After decades as a cycle advocate / user in and around London I recently had a cycle accident that has changed my views (I was commuting to work - approx 10 miles and could not avoid the situation ahead).
The "it's too dangerous to cycle the Dartford tunnel so here is a bus" amuses me. In my view it is too dangerous to put cycles on the same roads as cars and lorries. And if we want to promote cycling (perfect mix of exercise and local transport) then we need to invest in totally separate pathways.
My simple question is "why can't every child cycle to school on a car free path way?"
If we had started 30 years ago with a principle of every road must have seperated cycle lanes and overpasses, then we would have built slightly less roads in the marginal cases (probably a win anyway) and be in a better position now. So what do we do for the next30?
After a visit to Houten my wife and I are working out how to move to the Netherlands next year. Meanwhile, for this year we're just trying to figure out how to get our kids to school without buying a second car.
We should not have to be taxis to our kids. The entire world has gone utterly mad, making it impossible to get around without using gargantuan child-crushers that can only be operated by people in the middle years of their life, and there are only a few pockets of sanity now.
You should see what's been going on in the US. Due to a combination of anti-tax crusaders, aging of the workforce, service industry jobs asking for higher wages, and Covid chaos, school bus service is drying up all over.
I have friends in multiple states who spend hours every single day, sitting in a line to drop off/pick up their kids from school. It's utterly, mind-bendingly insane. I still cannot fathom it, and it makes me angry.
They'll say things like "you have to get there an hour ahead of time so that you only wait 45 minutes more" because if you show up at the "correct" time you'll be waiting for 2 hours.
In a lot of cases, these schools have been built where you really can't walk to school, and children are not allowed to leave on their own.
Not the entire world, our child can get to school 3 km away on a bike without sharing the road with cars. There are bridges and tunnels, the bike road is physically sepparated from car roads with trees and grass at all times. Except for the last bit in to school that is in a small single family house area with almost no traffic. (North Sweden)
Would you be able to comment more? The northern Nordics in general look very interesting, particularly for having cool temperatures in future decades, but I worry it might not be easy to integrate as a non-nordic myself. Apparently Oulu, Finland has a good tech scene (not to suggest Sweden and Finland are the same, of course!! http://satwcomic.com/ makes sure people know better :-) )
From a California / Ireland perspective, I suspect Sweden and Finland are, SATW notwithstanding, pretty much the same, culturally and economically. And from what I've seen (53 years living in Sweden and Finland) they're also internally pretty uniform on the North-South axis (e.g, our kid had an almost car-free bike route to school here in Helsinki), so you don't have to limit your search to just the northern parts.
Since most of the northern nordics consists of relocated southerners it should be no problem for you. I was working in a small village a few years, in the middle of nowhere. Talking to some old people long out of working age turns out most of them were from Stockholm or Finland moving up for work and got stuck. The unemployment numbers are lowest in the country at the moment. What is missing is a proper food culture, the new people are wrinkling their noses when the neighbours starts opening the herring boxes. And yes, it really smells as bad as they make it look like on youtube. If not worse.
The bigger cities tries to keep the roads bikeable during winter but it can be a day or two in a row that you will have to take the bus to work because they just can't clear 40 cm snow before 7 am during a snowstorm from 200 km of bike roads.
I had a north-Swedish friend introduce me to surströmming, along with about 15 other people in Denmark, and most people agreed it was worth trying, but probably not something to eat more than once a year.
(Prepare it properly, unlike pretty much all of the Youtube videos.)
Just the video I was hoping for. That's the plan! After moving somewhere less hostile to people. Rode 30km with my kids in a Gazelle Cabby last week and they loved it!
My dad used to take me and my sister to the local market (to buy food, not to sell us, you understand) on one of these in the 70s in London. He called it the Long John. The basket was a much wider, lower version than this though, and quite uncomfortable, but exciting! I have very early memories of people pointing and laughing at us as we went past.
> Meanwhile, for this year we're just trying to figure out how to get our kids to school without buying a second car.
Make them take public transport? If they’re older than 10 or 11, let’s say. Or make them walk to school? Assuming you live at about 2 km max from said school (a good half-hour walk to and back from school has never hurt anybody, to the contrary).
Now, I understand that there may be laws around where you live that ban leaving kids unaccompanied, but you can and try fighting those laws (I guess there would be other people who might join you). Also, maybe your local public transport is crap, but it’s easier and better for the whole society to try and fix that than to try and impose cycling paths that would be used by only a small percentage of the people living there).
> "maybe your local public transport is crap, but it’s easier and better for the whole society to try and fix that than to try and impose cycling paths that would be used by only a small percentage of the people living there"
Nonsense. Cycle paths aren't "imposed" on anyone - they're far cheaper to build and maintain than public transport and are an asset to society.
It's easy to say "why build cycle lanes when nobody cycles", but the reason nobody cycles in your town is because there isn't safe infrastructure for cycling. If you build enough cycle-friendly infrastructure, people will use it because suddenly a lot of trips become practical, convenient, and safe by bike that weren't before.
Plus, you save a lot in long-term healthcare costs by promoting a healthier, more active population! But even die-hard car drivers benefit from increased cycling thanks to reduced traffic and congestion.
We live 1 km from the preschool but it's a narrow country road with tall hedgerows and drivers doing 90-100kph. We live 13km from the primary school (it's the nearest non-religious one) and there is no public transportation.
Of course, this was a predictable consequence of moving to the countryside, but it meant we could get a super cheap house to dig ourselves out of a hole. We knew this was a predictable outcome and leaving is a logical step. We're done digging (the plan worked!)
"cycling paths that would be used by only a small percentage of the people living there"
Odd since many people already bike here, just at great risk to themselves, and a bike path can allow convenient, immediate transport as opposed to public transportation which doesn't work well at our low population densities. I have a bunch of footage of people riding bikes around here I need to put together in to a video, actually - mostly older folks.
I'm annoyed the car paths were imposed on us, but here we are.
> In my view it is too dangerous to put cycles on the same roads as cars and lorries. And if we want to promote cycling (perfect mix of exercise and local transport) then we need to invest in totally separate pathways.
Where we already do it that already, particularly on "new build" estates, is almost always awful. They're basically shared pavement, so you have to stop at every single side-road, which is not what you want on a bike. On the continent at least, cycles paths are parallel to the road and mostly protected from traffic, and have the same continuous right of way as the road they're following.
UK cycle infrastructure is awful. Drain and utility covers in the road, next to kerbs so cyclists have no choice but to swerve around them, pot holes everywhere, mismatched tarmac, and absolutely shoddy road repairs by the utility companies every time they dig the road up.
It turns out the UK did build cycle paths almost 100 years ago, and many are lost:
Sounds the same in Ireland. The bike infrastructure seems built to get cyclists out of the road for the benefit of drivers, it's not built with the cyclist's experience in mind.
And these are all choices. I just don't think they are informed choices. Or optimal choices.
So, elsewhere there are calculation re energy use per person in "western world". They tend to land around so many KJ per day which tends to be something like X times 3000 calories per day, which is like have X servants / slaves. X often turns out to be 40 ish. Now imagine you had 40 people working each day for your benefit. Some would work farms to feed you, some would carry you to work. But overall, is the current layout of your life, the one you would plan if you really had 40 servants?
(No we ignore the weird sexual plans here, and the worst unethical plans).
What I am saying is that the industrial revolution has transformed energy allocation and use. But the way we happen to have built the world does not mean it's the best way.
Maybe it's too late for the UK but the citizens of China, India and Africa might be able to learn something useful.
But I hope we can learn how to rebuild our worlds to benefit us the most.
Out of interest I think Demoocracy plays a huge part here. So many people feel powerless or unable to direct or control resources. Whereas they would know what to do with 40 servants.
And yet 50% of resources and activity in our society sits in private companies that are outrageous dictatorships. The resource allocation of that 50% should be waaay more democratic - either through regulation or just voting by the owners of capital (the employees ! The ultimate beneficiary of stocks (pension funds usually vote with the execs. why can I not vote my pension fund alice how Inlike?)
And finally the 50% under government ownership - again I do vote but local government in UK is a joke, years of cut backs have decimated courts, police, etc. These are probably not the choices most people would have made locally.
We can remake our world - once we take the levers of power away from those hording them (I would say elites but despite that being a correct term, somehow it has been corrupted to point at the wrong people.)
I think bike routes can and should be more direct than car carrying roads.
So the idea of just expanding the roads is okay, but better to look at existing footpath, canal, disused rail infrastructure and make that first class. Cycling through parks and forests and along rivers just adds to the delight.
Banning through traffic and parking near the school at dropoff pickup time also tilts things in this direction and reduces the cars on the roads for bikes to dodge.
You can turn most normal 2 lane (one lane each direction) roads into one directional roads for cars while turning the second lane into bidirectional bike/e-bike/e-wheelchair etc. path.
Cars are only faster (marginally anyway) and more convenient in cities because 95%+ of infrastructure is built for them. Make it closer and a bike wins on most routes in populated areas.
Want to use a vehicle which weighs 2 tonnes, is 5meter long and 2meter wide to move your ass? It's only fair you go around on narrow one directional roads.
Exactly. As an added bonus, dramatically reducing automobile capacity + traffic will leave it for those who truly need it: cargo vans, transporting disabled or elderly people, minivan/minibus-style pooled transportation, etc.
The other aspect is that bike routes should be continuous without too many slow/stop points as that zaps a lot of energy from commuters.
Here in the UK we have the worst designed cycle "paths" that are just painted onto pavements and stop at each side road, so it's far better to completely ignore them and use the road as then you have priority over the side roads.
Yeah, I'm spending 2 weeks in Boulder, Colorado, which is known as a very bikeable city. It has lots of on-street bike lanes, and it doesn't have a lot of dedicated cycleways as such, but there are a large number of river paths (which is a common way of doing multi-use infrastructure here, since the right-of-ways are already there), therefore avoiding many intersections. Because of the time savings not waiting at traffic lights, going 2.5 miles on slightly reduced speed on paths is faster than going 2.0 miles next to cars and waiting at traffic lights.
Yeah in my experience even when councils do put in proper cycle paths they are still second class citizens to roads so that it's often more convenient just to stay on the road.
In many places in the UK it would be trivial to place a protected bike lane parallel to an existing railway line which is a level grade, and ideal for cyclists.
Except the rail companies wouldn't like it you use your bike to cycle a couple of stops rather than use the train.
In the UK we have this kind of horror: https://goo.gl/maps/eTb1615DFL3BTZRV7 - stop the traffic via multiple pedestrian crossings to reach a pedestrian bridge positioned within the middle of the junction.
You should come to Waltham Forest, a borough bordering Hackney and Haringey to the west and Essex to the east. Around here, a large proportion of kids do cycle to school (or get cycled to school) on a segregated path. Walthamsterdam, as I call it.
It's the main reason my partner and I bought a house here. Eventually more councils will realise that they can attract council taxpayers by providing segregated cycle lanes and a civilised way of transporting themself and their kids around.
It’s just a shame there is no Greater London-wide cycle policy comparable to what Waltham Forest are doing. I’d like to commute by bicycle but my office is in clerkenwell, and coming from the east means I’d need to pass the old street roundabout
Old Street Roundabout is a lot better than it used to be. Completely segregated cycle lanes, cycle-only traffic lights, etc. I wouldn't let it put you off cycling. Do the route on a weekend and see how you feel.
There are ways around it too. Going west to east several years ago when OSR was still a death trap I would go Bath St -> Peerless St -> Vestry St -> Haberdasher St.
I find it interesting that to you, forcing cars to be safe to cyclists is a dead end, and it’s more realistic to double the amount of public paths everywhere in the city to have separate paths.
> forcing cars to be safe to cyclists is a dead end
Isn’t it? Cars are drastically different. Visibility is poor in a car, so it’s difficult to see narrow objects like a bike. Cars normally drive much faster than a bike — 20mph is slow for a car but fast (ish) for a bike. Cars are vastly heavier and larger, meaning they cause a severe amount of damage when they hit a smaller object like a bike or human.
Cars and bikes sharing the road is not ideal for either. Countries with excellent bike cultures and safety records (the Netherlands) promote separate infrastructure for different modes of transit, and it works well.
For instance changing taxation to make small, slow and pedestrian friendly cars way cheaper could have a drastic effect (some countries do). That can be combined with putting limitations on what category of vehicle can enter city centers. Introducing parking lot sizes privileging smaller cars etc.
It’s all cultural, and either solution will take decades of effort, education, changing people’s behavior and costs tremendous money anyway.
I was on the main road, decent clear weather etc with oncoming traffic on the other side when a car pulled out of the junction just ahead, blocking my path. Insane to swerve into oncoming traffic and so I just braced myself and braked like hell. The worst part was lying on the other side of the car and hearing the poor girl in the car. Her mum had time to register but she was just happily thinking of school when 200 pounds of middle-aged lycra tries to come through the windscreen.
So society has not really saved. Apart from the boring monetary losses like bike and car damage and lost working hours, there is my physical recovery / therapy, ambulances being unavailable for something serious and worse that poor kid needs years of ... something ... therapy?
The nearest primary school is 4 mile away, 2 miles of which are on single lane tracks up and down steep hills, and I’m by no means in a massively remote area - we even have a bus (not to the villages and no use for working people).
I’d love to take farmland and build cycle tracks, but realistically they are not going to be used more than a couple of times a day.
Now if you’re talking in towns and cities, sure, but be careful when using the word “every”
You say "it's impossible because X", but what is usually the issue is that cars just take over all the space and make public transport, walking and cycling impossible. I could live in the country side without a car thanks to the pandemic, I do understand that most people make choices in their life that make that harder, but those are choices made by people and infrastructure planners. They are not fixed truths.
There is so much to disect here and I do not think we can reach a common conclusion because everything is a special case. For reference I lived 9 km to the primary school, bus and store, 60 km to the nearest hospital and train station, 4 km to the nearest daily bus. I understand that it might feel strange to build bicycle infrastructure in such an environment. Luckily for us it was perfectly possible to live there and have my children ride their bicycles to school, but this was only possible because a lot of people alreadt walked on these roads, and it was quickly known in the community that my children rode there in the mornings, even if they were the only ones doing it.
Yes you need to change the infrastructure even in the country side to enable walking and cyclists, it does NOT have to be 10km of cycle track, but it might have to be that.
The lane is 9 foot wide. Tractors just about fit through. Deliveries to the pub, etc
Banning vehicles from that lane wouldn’t work. You can’t make it one way, it already can only pass traffic in one direction at a time.
The question was
why can't every child cycle to school on a car free path way?
The answer you admit is that in some parts of the country there just isn’t the road ways to convert. You also point out quite correctly it’s often not necessary, but you still take umbridge with these facts.
I interpreted you as saying "nothing can be done to let kids cycle here" that is what I take umbrage to, there are lots of things that can be done on smaller roads to make the more accesible. My point was that where I lived it was not possible to build a cycle track, but there was small things that could be done; in attitudes and infrastructure. I've seen so many impossible things solved.
The easy path is to continue scaring kids away from roads making them a barrier rather than something for transport.
The mention of safety due to lack of doors does not add up, as none of the Routemaster busses at the time had a door at the bottom of the stairs. Jumping on and off was the normal thing.
The many tunnels under the Thames are awesome though - I used to live in Woolwich and there’s a pedestrian tunnel there that I’ve used many times
But you could jump off at any speed - or get jostled and fall off accidentally if hanging on to the pole that was provided in the doorway. Falling into traffic at 30mph isn’t a bundle of laughs either
My guess is the door requirement was to avoid needing to scrape people off the single lane roadway in rush hour more than a thought for passenger safety and that difference may have got lost on the way to the page
This still exists on the current Dartford Road crossing - but they just put your bike on the back of a truck and drive you over on request: https://www.gov.uk/dartford-crossing-bike
Tangentially related bit of curiosity - there is a long and narrow pedestrian/cycle tunnel under the Scheldt river in Antwerp. It was built in 1933, and access is via the original beautiful wooden escalators. Quite a neat bit of infrastructure!
Are there any extant copies of this vehicle? I would have hoped to have seen something this whimsical and unique at the London transport museum but I don’t remember anything about it being there.
„It's thought that only one of the five Dartford Tunnel Cycle Service buses survives, and it's rumoured to be owned by Leon Daniels, a renowned transport consultant and expert.“
On a tangent from this, does wikipedia or any similar organisation exist for building 3D models of historical vehicles/buildings etc? I've seen 3D scans of statues and other real objects but dont think I've seen larger reconstructions that are available as open data. Might just be looking in the wrong places though.
I still can’t believe that the Silvertown Tunnel, the next Thames crossing will require a modern version of this rather than have a dedicated cycle space.
I appreciate cycling close to cars in a tunnel won’t be pleasant but we are slowly moving away from the internal combustion engine, the air will get better and better as electric gets more popular.
That depends on mass EV takeup, and the problem is that particulate pollution will hardly be reduced as EVs are significantly heavier and particulate pollution is mostly from brakes and tyres.
The "it's too dangerous to cycle the Dartford tunnel so here is a bus" amuses me. In my view it is too dangerous to put cycles on the same roads as cars and lorries. And if we want to promote cycling (perfect mix of exercise and local transport) then we need to invest in totally separate pathways.
My simple question is "why can't every child cycle to school on a car free path way?"
If we had started 30 years ago with a principle of every road must have seperated cycle lanes and overpasses, then we would have built slightly less roads in the marginal cases (probably a win anyway) and be in a better position now. So what do we do for the next30?