay out of the pedestrian/cycle-friendly zones.
These areas, with use of policies such as cobbled streets, shared space and filtered permeability, are generally cyclist-friendly as well as pedestrian-friendly, and the idea is that segregated cycle facilities should aim to connect these zones so as to give cyclists an alternative to riding along busy roads, hence producing an integrated cycle network.
These areas, with use of policies such as cobbled streets, shared space and filtered permeability, are generally cyclist-friendly as well as pedestrian-friendly, and the idea is that segregated cycle facilities should aim to connect these zones so as to give cyclists an alternative to riding along busy roads, hence producing an integrated cycle network.
I have doubts about the law against cycling on the pavement, except where segregated cycle facilities are present
When I have questioned the UK law against cycling on the pavement, by far the most popular response has been the circular argument, "Cycling on the pavement is illegal. People shouldn't break the law. Therefore people shouldn't cycle on the pavement. Therefore cycling on the pavement should be illegal." There are usually references to the dangers that "pavement cyclists" can pose to pedestrians, but this argument is undermined by the fact that most of the same people don't complain at cyclists riding along pavements that have been designated as shared pedestrian/cycle routes by the local council. Why not? "Because they aren't breaking the law/they are obeying the Highway Code". So, basically, the main argument runs, cycling on the pavement is wrong because it's illegal... and it's illegal because it's wrong.
However, I have little doubt that if I managed to get past this "the law is the law" argument I would only run into the "the minority have to spoil it for everybody else" line (i.e. a minority of people cycle recklessly on the pavement and it is thus deemed necessary to ban all pavement cyclists, rather than just the irresponsible minority, on the basis, "That's life."). I have often wondered whether, in the absence of an integrated cycle network, it would be better to criminalize, and clamp down against, just irresponsible cycling on the pavement, rather than all cyclists who ride on pavements, though I agree with fully prohibiting cycling on pavements in areas where fully-segragated cycle routes are always available. Having walked down many shared pedestrian/cycle routes myself as a pedestrian, such as those in certain parts of Norwich and Exeter, I find that the majority of "pavement cyclists" are pretty considerate and that it is just a small minority that endangers pedestrians.
However, I have little doubt that if I managed to get past this "the law is the law" argument I would only run into the "the minority have to spoil it for everybody else" line (i.e. a minority of people cycle recklessly on the pavement and it is thus deemed necessary to ban all pavement cyclists, rather than just the irresponsible minority, on the basis, "That's life."). I have often wondered whether, in the absence of an integrated cycle network, it would be better to criminalize, and clamp down against, just irresponsible cycling on the pavement, rather than all cyclists who ride on pavements, though I agree with fully prohibiting cycling on pavements in areas where fully-segragated cycle routes are always available. Having walked down many shared pedestrian/cycle routes myself as a pedestrian, such as those in certain parts of Norwich and Exeter, I find that the majority of "pavement cyclists" are pretty considerate and that it is just a small minority that endangers pedestrians.
My default stance on pavement cycling is that, in the absence of segragated facilities, we should only clamp down against people who ride irresponsibly on the pavement, rather than all "pavement cyclists". I am certainly prepared to be shifted from my position if presented with compelling counter-evidence, I'm looking for things like reliable statistics pointing towards an association between "pavement cyclists" and significantly-increased likelihood of accidents and suggesting that it is more than just a small irresponsible minority, but what I normally get is circular reasoning like the above.
No comments:
Post a Comment