Discussion
I think this cycle path layout in Stirling should be standard across Scotland, instead of the mess of confusion painted on our roads. Kerbs used for separation from both road and pavement. Neat.
I went by it the other day and didn't get a photo, this is from this video : https://m.youtube.com/shorts/
6ofUSLkbff4?cbrd=1
You can see the idiot drivers parked on it in the video, and irl I saw idiot cyclists on the pavement. Both should have their vehicles seized and turned into cubes. A standard cyclepath layout, delineation and proper enforcement would make it safer for us all.
(I am a pedestrian, cycler, and driver)
I don't know what the carbon footprint per cyclist would be for current or advanced roadworks putting lanes in. I'm sure it'd get more people on their bikes.
Be careful what you say about cars - I lightheartedly suggested legalising doing something to them and got a warning from Reddit. Apparently Reddit considers a car to be a person or animal…
EDIT appealed the warning and Reddit confirmed that they consider a car to be a person, animal, group or place.
It's on South College Street, Down by the railway bridge. It has been since all the improvements there a few years ago. Same colour as the pavement confusingly but a kerb seperates the bike lane from the road.
Needs physical protection like bollards or planters. Otherwise I agree with the sandy colour, it's a good differentiation without being garish like some places that use blue or green.
Sometimes the garish colours are better, doesn't look as nice but it's a better visual differentiator, especially for visually impaired folk. But a physical barrier/kerb as seen here is obviously better and has the bonus of looking nicer :)
The mini kerb separating is the NORM across Europe.
I do not know why the UK can't just adopt shit that Europe does well.
Take the bottle scheme we were going to do here, Europe has had it for years now, why did it take multiple years and consultations to basically get to the exact same thing?
It's a width issue. It's all very well and good if the street already had a wide pavement, or you can strip out car parking, or it just happened to be a road wider than it needed to be. But often that only applies to the "main" road while all the side roads leading to the main road have nothing even approaching that as an option. It should be built as standard where new roads are going in, but short of demolishing large sections of historic town centres you can't automatically shove one in, at the cost of an actually usable road, just so your cycle lane is amazeballs.
Hell I'd be happy if all the main roads got this treatment. The bike "lanes" in the east end of Glasgow are a fucking joke. They slapped down a bunch of these black wart things on the main roads and called it a day ahead of COP 26. So they could claim they'd added X miles of new bike lanes in the city.
All transport choices involve distributing scarce streetspace. We've chosen to give about 90% of it to private motor vehicles, which has the result that most journeys are by private motor vehicle and it feels like reallocating any of the space could cause chaos.
But actually, we know from experience that we get what we build for. Take out a car lane for a proper bus lane? More people take the bus, fewer drive. Take out parking for a cycle lane? More people cycle, fewer drive.
Cars are absolutely huge, with the result that they quickly fill up all space allocated to them.
We are probably looking at taking car space down to 85% rather than 90% of street space by rolling out cycle lanes.
Side streets shouldn't need cycle lanes, they should be 20mph and overtaking should be banned on most of them.
This is pretty standard now for roads down here in Cambridge. Although the road has to be wide enough to accommodate it as they are wider than the painted line cycle separation (aka the cycle gutter)
I went to Denmark last year and this is how it works there.
Their hierarchy is pedestrians, bikes, vehicles. Their pavements step down onto cycleways and those drop down onto the road. It's so much safer and way more efficient.
I think the kerb is a barrier that works as a safety feature, it's worth laying it, I like the way it steps up to the cycle path here, but down would work too
The idiots parking on it ruin it unfortunately. In my town traffic congestion is often caused by twats parking in the bus stops, which leads to the buses stopping on the road as they've no other choice. Doesn't take long before traffic is backed up for about half a mile. Convenient for the driver who is 'just going to be a minute' while they nip into the spar to buy their protein shakes or whatever, super annoying for everyone else.
Same goes here, this cycle lane has been designed and built for one reason, not for additional car parking space.
Just to add, people complained about cycling infrastructure in Paris being shit for such a long time, with random bits of cycle lane that went nowhere - but their policy was to add cycle infrastructure whenever roads were being repaired - even just a small section - and over 30 or so years the whole thing eventually linked up into a fully connected cycle lane network. Wish we’d take the same approach - just build them when you’re tearing the road up anyway and over time you’ll have your infrastructure.
I work in roads and these are the gold standard - I.e. cycle lanes segregated from both pedestrians and cars. The issue is our cities are historic and there’s rarely scope for acquiring 2/3m of extra space to put these in without hindering pedestrians or cars. Removing space from cars is fine in principle but obviously drivers make up a much larger % of the population than cyclists.
There is the argument that doing this stuff would encourage more people to cycle which I don’t doubt it would, but Scottish weather doesn’t lend itself to that being the main mode of transport to work for more people I wouldn’t say.
There is the argument that doing this stuff would encourage more people to cycle which I don’t doubt it would, but Scottish weather doesn’t lend itself to that being the main mode of transport to work for more people I wouldn’t say.
The Netherlands gets pretty similar levels of rain to Scotland. The problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists and other modes of transport, and to be perfectly frank when we have cities like Edinburgh with narrow city centre roads we should 100% be putting restrictions on cars first over everything. They're quite possibly the most inefficient method for moving large numbers of people around dense urban areas.
That's before I even get to the awful health effects and climate pollution from cars. The sooner we restrict driving in cities the better off we'll all be.
Don’t get me wrong I think city centres should be ped/cycle priority - I’m talking more about arterial routes that take the most commuter traffic.
I responded to someone else with a pretty long spiel - check that out at your leisure (or not), no point me spamming the same points like I’m raging at this topic haha.
And yeah, the Netherlands has amazing cycle infrastructure but also different attitudes to cycling, less obesity, flatter terrain, etc. We cant just point at a single country and say “well if it works for them 🤷🏻♂️”. I asked ChatGPT because I’m lazy and I don’t know the stats and it said:
“Scotland—especially the western Highlands—can see annual rainfall of 1,500–3,000 mm or more, while the Netherlands typically averages around 800–900 mm per year.”
So Scotland is twice as wet as the Netherlands and much less sunny / hot.
I suppose it depends where in Scotland; the east coast is often drier than the Netherlands, with the likes of Edinburgh and Aberdeen only seeing about 600-700 mm per year, and Glasgow is wetter but not by much, 1000-1100 mm. You're right that the Highlands can get very, very high levels of annual rainfall, but it tends to be heavily concentrated around the mountains.
You're right about the arterial routes though, that is trickier to do; although for the most part they don't tend to be as narrow. On the other hand though, we should probably be looking at discouraging most commuting by cars into cities anyway. I've always thought Glasgow could do with a lot more park and ride facilities on the outskirts to prevent it, as it already has a pretty solid commuter rail network (although the buses could do with being nationalised and improved by a lot). The M8 was also a disaster that should never have been built the way it was but that's no easy fix.
Edit: Also so I'm answering the comments on your other post here rather than double posting; yes it's true the elderly are unlikely to use bikes to get around, but it is quite common for them to use mobility scooters in the bike lanes. Students I can 100% see using bikes to get around, no questions asked, and it really depends on what you consider a "long commute", because from personal experience travelling a few miles on a bike is pretty pleasant even compared to driving. Now if you're living way out in the sticks that's fair enough, but that's why we should be pushing for park and ride facilities on the outskirts.
Now as to the rest about tradies and care workers; that's fine, they need cars, but we should be actively discouraging other people from using them so that their routes have less traffic and congestion. You talk about hamstringing driving, but you're working from the assumption that all methods of transport have equal support, when the reality is cars are favoured beyond every other method. What's the phrase, "When you're privileged, equality begins to look like oppression". I think the way the Netherlands handles it makes most sense; pedestrians and cyclists get the most direct route to a destination, followed by public transport, then cars have to take a very circuitous route to get there. It means that those who need a vehicle can still get to where they want to go, but it's not the most direct or efficient route.
Electric vehicles also only reduce pollution to a point; as a large amount of pollution comes from the rubber tyres being aerosolized by friction, and it still doesn't solve the traffic problems or the noise pollution.
The Netherlands was just as car focused as us back in the 60s and 70s; the shift to bikes and pedestrianisation only happened off the back of protests over children being killed in the streets by cars and an oil crisis at the time reducing the availability of fuel. I think it is entirely possible we can achieve something similar in Scotland, it just takes political will. There will be screaming and complaints whilst it's going on, but once it's achieved I would fully bet it will be supported by the vast majority of the population; it's the same wherever it happens.
In New York the recently introduced Congestion Pricing was wildly unpopular up until it was introduced, and now even commuters who have to pay it massively support it because it's reduced traffic on the roads and made their commutes much shorter
mm isn't everything when it comes to rainfall. Sure Glasgow doesn't get "much more" but what it gets is often hide-in-a-building torrential, or stay-out-for-10-minutes-soaked-to-the-skin-mizzle. Other places could be getting light showers more frequently, or a concentrated amount of torrential days when you just get the bus instead. On any given day in Glasgow there is always the chance of getting so wet you need to change.
The fact that it never seems to stop pissing down in Glasgow is literally why I went to uni in Edinburgh instead despite always being more keen on Glasgow 🤣
You’ve compared the average for the Netherlands against the wettest part of Scotland. Edinburgh is actually (relative to the west coast) quite dry, averaging less than 800mm of rainfall per year.
The Netherlands wasn’t always a cycling society, up until the mid/late 60s it was car dominated and they made a decision to reprioritise their public spaces. What you see now is what you get from 50+ years of clear policy priority and sustained investment.
Do I think we are likely to replicate the the Netherlands? No. Do I think there is an opportunity to rebalance spaces to make cycling a safe and equitable choice as a mode of transport? Absolutely.
I mean I think it's perhaps less to do with rain and more to do with the hills. Even just cycling from somewhere in the south of central Edinburgh to the north you're going to have to cycle up a hill both ways, potentially multiple. That's not really appealing for a commute, no one wants to arrive at work all sweaty.
True, but it's just another barrier, the options aren't just bike or car, especially in cities, lots of people take the bus. In Edinburgh the busses are extremely popular and often the best way to get around, compare that to other places with private bus ownership, like Glasgow where busses are more of a gamble. Our train system is inter connected and reliable, I don't understand why we can't at least try to do the same with busses.
You pretty rapidly get used to hills if you're cycling regularly honestly. I used to cycle up Queen's Road in Aberdeen to get up to Hazlehead park and it was an absolute killer at first, but you acclimatise.
Additionally, for those who aren't as physically fit, electric bikes are becoming incredibly common now, and although they aren't at cheap as an acoustic bike, they're -far- cheaper than a car.
What about the disability of those who can't drive but have to suffer the negative externalities of those who do? (Traffic, pollution, pavements blocked by selfish parking, etc).
The disabled would benefit far more from having less traffic on the roads.
People with disabilities cycle too. In fact for lots of people it can be easier and a more effective way of travelling to local places than walking alone.
Beyond this, e-bikes are also a complete game changer in reducing the impact of hills or slightly hilly terrain, and opening up cycling to more people.
People who are unable to ride a bike due to a disability that precludes them riding a bike can't ride bikes, because they have a disability that preclude them from riding a bike.
I'm not talking about "people with disabilities" as some kind of monolithic identity group, I'm talking about people who have a given disability that precludes them riding bikes.
Hindering cars is the solution, we want drivers to be displaced and make up a small % of the population. That’s the point. The weather thing isn’t a real argument, there is a great not just bikes episode on this exact topic.
Yeah but you need to be realistic, too. If we overnight had great cycling infrastructure do you think there would be a huge mode shift to people commuting to work by bike? Would elderly people, or students, or those commuting a great distance? No, okay what about tradies who need tools in the van? Nope. Okay, what about people who live far from their work? People whose work don’t have shower facilities? People who have to travel multiple times a day like social workers? People who finish work late at night and don’t want to cycle in the dark?
All of that is to say that I think we should provide cycle infrastructure and it should be an option and be encouraged. But I don’t subscribe to the “hinder one method to encourage another” ideology. If something is so good self-standing you shouldn’t have to hamstring the alternatives to make it desirable. Local councils tried the same thing with parking by deliberately not providing enough parking to houses thinking it would encourage a mode shift away from car ownership, but that’s (in my opinion) a pretty juvenile understanding of human behaviour.
To me the solution is make a series of streets one way or similar and use the space gained that way to create a cohesive system of cycle infrastructure. But, at the end of the day, loads of people are unable to cycle and it’s people going to work (paying tax) that keeps the country going. If we do move more towards electric vehicles then the pollution argument reduces.
I should also point out that I walk to work when I’m in the office and I use my car very rarely, but I’m a pragmatist.
It’s about where that infrastructure is though too. Most discussions about car limiting/exclusion relate to very small geographic areas, typically city or local centres. Of all those you list, which would be limited by the policy? Old people and students can and do get the bus which would be faster without huge volumes of cars. Those travelling great distances for work are rarely doing so to city centres and if they are they can use the train or park and ride facilities. Tradesmen and disabled people (not listed by you but often used as an argument against limiting access) are exempt from the restrictions.
If we overnight had great cycling infrastructure do you think there would be a huge mode shift to people commuting to work by bike?
Pretty much yeah? You can try to think of as many expections as you want, the majority of car journeys which take place are not needed and could be replaced with cycling.
All of that is to say that I think we should provide cycle infrastructure and it should be an option and be encouraged. But I don’t subscribe to the “hinder one method to encourage another” ideology. If something is so good self-standing you shouldn’t have to hamstring the alternatives to make it desirable.
Cars are so good to individuals, but very harmful to everyone else. This is called a negative externality. Cars create Co2 and noise pollution, require massive amounts of expensive road infrastructure to enable, demand a huge amount of public space, cause massive amounts of injury and death etc. So its right for us to look at ways of stopping something even though it might appear good for individuals.
I don't think anyone wants to hinder road users as an aim. If it is an unintended consequence of road layout changes or LEZ zones then that is different. Very much agree things would not necessarily change just by putting infrastructure in but it's a good start. I'm not keen on trying to squeeze it in at great cost etc just for the sake of it, some places there just isn't room unfortunately, not until roads and buildings move
Yeah I agree with your stance, however the person I’m responding to said “hindering cars is the solution” and I’ve certainly seen this mentality professionally, too.
Removing space from cars is fine in principle but obviously drivers make up a much larger % of the population than cyclists.
That's the case in the Netherlands too. Depending how you're measuring it of course, but essentially: more journeys are being made by car in the Netherlands than by bikes at any given moment. That doesn't mean what they've achieved isn't a success. It's the vast interconnectedness and high quality of the cycle routes that allows millions of people also get around by bike on a daily basis. The daily number of bike journeys has never overtaken the daily number of car journeys nationally, but that would be the wrong criteria to judge success.
A different way of looking at your point, is that just because few people currently cycle on Scotland's streets, doesn't mean that's the way it should always be. To use a much used metaphor, you don't decide not to build a bridge because no one's swimming across the river. You build the bridge (or cycle lanes) to allow people to begin to make meaningful journeys across the river (across where they live by bike).
There is the argument that doing this stuff would encourage more people to cycle which I don’t doubt it would
but Scottish weather doesn’t lend itself to that being the main mode of transport to work for more people I wouldn’t say.
When you build cycle lanes that keep you safe, the weather begins to have much less of an impact. For sure, people will not want to cycle in torrential rain. But we don't get much torrential rain in Scotland. It's frequent, but it's usually light rain and short-lived. Cycling alongside vehicle traffic is the biggest problem and the thing that puts most people off. Rain on top of that is enough to put people off completely. But when you're separated from traffic and able to go at your own pace, in peace and safety, a bit of light rain isn't a massive deterrent. In the same way that people still walk around in the rain (often without an umbrella!) in Scotland.
Not saying you're doing this, but it's wrong to look at it as meaning everyone needs to cycle, or even just a majority of people need to cycle for these things to be deemed a success. It it helps the percentage of people cycling on any given day bump up from 1% to 10%, that is a massive win and hundreds of thousands of people travelling by bike.
Depends what city you live in, but in Glasgow the new cycle routes are all basically being built along the existing road network, which tends to be on the flattest terrain.
This is true generally of most road networks in most towns and cities: major roads have historically been built around steep hills or plateaus rather than over them if it could be avoided. So, sure Scotland has mountains hilly countryside, and even hilly terrain within cities, but that topology doesn't matter a great deal now when looking to apply a cycling network over the top of existing road networks.
Most people live up a hill in the central rift valley of Scotland, drumlins are everywhere. So whilst the Great Western Road is on the flat the first and last stage of a journey, for example up to Drumchapel or Bearsden or the like, involves a hill climb
Sorry not meaning to be pernickety but to know we're talking about the same place - what is the 'central rift valley' of Scotland? If you're talking the central belt, most people don't live up a hill. They may live on a slight incline or slight slope, but not quite up a hill. We have drumlins but the central belt is largely flat. That's why it's so heavily populated - because it's close to the coast and on relatively flat land which was easy to develop.
There may be an incline on some roads that lead from town to town and into the populated centres from the outskirts, but I don't see that as a major barrier to putting down cycle routes.
We're not talking steep 35 degree inclines here. More gentle slopes.
If you insist on going from drumlin to drumlin, you're going to be dealing with steep inclines. But major roads like Saracen Street or Maryhill Road that cut through these areas and connect neighbourhoods to one another and to the city centre, are largely very flat.
The cycle network that the city's working on is planned to run along those major, flat roads. So no real issues!
I don't know what to say, I literally showed you a map where you can see Maryhill road is up a hill
I don't particularly think it'll stop infrastructure being built, what I'm talking about is topography being a greater barrier to people routinely cycling in Scotland vs the Netherlands or Denmark, as opposed to the weather.
Maastricht has got steeper hills than anywhere in the central belt that I've tried to cycle up, and theres no shortage of cyclists there compared to the rest of The Netherlands.
Also, with so many people buying electric bikes now, hills shouldn't be a major disincentive.
I'm also finding this a really bizarre conversation.
You're right that there are drumlins. You're right that Maryhill road and nearby major roads do go up slight slopes as they move away from the city towards the Kelvin valley.
But the map itself shows that those major roads go between the drumlins, missing the most steep inclines. They're broadly very flat roads with steady inclines. My overarching point is that is absolutely fine for a cycling network.
And on the drumlins and up the hills is where everybody lives - look at all the hill names of the residential areas. These are the start and end points for commuters. It's quite a hilly place, as are most places in the glaciated rift valley of the central lowlands.
They've put in a great shared use path in Dundee, right along the river at sea level. The drop off in cyclists when autumn comes around is drastic. I think wind might be a bigger problem than rain. No one wants to cycle into a gale.
Think I have been nearly hit a dozen times in a couple of years on the bit behind the castle, every time the car failed to stop at the junctions, I cannot tell you how much I hate and how bad the cycle paths are in Stirling, complete waste of money!
It would be really helpful if the cyclists in stirling used them though. Every road has been narrowed making overtaking dangerous but you still get the tour de lycra bunched up on the roads. V frustrating. Especially combined with a council tax hike because the council are just so skint. But cycle paths and zebra crossings are EVERYWHERE.
But yeah neat idea, in theory.
Im not even anti cyclist but in this area its brutal.
Never mind the mess of confusion on our roads. It's not there to look pretty. it's there for safety and direction. ... Visually impaired people also need to read the roads.
We may be talking at cross-purposes here. I'm not talking about accessibility cues, I'm talking about the inefficient and confusing approach to providing cycle lanes merely by painting a line two metres from the kerb. Many of which are worn away.
Nah we can do better. It needs hard separated lanes with raised kerbs to stop cars parking on it. And it needs to be cleaned regularly, and have proper access to turn at junctions. This is barely better than Leith Walk in Edinburgh.
A really nice recent approach is West Coates road in Edinburgh.
I think they should also reverse boris Johnson’s law where cyclists don’t have to use cycle lanes if they don’t want to. It should be mandatory where cycle lanes are available that all cyclists use these with no exceptions.
Totally agree, people should not be allowed to do this either. My point relates to driving down an old carriageway next to a motorway which still has 15miles of active road for car/van/truck users as well as cycle lanes and pavements for pedestrians. They have been purposefully built with clear signage telling you it’s a cycle lane but only a quarter of the cyclists use the cycle lane and the rest continue to use the road and cause frustration to vehicle drivers who can’t overtake because there is a hill in front or a bend where you can’t fully see the opposite side of the road. Vehicles that should be able to go at 50-60mph then have to slow down to 10-15mph which in turn could cause more accidents as someone could drive round the bend at 50-60mph ( depending on vehicle type) and suddenly have to slam brakes on or evasive driving in order to try and avoid accidents which in turn causes accidents. 🤷🏻♂️
And my point is that if a cyclist isn't using the cycle lane, there's probably a pretty good reason. Because a well designed cycle lane will always be preferable to the open road. But a badly designed one can be more dangerous than none at all.
Probably because it isn't designed to the same standards as The Netherlands and Denmark. Mainly due to driveways to houses requiring negotiation without any concessions to cycle usage. In The Netherlands, every cycle lane is built to a uniform standards and they are reliable. You don't have to go up and down curbs or 15 metres along a side road to the dropped kerb to cross a minor road. Might be ok when you're tottering about for your once every 6 months donder on a bike, but if you are training, cycle lanes with kerbs to be negotiated are hopeless.
Theres a cycle path that crosses the Aberdeen bypass near Westhill that has 3 sets of traffic lights just to continue using it - one for each road that crosses that particular section. Its really dangerous, because with that number of traffic lights (none of which are co-ordinated, most people just chance it rather than keeping stopping. If you stop for the lights, it can take 10 minutes to cross one bit of road. Obviously this new road should have been built with an underpass, or at least a bridge there.
In fact, it might be 4 sets of traffic lights, because one set only get you half way across.
Nope 100% many of the cycle lanes are unsafe as they fo not give enough space for traffic to pass safely. Your opinion is way off the mark and your attitude should change
If you see someone using a road lane and not a cycle lane next to it it's by far most usually because they're a confident, speedy road cyclist who is cycling at a speed suitable for keeping up with road traffic, but too fast for a crowded, narrow cycle lane.
That's okay because these cycle lanes aren't designed for those people.
They're designed for everyone else who isn't a speedy road cyclist and who requires the security and safety that a dedicated, protected lane provides.
After that, there are other valid reasons someone might not be using a particular portion of a cycle lane. They wouldn't necessarily be all that apparent to someone passing by in a car or especially someone who doesn't use the lane themselves. These reasons might include:
Ongoing construction up ahead, meaning the lane comes to an end soon and it's better to assume your road position early to be safest. This is probably second most common. I've been harassed by drivers for being in the road lane when the cycle lane I would dearly love to keep using is blocked for ongoing construction just 50m up ahead.
You're turning right and the configuration of the lane doesn't (yet) allow for that turn.
You're approaching a junction that hasn't yet been upgraded, and again, the safest thing might be to enter the road lane and assume a position in front of traffic to make your turn.
They've just arrived from a side road which doesn't allow for immediate entry onto the cycle lane, and are waiting for a gap in the physical separation so they can join it. This happens to me on my usual route and I've had a few moans, honks and punishment passed from drivers, despite there being nothing else I can do in that situation.
The difficulty in explaining these things is that they're usually perfectly obvious to people who use the lanes, but not obvious at all to others. Leading to this lack of understanding and presumption that cyclists are just trying to be difficult or something.
A problem with cycle lanes adjacent to roads is that all the debris ends up on it, not swept and results in punctures. Accept the prevalence of road sweepers ain't what it used to be, but sentiment remains the same
On my very pro-cyclist & pro-cycling infrastructure post there are people denying hills are hills, and that people are disinclined to cycle on hilly terrain, like we have in central Scotland where 75% of the population live, and downvoting requests to consider people with disabilities. Others denying that people have work or other use cases requiring cars, and that there are long distance commuters. Also discounting the Scottish weather as a barrier to commuting by bike, when it clearly is.
I think we should be making cycling as accessible to as many people who wish to take it up, and encourage people who are on the fence to give it a go, but delusional extremism is probably more harmful to that aim than it's a help.
51
u/jacko6do6 1d ago
I agree - I've heard that these designs work really well in London and countries like the Netherlands (they have them all over the place).
This shows full commitment to good bike infrastructure rather than it just being an after-thought painted onto the road.