Agree the standard of cycle lanes and footpaths is much better in Europe than UK. I guess the UK Government does not see this as a priority. Seems like the latest 2 competing for Prime Minister post seem more intent on cutting taxes rather than improving the infrastructure of this country.

Seems like the latest 2 competing for Prime Minister post seem more intent on cutting taxes rather than improving the infrastructure of this country.

I think that every time I hear promises of tax cuts. One of the jobs of government is to do things for the country and the people. "Low tax" as a policy is just a way of saying "do as little as possible". Cycle lanes aside, the local roads aren't fit to ride on.

My county council (not uncommon eslewhere either, it seems) has often spent unwisely on roads, often needing to re-resurafce within short order because they didn't attend to underlying problems or virtue-signalled (like many do nowadays) in putting up loads of signs, re-jigging junctions, etc, etc that do nothing for safety - sometimes making it worse.

Many councils (a certain neighbouring one as a prime example) spend fortunes on whiz-bang schemes that rarely do any good or present good value for the huge sums spent.

We should be careful about pretending that 'more money' mean good. Spending a reasonable amount wisely is far better.

What doesn't help is the 'political cycle' (pardon the pun) which encourages short-termism and policies at national level that mean govt departments and city/county councils cannot adequately plan for the long term or cannot keep up (including financially) with the changes that affect them.

Whilst a lot of councils pay lip service by reducing existing road widths and painting wide dividing line (and rarely sweep the roads so cyclist have to run the gauntlet of both other road users or getting flat tyres or blowouts, those councils that do build more purpose-made cycle lanes often waste fortunes on them.

I suspect part of that is the ultra-high cost of purchasing land / legal hurdles, but aren't the only ones. I remember that 'cycle-friendly' roundabout in Cambridge costing £2.3M (original budget still a staggering £800k).

Like with our railways network, our roads were never really designed to cope with modern life and, unlike a good portion of Europe, we didn't have the benefit from a large land mass compared to our population size and / or the ability to almost completely rebuild our cities after WWII.

Most British urban areas are still based on their chaotic medieval road layout, which is nigh-on impossible to change at a reasonable cost (the same space issues apply to bus lanes) and even those few 'New Towns' that do have far more purpose-made cycle lanes (like Stevenage) are often not exactly nice places to be in most other respects, mainly due to the post war bad town planning and architecture.

These cycles lanes are a waste of money. Pedestranising street and then putting cyclings in the same shared space is crazy. Many cycle lanes are ad hoc. Rather then focusing on building new cycles lanes, may be focus on existing ones.

The amount of cycling paths/lanes in the UK is woefully inadequate. So you are saying forget about anywhere that doesn't already have, tough luck for them, just spend money on small number of existing ones? (even though you also seem to be saying they are a waste of money?)

The future will be something based on an e-scooter. In future a e-scooter will be self-driving and will come to you when needed. e-scooters are fast. People will unlock using their phone, set a destination and then the e-scotter will take them. The rider will only have limited control such as stop / start / speed, with anti-collision technology. No ability to change direction, as that will be done by the scooter. it will go on a pre-defined route.

Can't see that at all. Some kind of a small car like Toyota's i-road concept maybe, but not a self driving e-scooter.

If someone can't stand, may be a wheel chair format for elderly or young children.

These already exist.

Cycling is limited due to human endurance. Cycling can cause joint and muscle pain.

So can any form of physical activity, but cycling is a low impact exercise. A comfortable bicycle of an appropriate design for the ability of the rider is far less likely to cause any actual problems for the rider than pretty much any other exercise save perhaps swimming. And of course you can get one with electric assist.

No pain in the backside from the cycle seart.

If you are suffering from pain in the backside it is because you have the wrong kind of bike and/or the wrong kind of seat for you (or are just not used to it yet, it does take a little time, especially if you have not been on a bike for ages). The kind of seat which is likely to cause you pain is probably of the kind you should be wearing padded shorts with.

Cycles take too much space.

Compared to what?, a unicycle?, a pogo stick?, shoes?, a bus pass?. For those with very limited space, folding bicycles exist and have done for many years.

Cycles get stolen (try carrying 2Kg cycle lock).

An average (non electric) hybrid bike is going to weigh around 12kg, the average UK male around 85kg. Carrying a 2kg bike lock on top of that is going to add around 2% to the total weight, i.e, barely noticeable.

No turning up to work sweaty (and needing a shower).

Heard of an e-bike? (Waterproof clothes?)

There are plenty who can't ride a bike.

Yes, there are. But there are also plenty who can (I'd guess many more can than can't), should they be ignored?. Also, increasing cycle lanes to provide safe routes, will encourage folk who either haven't cycled for years (or have never tried), to get on a bike.

Edited by badbusdriver on 30/07/2022 at 08:42

These cycles lanes are a waste of money. Pedestranising street and then putting cyclings in the same shared space is crazy. Many cycle lanes are ad hoc. Rather then focusing on building new cycles lanes, may be focus on existing ones.

The future will be something based on an e-scooter. In future a e-scooter will be self-driving and will come to you when needed. e-scooters are fast. People will unlock using their phone, set a destination and then the e-scotter will take them. The rider will only have limited control such as stop / start / speed, with anti-collision technology. No ability to change direction, as that will be done by the scooter. it will go on a pre-defined route.

If someone can't stand, may be a wheel chair format for elderly or young children.

Cycling is limited due to human endurance. Cycling can cause joint and muscle pain. No pain in the backside from the cycle seart. Cycles take too much space. Cycles get stolen (try carrying 2Kg cycle lock). No turning up to work sweaty (and needing a shower). There are plenty who can't ride a bike.

Whenever people mention e-scooters, my mind always drifts back to the film 'wall-e' and the obese passengers on the starship going around in chair taxis...

Not exactly encouraging healthy exercise or being green are e-scooters. Quite the opposite, in fact. Most people I see on them appear to have chosen them instead of walking and/or to 'look cool' (they aren't - they look like adults using an oversized kids toy).

Yes, cycling can be hard on the body, especially the joints as we get older (my right knee normally proverbially says "that's enough" after 20-35 miles depending upon the hillyness [such a word?] of the route) and can be danegrous on some roads, but the effort and risk (which can be mitigated via various means) is, I think, well worth it for health, environmental and monetary reasons, as I've discovered over the past 2-odd years.

I admit that (solely) commuting by bicycle is often not possible for the majority of people, but should be encouraged where it is, without significantly disadvantaging other road/path users.

These cycles lanes are a waste of money. Pedestranising street and then putting cyclings in the same shared space is crazy. Many cycle lanes are ad hoc. Rather then focusing on building new cycles lanes, may be focus on existing ones.

London has created some fantastic cycle infrastructure. The cycle super highways, particularly that running along the Embankment, are safe, fast and segregated. Where they're not segregated then they're shared with buses etc. If the cycle lanes were not there the cyclists still would be. They'd have to integrate with the other traffic and probably cause more trouble than in a cycle lane.

We have one in Northampton which started out as a morning rush only bus and cycle lane. Never enforced and I had some really scary close passes from cars during its operational hours. During the pandemic it became 24hours and acquired an enforcement camera; observance was suddenly 100%

Unfortunately a change of local governmnet has seen a reversion to the Status Quo Ante.

Cycling is limited due to human endurance. Cycling can cause joint and muscle pain. No pain in the backside from the cycle seart. Cycles take too much space. Cycles get stolen (try carrying 2Kg cycle lock). No turning up to work sweaty (and needing a shower). There are plenty who can't ride a bike.

While the first sentence is true a short urban ride using the lanes you condemn wouldn't test anyone's endurance. I used to do seventy to one hundred miles a day when touring and could easily do fifty even now, in my sixties and out of practice fifty plus would be do-able.

As others have already said cycling is low impact and, as long as you fit your bike and use gears properly joint and muscle pain will not occur. A common fault is to push too high a gear which will jigger your knees. Low gear and fast pedaling cadence are the secret.

All three of my bikes, Brompton folder, urban MTB and eighties tourer have Brooks leather saddles that fit my bum like a glove.

Cycles taking up too much space in nonsense on stilts. It's cars, even those with two or three occupants that take up the room.

The Brompton is very heavily targeted for theft, to the point of people being mugged for them. However it was never locked on the street, it went where I went including shops and offices. Just walk in like it's normal; asking invites refusal.

Visiting a Job Centre for work I was told to leave it under the stairs by the door. It was admitted after I asked security to phone the person I was meeting and explain I was leaving unless I could bring it in and stow it under a desk.

I rode the Brompton in my work clothes. Riding reasonably slowly in the cool of the morning and with only the necessary clothing - by smart jacket stayed in the office - I never arrived sweaty. Different story in the evening with a train to catch....

If you cannot, or even will not, ride a bike then fair enough, Some people cannot drive a car. Neither of those things are reasons not to meet legitimate expectations.

These cycles lanes are a waste of money.

In absolute terms, yes, they probably are. Near here in Cheshire, almost a mile of the A56 between Fr0dsham and Helsby has just been remodelled (both sides) with elaborate cycle lanes separated from vehicular traffic by a kerbed strip. After several months of temporary lights the road has just returned to normal. I think it was originally converted to 3 lanes many years ago (remember those?) but returned to wide two-lane when traffic density grew, now with narrower (but adequate) lanes.

The main purpose of the cycle lane is for schoolkids from Fr0dsham to get to the large Helsby school, which has had cycle lanes past it for many years, but only white-lined off as part of the straight main road. Needless to say those are fully occupied by parked cars at pick-up time, so are useless for cycling.

I am interested to see [a] how much the new lanes will be used, and [b] how drivers find them in the dark, as the kerbed strips I mentioned are mid-grey and almost indistinguishable from the tarmac in the dark - the road has a 40 limit.

Edited by Andrew-T on 02/08/2022 at 11:19

Here in Andover there are some cycle paths that we use reasonably often. They are mostly shared with pedestrians, unseparated, often a metre or not much wider and not well maintained. In autumn wet leaves cover some urban paths and make cycling hazardous. Other paths were made with insufficient foundations and have a knobbly surface also making progress slow or dangerous. It's little wonder many cyclists stick to the roads, even heavily trafficked roads.

In nearby rural areas some roads are heavily used by cyclists, but also by traffic. The bigger roads have 30 or 40 mph speed limits but once in a derestricted lanes some drive far too fast. Indeed, cycling in rural Hampshire feels far more dangerous than any city I have cycled in.

I also think that modern satnavs, especially (IMHO) Google Maps (which has improved but has some way to go) are contributing to the problem in rural areas because now you get tourists using derestricted roads that, despite the '60mph' speed limit, should in no way be driving that fast along them because it's patently usafe - the risk of encountering a cyclist, a a farm vehicle, livestock crossing or just other cars/vans (including the [now] huge number of delivery vans on tight schedules) is now greatly increased.

It also doesn't help that vehciles in general - including farm vehicles - are much larger and more powerful/quicker than decades ago.

I foolishly followed Google Maps 'route' on the last leg of my route to Cornwall on holiday that took me down such a road. Because I could in no way do 60 apart from a small section at the start (and I only got up to 50) and mostly was doing well under 30, the route was no quicker than the one I'd normally take which was longer but on major roads where I could (safely as well as legally) do 50-60mph.

The irony of modern living and especially the large changes over the last 2.5 years to less in-person shopping mean that some rural roads (where there's little viable or no alternative routes via main roads) are far more dangerous, especially out of the morning/evening rush hour and on weekends.

To be honest, for any trip under 2 miles, you may as well walk. To do a weekly shop, you may need the ability to carry stuff with at least one hand if not both, and dangling shopping bags on the handlebars isn't exactly safe.

Depends on time constraints. This morning I cycled to the centre of town to drop off takings at the bank. I was back home in less than 10 mins, but if i had walked it would have taken 30. As for shopping, as long as you are not after the last word in quality, it is cheap enough to get some panniers and/or a rack bag.

Whilst some more 'advanced' cyclists may want to concentrate more on the competitive sporting side, many people would probably like the decent general health benefits plus the enjoyment of being amongst nature, sight-seeing, etc.

For example, during my recent longer (for me) cycle ride last Saturday, I happened to come across a cricket match in the viilage where I stop for a break/lunch half way around my route. I stopped for longer just to watch some of the game (free to watch) in the nice sunshine. The only cost to me for the entire half day out was the water I drank and food I consumed (which I brought from home, so not expensive).

Yes, absolutely. While I certainly wouldn't stop to watch cricket, my cycle yesterday included a couple of notable close encounters with wildlife. First was when a very small bird came out of a hedge and flew alongside me for a few seconds, close enough that I could have taken my left hand off the handlebar and plucked it out of the air. Second was when a doe jumped over a hedge and crossed the road about 10' in front of me.

In one of the advanced driving videos by Chris Gilbert (who is absolutely inspirational) he makes the distinction between "cyclists" and "bike riders". I agree with him that there's a vast difference between the occasional, hobbyist bike rider, the one less likely to look over their shoulder, anticipate, signal or show much in the way of awareness in general - and the "real" cyclist, the one in cycling gear, on a pricey, well equipped machine, who effectively becomes another vehicle on the road and is far less likely to make stupid mistakes or ride in the ignorant, selfish manner of those in the former category.
No doubt there is room for discussion here on the differences between a "car driver" and a "motorist" !

If someone is wearing lycra and riding an expensive bike, they are going to be better rider?. I have no idea who Chris Gilbert is, but he is clearly unaware of the phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" (or at the very least it's meaning), and why he shouldn't.

Does he also think car drivers in an expensive car with branded gear are better than drivers in a older car wearing scruffy clothes?.

In one of the advanced driving videos by Chris Gilbert (who is absolutely inspirational) he makes the distinction between "cyclists" and "bike riders".

I came to this crossroads in life quite a long time ago.

I decided that,wearing Lycra was one of the many prices of being a "cyclist", and it wasn't one I was prepared to pay.

So I'm a "bike rider""

This has the additional advantage that I can ride bikes that I'm prepared to risk leaving locked at the railway station all day,.

This makes them quite a lot more useful.

Edited by edlithgow on 02/08/2022 at 16:16

If the 'cyclists' that pour past my house every weekend are anything to go by, I think I prefer 'bike riders'. Someone pootling along minding their own business gets a lot more patience than a bunch of i****s in lycra bellowing at each other and occasionally falling over because they can't release from their pedals.

Well you are nothing if not consistent in contradicting yourself!

Saturday 02:13;

These cycles lanes are a waste of money. Pedestranising street and then putting cyclings in the same shared space is crazy. Many cycle lanes are ad hoc. Rather then focusing on building new cycles lanes, may be focus on existing ones.

Sunday 16:03;

I don't have a problem with more cycle paths being built, as long as it is for recreational use and they are not put pedestrians in danger or to narrow existing roads.

Sunday 16:03;

I bought an e-bike and it isn't the future. All I can see is disadvantages, problems and obstacles.

Today 17:45;

I love my e-bike.

I just have seen the light and know better that e-bikes are not the asnwer.

My brother has also seen the light, but I'm not sure that is relevant here?.

Im assuming your question is, "are e-bikes the future?", if so the answer would be no. But seeing as nobody said they were, that statement would be entirely irrelevant.

If the question was, "how can someone (my mum) who used to enjoy cycling but is finding a normal bike too hard enjoy cycling again?", I'd suggest an e-bike is the answer.