"Is it feasible to reduce carbon emissions by increasing cycling?

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely. In towns it would help if more roads were 20mph

It's certainly much more enjoyable cycling alongside traffic in central London now you can mostly keep up it with a bit of effort, and can generally accelerate better. 20 does seem a sweet spot for this.

Rural roads need cycle paths alongside - I'd cycle to visit my mate in Buckingham if the section of "unavoidable" A421 had one. (There's a 2 mile ish section near Buckingham where there's no sensible alternative route that doesn't involve a very long diversion).

 

[Krokodil]

Rural roads need cycle paths alongside

And not just on a sidewalk. When going alongside a 60mph road you need a grass verge at the very least to separate you.

Not that these single carriageway roads should be 60mph, I see that Ireland is reducing speed limits.

 

[stuu]

Yes I should have said ‘outside London, Oxford, Cambridge and York’.

Actually, if you look at the census data, Oxford and Cambridge are way out in front compared to anywhere else. London is very similar to other urban locations as a percentage, but a small percentage of a larger population means a lot of cyclists

 

[Bletchleyite]

And not just on a sidewalk. When going alongside a 60mph road you need a grass verge at the very least to separate you.

Agreed.

Curiously there are some examples in the UK that have been around for a long time - a few roads around West Lancashire have the full Dutch arrangement (i.e. separate pavement and cycle path), such as the A59 dual carriageway around Ormskirk.

The annoyance about the A421 on that section is that there's plenty of room within the existing area the road takes up to do it if the drainage ditch was replaced with a proper piped drainage system. So no land acquisition would be needed.

Not that these single carriageway roads should be 60mph, I see that Ireland is reducing speed limits.

Personally I'd like to see the van limits of 50-60-70 for single, dual and motorway applying to all vehicles*, possibly adding a 30 or 40mph one for single carriageways with no marked centreline (for rural roads). It would considerably reduce overtaking which is the most dangerous thing any driver ever does, and the 60 could be applied to motorways without a hard shoulder too (i.e. the definition for signing a road up to 70 would be "a segregated dual carriageway with full crash barriers in the central reservation where cycling and pedestrianism is not permitted and where there is a continuous hard shoulder at least wide enough for a broken down vehicle of maximum normal width** to be parked fully off the carriageway").

* Including lorries - 50 for lorries rather than 40 on singles has actually been quite positive in reducing overtaking. Obviously any vehicle with a legally mandated limiter would stop there, so de-facto it'd be 50-56-56 for lorries and 50-60-62 for coaches.

* I seem to recall that being 2.5m, above that you need special "wide load" provisions.

 

[Krokodil]

Personally I'd like to see the van limits of 50-60-70 for single, dual and motorway applying to all vehicles*,

I was driving down the A55 dual carriageway at 70mph once and despite keeping to the car speed limit, got overtaken by an artic! God knows what speed he was doing but he definitely didn't have a 90kph limiter fitted. Does anyone know whether Irish lorries are supposed to have limiters?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was driving down the A55 dual carriageway at 70mph once and despite keeping to the car speed limit, got overtaken by an artic! God knows what speed he was doing but he definitely didn't have a 90kph limiter fitted. Does anyone know whether Irish lorries are supposed to have limiters?

It's an EU requirement so one would imagine so. Was it downhill? The limiters don't control the brakes, only the power, so you can get one up to any speed you like by knocking it out of gear on the downhill.

 

[Krokodil]

Possibly, I can't quite remember.

 

[brad465]

This to do list pretty much sums it up:


(Image of multiple to do list items all crossed off and pointing to "Ride Bicycle" as the solution.)

 

[Krokodil]

This to do list pretty much sums it up:

View attachment 144115
(Image of multiple to do list items all crossed off and pointing to "Ride Bicycle" as the solution.)

I'm stealing that

 

[mi_z]

It's certainly not just you, but you are certainly in the overall minority. Most people would choose the car of those options, where they can sit and relax in a comfortable seat listening to their choice of music.

I listen to music too...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I listen to music too...

That's fine on segregated paths and quiet roads, but cycling with earphones in (unless you use bone conductors) in busy traffic is a rather risky thing to do, you really do need your wits about you. I always do on MK Redways but never in central London.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Actually, if you look at the census data, Oxford and Cambridge are way out in front compared to anywhere else. London is very similar to other urban locations as a percentage, but a small percentage of a larger population means a lot of cyclists

Basically depends how you slice and dice London. There is vast amounts of cycling in central London and in boroughs such as Camden and Hackney. Outer London? Not so much.

Curiously there are some examples in the UK that have been around for a long time - a few roads around West Lancashire have the full Dutch arrangement (i.e. separate pavement and cycle path), such as the A59 dual carriageway around Ormskirk.

Many of these are the 1930s design that Carlton Reid has been chronicling. Unfortunately they fell foul of the drop in cycle use after WW2 and a misguided campaign by certain cyclists that, because the "right to the road" must be protected, cycling provision should therefore only be on the road. This ("vehicular cycling") was a common belief even 20 years ago, and there are still a few misguided souls who advocate it - there's a splenetic rant that the forum won't let me link to because it contains a rude word, but if you search for something vaguely akin to "flip you, John Franklin", you'll find it.

 

[mi_z]

That's fine on segregated paths and quiet roads, but cycling with earphones in (unless you use bone conductors) in busy traffic is a rather risky thing to do, you really do need your wits about you. I always do on MK Redways but never in central London.

I try to cycle on quiet roads and paths regardless, but on busy roads the traffic noise drowns out any music anyway. My headphones are open back so there is no cancellation.

I think we have a bit of a double standard. No one bats an eye about people playing music or listening to the radio in a car which is far more sound proof than when you are outside. But people cycling with music is that bad? I don't think people should rely on hearing while cycling anyway. It is a useful sense to add but no decision should be made without using your eyes. There's a reason deaf people can cycle and drive.

 

[stuu]

Basically depends how you slice and dice London. There is vast amounts of cycling in central London and in boroughs such as Camden and Hackney. Outer London? Not so much.

The original quote was about commuting, the census data is broken down by ward and most of inner London is very similar percentages to other urban areas

 

[Bletchleyite]

I try to cycle on quiet roads and paths regardless, but on busy roads the traffic noise drowns out any music anyway. My headphones are open back so there is no cancellation.

I think we have a bit of a double standard. No one bats an eye about people playing music or listening to the radio in a car which is far more sound proof than when you are outside. But people cycling with music is that bad? I don't think people should rely on hearing while cycling anyway. It is a useful sense to add but no decision should be made without using your eyes. There's a reason deaf people can cycle and drive.

Cycling is much, much more dangerous than driving when sharing with traffic, so it is prudent to have all your senses available and not to deliberately block one for entertainment purposes.

That's very different to not having that sense to start with.

 

[stuu]

I think we have a bit of a double standard. No one bats an eye about people playing music or listening to the radio in a car which is far more sound proof than when you are outside. But people cycling with music is that bad? I don't think people should rely on hearing while cycling anyway. It is a useful sense to add but no decision should be made without using your eyes. There's a reason deaf people can cycle and drive.

It's very useful to be able to hear some nutter driving too fast behind you, very often before you can see them. You are both slower and more vulnerable on a bike. Cars, as you point out, are fairly soundproof as it is, so it's not a useful comparison

 

[mi_z]

It's very useful to be able to hear some nutter driving too fast behind you, very often before you can see them. You are both slower and more vulnerable on a bike. Cars, as you point out, are fairly soundproof as it is, so it's not a useful comparison

As I said, headphones don't block that sound out. But really there is not much you can do if there is someone behind you.