Making Birmingham Fit for Cycling

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ian-C on February 20, 2012 at 15:45

more questions than answers there Robert, I have one of those maps pretty dam useless the only way to find cycle friendly routes is to explore and make your own, explore your local areas cycle where you feel comfortable.I have decided main roads although busy may be easier to cycle on the some side roads where they are narrow and parking both sides like some in Selly Oak  can be a bit of a rat run ,as for a proper cycle network out side of the city centre it aint ever going to happen although cycling and cyclists are top of the green agenda were bottom of the road improvement ladder.some will think thats a defeatist attitude i prefer realist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert on February 20, 2012 at 18:10

I had wondered why you and Rich had left it completely unused.   I have been trying to create my own map of local routes.   Graham directed me to the BCC map which I've had on order for several months now.   It would have been nice to find my work had been done for me, but it hasn't been and really all I could use the map for is to locate official cycling provision.   I certainly can't rely on it to pick roads that aren't hell on Earth.   I note also that there are certain walking and cycling opportunities that are not marked, including a very old cycle route.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon on February 21, 2012 at 10:07

I think that with something line the BC map you are on a hiding to nothing really - trying to high light cycleable routes that aren't official cycle routes is a mine field because one cyclist's idea of a reasonable route is very different to another's.  Until you can actually quantify* what constitutes a good route for cyclists you will not be able to make such a map, and no one has yet drawn up the list of requirements.  Thus we are left with having to rely on cyclists just saying "yeah, I ride that road all the time and I'm still alive" so it gets put on the map.

I guess that what you really need is a series of official radiating routes from the major centres, with other cross routes linking the 'spokes'. Then you'd just need to get to your nearest route on quiet local roads and use the official route from there. So far we have NCN5, and, erm, I'm struggling a bit now.

Actually, I guess what we really need is for all roads to be policed properly, drivers to be trained properly and everyone to act responsibly with a care for others, then we wouldn't need any cycle routes at all.

* obviously there are some roads that are a lot easier to define as desirable to be included in a cycle network, but there are many that are firmly in the grey area (for instance Harbourne road has been discussed on here before with some saying that it's big and busy and scary while others use it happily every day)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Lee on February 21, 2012 at 11:43

Agreed.

Also new cyclists to be trained properly to alleviate fears of riding on the road.

Simon said:

I think that with something line the BC map you are on a hiding to nothing really - trying to high light cycleable routes that aren't official cycle routes is a mine field because one cyclist's idea of a reasonable route is very different to another's.  Until you can actually quantify* what constitutes a good route for cyclists you will not be able to make such a map, and no one has yet drawn up the list of requirements.  Thus we are left with having to rely on cyclists just saying "yeah, I ride that road all the time and I'm still alive" so it gets put on the map.

I guess that what you really need is a series of official radiating routes from the major centres, with other cross routes linking the 'spokes'. Then you'd just need to get to your nearest route on quiet local roads and use the official route from there. So far we have NCN5, and, erm, I'm struggling a bit now.

Actually, I guess what we really need is for all roads to be policed properly, drivers to be trained properly and everyone to act responsibly with a care for others, then we wouldn't need any cycle routes at all.

* obviously there are some roads that are a lot easier to define as desirable to be included in a cycle network, but there are many that are firmly in the grey area (for instance Harbourne road has been discussed on here before with some saying that it's big and busy and scary while others use it happily every day)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert on February 21, 2012 at 12:30

Other countries seem to be able to design cycle networks and the result has been to increase cycling.   If we lack the competence to do the same perhaps we should ask the Dutch, the Germans, or the Danish to do it for us.

If someone has the ability to cycle in heavy traffic and they don't care about the noise and the pollution then they don't need a cycle network and they have no place in the discussion.   They can continue to use whatever roads they like, ignoring the cycle route signs completely.   For the vast majority, who either don't take up cycling or who are put off cycling by our road structure, a cycle network is required.   It is *essential* that we do this, because the status quo has already broken down.   Birmingham is clogged with slow moving or stationary cars containing an increasingly obese population, whilst the damage to our planet caused by global warming is already evident.   We *have* to change our ways, whether you like it or not.   Getting people out of cars is just one way of doing that.

In creating my own network of routes linking Birmingham's villages I applied the rule "would I be happy letting an eleven year old cycle to school using this route?".   If a route requires switching across multiple lanes in traffic traveling at four times the speed of the cyclist, it is unsuitable.   That rules out Harborne Lane because it has junctions that are hazardous even in a car.   Where there is heavy traffic in a confined space (eg Raddlebarn Road) then it is best avoided, firstly because it is unpleasant and secondly because even although the speed is low it means the hypothetical eleven year-old, with no experience of driving a car, is having to deal with a complex situation involving interaction with a lot of car drivers.   Where a route crosses a busy road the cyclist should have some sort of assistance.   With existing infrastructure the ideal is something like a slightly staggered junction to help the more experienced cyclist and a zebra/pelican/toucan crossing for the less experienced.   That all said, no route should be made hopelessly slow through the need to negotiate a junction every few metres, because the cyclist using the network will be travelling some distance.   An integral part of the network is of course the all-important radial routes into the city centre (such as the canals and NCN5).

Once we get more people cycling some will lose their fear of heavier traffic (which hopefully will become lighter as fewer journeys are made by bike).   However, others (such as myself) will continue to avoid heavy traffic simply because it is unpleasant.   I don't mind taking a bit longer to get somewhere if I enjoyed the ride.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon on February 21, 2012 at 13:22

You've touched on another issue concerning why it's so hard to grade potential routes: time.  Your 11yo riding to school will find themselves right in the middle of the school run - traffic volume will be high and the standard of driving may decline as one nears the school (not that I'm trying to stereotype but the concentration of poor parkers outside schools can be high).  But at any other time the same road might be quiet and nice to cycle on - I know several like this.

Thus, simply saying that a certain road is either good for cycling or bad for cycling doesn't always work.

Likewise, the "someone has the ability to cycle in heavy traffic and they don't care about the noise and the pollution then they don't need a cycle network and they have no place in the discussion."  might not be as clear cut as that - in my experience it's not a black and white issue - different people have different tolerances to different amounts and kinds of traffic.  Some may ride virtually anywhere, others don't mind most busy/fast roads but are worried about the odd junction here and there, whilst still others feel very uncomfortable anywhere near a busy road - thus as well as being able to define the requirements of a road to be a cycle route, we might also need to define the different ability groups of cyclists so that we know who we are catering for at each level.

 

Yep, it's a minefield.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert on February 21, 2012 at 14:27

So the Dutch, the Germans, and the Danes are all deluding themselves?   They haven't addressed these issues, and in fact they only have 2% of journeys made by bike like we do?   The reality is they faced exactly the same problems but they rolled up their sleeves and set about solving these difficulties.

When I was checking my own routes I specifically went out during the school rush hour to see what happened.   With regard to noise and pollution, the answer is to pick the quietest route possible without making absurd sacrifices.   Some parts may well end up too much for some, but at least there will be more people out there using bikes than there would have been if one had had just said "oh no, it's too difficult so let's not do anything".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Lee on February 21, 2012 at 14:43

Riding a bike is like playing a piano.

You don't give an 11 yo a grand piano and expect him to play the Warsaw Concerto next week. You get him lessons.

After a few lessons, he can play "If a woodchuck could chuck wood".

You don't let him play that for the rest of his life, you teach him more and he'll start playing more complex pieces.

The day will come when he'll be confident to play for an audience.

 

Give an 11 yo a bicycle and start in the schoolyard with traffic cones. Then progress to the sideroads. Then progress to the busier routes.

Soon enough, he'll be whacking it down the Bristol Road.

 

Mind you, he won't get to see the sights of town and country playing a piano.

Mind you, he won't become a millionaire rock star riding a bicycle.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Holland on February 21, 2012 at 14:51

Birmingham could do much to reduce traffic volumes thus creating a better environment for cycling. Why, for example, is there no park and ride facility in Birmingham? Other cities have introduced, with great success, city perimeter car parks with bus links into the centre. Having said that I now remember that the city's bus lane policy leaves a lot to be desired. Witness the introduction of the lanes on Tyburn Road which were soon decommissioned because they slowed the traffic down!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Lee on February 21, 2012 at 15:01

I use the Park and Ride when I go to York.

The bus travels slowly in a queue of cars into the city centre.

Basically, human beings are lazy. They would prefer to sit in their cars in a car park queue than walk to and from a bus stop.

 

Cycling forums are very biased. Contributors are enthusiastic and dedicated cyclists. Some fail to understand why a person would prefer to burn petrol and sit in a traffic queue than walk around catching buses.

Its because they have personal transportation which is dry, warm and able to carry heavy loads. They won't give it up.

The council know this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon on February 21, 2012 at 15:20

I think that you are totally missing my point here, Robert.  Nowhere did I say that it should not be done or could not be done.  I merely pointed out that the reason that the current BCC yellow network doesn't work is that you can't just say "oh that road is fine for cycling, but that one is not" and expect to come up with a set or routes that work for everyone, or even the majority.

Also, the Dutch etc situation is different.  Their rediscovery of bikes had much more support than we do in Birmingham.  They were allowed to put in lots of good infrastructure - which we have not been able to do.  That's why we are talking about cycle routes and not cycle paths.  They also did not get everything right first go, and there are still issues with their systems.

I applaud your enthusiasm and I too would lend support to any movement that wanted to improve the lives of cyclists in Birmingham, yet enthusiasm and waiving around pictures of snappily dressed Dutch people on bikes alone won't produce a satisfactory result by itself - we need to actually identify the problems properly and look at as many solutions as we can.  And we also need to understand, as I was pointing out above, that there are no black and white, no one size fits all, answers to things like this - compromises will be called for, and we will get these wrong unless we really ty to understand the issues.  Like I said, it's a minefield (don't run blindly into it).

Robert said:

So the Dutch, the Germans, and the Danes are all deluding themselves?   They haven't addressed these issues, and in fact they only have 2% of journeys made by bike like we do?   The reality is they faced exactly the same problems but they rolled up their sleeves and set about solving these difficulties.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert on February 21, 2012 at 15:22

@James:   Starting from the same base other countries have successfully achieved far higher cycling rates than us by creating infrastructure that encourages cycling.   Britain has done almost nothing (slightly more than you want) and achieved almost nothing.  Please go and have your argument on the rant thread that was created for you and stop hijacking threads.

@Robert:   There is a park and ride scheme on the cross city line.   My nearest park and ride station is Selly Oak; there are covered Sheffield stands and lockable cabinets for bikes, plus a large car park.   It is very heavily used and contrary to what James says far from getting stuck in queues of cars the train gets into New Street very rapidly.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page