Tyseley regeneration proposals

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John KIRK on January 4, 2012 at 7:24

Hi Chris ... It was a bit Andy Warhol,but amazing what can be done with proper design and planning! A few observations.
Not one cyclist was wearing a helmet...clearly they don't feel that they are necessary due to the low threat from vehicles. The vehicles are all looking to slow down at these junctions and look for cyclists and pedestrians . 95% of cyclists are expecting the cars to give way to them.There are loads of people cycling of all ages and sexes. The roundabout is brilliantly designed and laid out with very clear sight lines.It is incredible to see a junction where cyclists and pedestrians as given such priority, and there must be legislation to back this up? Liked the yellow E type. If you could design and execute a junction like that in Birmingham I would pay to come and watch it in action.Bloody brilliant.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Lee on January 4, 2012 at 9:11

The Bicycle User's Group at JaguarLandRover Gaydon were circulated a proposal for road improvements outside the Gaydon site, which is also Aston Martin's assembly facility.

The proposal featured an off-road cycle lane parallel to the B4100 Banbury Road.

Local residents at Lighthorne Heath were also included in the discussions.

 

Results of the discussions were not surprising to me. The consensus was that cyclists have an equal right to use the roadway, and they need not be segregated from the vehicular traffic. The action of segregation would reinforce motorist's opinion that cyclists should not be on the main carriageway.

The proposed modifications to the B4100 and two entrances to the JLR/AM sites have not taken place. Cyclists use the roads and motorists have to wait.

Internal memos at JLR and AM have been circulated to this effect, as have memos reminding employees to be courteous to local residents.

Traffic incidents involving cyclists are a big fat zero.

Education, not segregation.

 

I'm presently based at LR Solihull. A lady passenger in a car called to me while waiting at the traffic lights "There's a cyclepath over there".

"A psychopath! I'm not over going there then!".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LS on January 4, 2012 at 10:04

Those stupid Dutch don't have a clue do they?

James Lee said:

The Bicycle User's Group at JaguarLandRover Gaydon were circulated a proposal for road improvements outside the Gaydon site, which is also Aston Martin's assembly facility.

The proposal featured an off-road cycle lane parallel to the B4100 Banbury Road.

Local residents at Lighthorne Heath were also included in the discussions.

 

Results of the discussions were not surprising to me. The consensus was that cyclists have an equal right to use the roadway, and they need not be segregated from the vehicular traffic. The action of segregation would reinforce motorist's opinion that cyclists should not be on the main carriageway.

The proposed modifications to the B4100 and two entrances to the JLR/AM sites have not taken place. Cyclists use the roads and motorists have to wait.

Internal memos at JLR and AM have been circulated to this effect, as have memos reminding employees to be courteous to local residents.

Traffic incidents involving cyclists are a big fat zero.

Education, not segregation.

 

I'm presently based at LR Solihull. A lady passenger in a car called to me while waiting at the traffic lights "There's a cyclepath over there".

"A psychopath! I'm not over going there then!".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert on January 4, 2012 at 12:21

Thanks for submitting your proposals, Chris.   They look sound to me.

Note that the Dutch roundabout is designed to discourage multi-lane use, which makes the roundabout itself more cycle-friendly.   However, I can imagine the Tyseley roundabout would have to support very heavy traffic loads so it could be a spiral roundabout, which would assist cyclists who want to use the carriageway.   It could still have the cycling-specific measures you have suggested.

I find the "cyclists don't need special facilities" argument a little tiresome.   Firstly there is nothing to stop any cyclist from using any road up to and including A class trunk roads, no matter what cycling-facilities are provided.   However, not all cyclists have the necessary skills, and would-be cyclists find motorised traffic intimidating to the point that they don't take the plunge.   Cycling facilities encourage cycling.   Secondly although I'm an experienced cyclist I try to avoid motorised traffic because I regard it as being like dog poo.   In general it doesn't scare me, but I find it unpleasant and potentially life-threatening.   I can't believe that feeling is unique to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris on January 4, 2012 at 21:37

Robert:

I like the comparison to dog poo. I think that I'm going to use that in the future. I definitely have the same feeling - I cycled up Hagley Road today, and while I wasn't hit, there were several cars that passed very very close to me. I've cycled on all types of roads (except motorways, of course) but never enjoyed the busy roads. They are just something that I use to get somewhere else.

I think that I won't make any suggestions about the roundabout markings - I would prefer not to cloud the requests I make. The roundabout will be busy, but confident cyclists should not find it difficult - if a cyclist was to choose to cycle with the motorised traffic, then they would most likely be confident enough to make their own way around that roundabout.

John:

If I can get these proposals accepted and implemented, I would also pay to come and watch them in action.

As for legislation - there is nothing special. But it would be covered by existing legislation with regard to compulsory bicycle lanes and highway crossings for pedestrians and cyclists.

James:

The results do not surprise me much either - people who already cycle in the UK are already brave enough to cycle on the roads, and have experience of crap cycle infrastructure. Furthermore, there are a vocal number who see segregated cycle facilities as showing the second-class nature of bicycles in the UK. There are loud voices which oppose segregation.

Looking on Google maps, the situation on the B4100 Banbury Road is clearly much much different to Tyseley. You have not said how long the proposed cycle lane would be, what locations it would connect up, and who the expected users were, but from Google maps, I suspect that the users would mainly be the BUG members. It does not appear to be a location where anyone other than local workers and experienced recreational cyclists would need to cycle. It does not appear to be a location where segregated cycle infrastructure would be especially useful.

You also know that cyclists get abuse regardless of the presence or not of segregated cycle infrastructure. That woman would have found some other thing to gripe to you about if that cycle infrastructure was not there. She wanted to abuse you, and did so. That abuse, in and of its self, is not a reason to object to segregated infrastructure.

The proposals that I have made take into account the presence of two primary schools next to the proposed development, along with dense residential areas. In this area, through roads have a heavy load of motorised traffic, which makes for an unpleasant environment which I believe puts off non-cyclists from taking up cycling. Could you please give your comments on the proposals with regard to that specific environment, rather than a generalised put-down of segregated cycle infrastructure using a completely different example.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert on January 4, 2012 at 21:58

Chris:   After I left my post here I submitted a comment on the relevant web form supporting in general the Pushbikes proposals and took the opportunity to suggest they use spiral road markings on the roundabout.   Since that costs nothing extra hopefully they will at least do that, and it might make someone think about other roundabouts in Brum, some of which are way too open to individual interpretation.   Being two different contributions hopefully there wont be any confusion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris on January 4, 2012 at 22:04

Thanks Robert. Having the spiral markings would certainly make it more obvious for all users.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LS on January 4, 2012 at 22:49

I've submitted a comment supporting your proposals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert on April 27, 2012 at 9:55

I've just had an email about this from BCC.   You wont be surprised to hear they have completely and utterly ignored the opportunity to implement cycling infrastructure.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LS on April 27, 2012 at 10:02

I just got that email too. I wasn't surprised, we live in a backward city.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aiden McHaffie on April 27, 2012 at 11:07

Quite simply these decisions need removing from local government. Legislation is required to enforce the inclusion of a cycling infrastructure on any planning proposals. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on April 27, 2012 at 17:25

I probably dont' have to say that the Uffculme School planning application was also a whitewash. Four people gave up 4 hours each yesterday to sit though a meeting where the planning committee simply agreed the planning officer's self-contradicting & incomplete report.

I reckon it's not local government so much as people with insufficient knowledge/motivation to do the job properly. That means an independent commission is needed.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion