Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The road system is there for everybody who wants to use it. Are you suggesting that access to public highways is based on somebody's (totally unbiased of course! ) 'opinion' as to whether that journey is necessary?
Well, there was certainly a lot of moaning last year from those people who never ceased work during the lockdown, finding certain parts of the road network were an assault course of leisure cyclists. To be fair I can to some extent sympathise with this annoyance.
Why would you need to dig up hedges (or at least much of then)? Why not just have the cycle route behind them, maybe even with a second hedge the other side.
Many roads have wide banks or cuttings with lots of room for a cycle route far enough away from motors. It would have easy gradients too, unlike many alternative routes. Very cheap, does not need to support 40 tonnes.
It's not for MAMILs* (or any other type of fast, confident road cyclist), it's for utility cycling. Without it there won't be any utility cycling, because cycling on fast main roads is a really unpleasant experience.
(To be fair I don't get why MAMILs very often choose to cycle on main roads when there's a "yellow road" alternative - they surely don't enjoy it, do they?)
I want to get to St Albans.
option 1 - use the Alban way a shared us cycle path / walking route and be in conflict with the walkers.
option 2 - the main road where I can cycle at 20 mph and don’t really bother the drivers as they can overtake me. Can’t be worse than the many buses that keep stopping can I? I normally don’t get re-overtaken by them.
option 3 - the side roads where I am constantly slowed by pot holes and a risk of getting hit by inconsiderate drivers as they are single track.
once I am in St Albans I take up less space then a 4 wheel drive. Don’t pollute so had a chosen to drive the congestion would be worse. I would prefer to use the Alban way but it is very slow. But then the motorist could use the a414. They don’t as the normal A roads are quicker for where the want to be. Which is ultimately why I pick my route. The quality of the road and the risk. I feel safer on a 2 land A / B road then on a single track road. I have in the past got hit by a car (surprised it was a BMW) that cut the corner as I was going around the other way.
my fault of course for riding a bike. Road are for cars
Why would you need to dig up hedges (or at least much of then)? Why not just have the cycle route behind them, maybe even with a second hedge the other side.
Or indeed send the route well away from existing roads.
For starters every ex-railway line that hasn't been converted could be converted for a fraction of the cost of putting a bus or rail line along it, and without the issue of houses having being built over it. Put in e-bike rental places where stations were and you have a great means of transport.
Or indeed send the route well away from existing roads.
For starters every ex-railway line that hasn't been converted could be converted for a fraction of the cost of putting a bus or rail line along it, and without the issue of houses having being built over it. Put in e-bike rental places where stations were and you have a great means of transport.
Yes, old railway routes are ideal for cycleway conversion, and as a bonus that preserves them for future railway use if necessary, too. The Bristol-Bath path is an excellent example. Ideally tarmac them - some can be very rough indeed.
Bonus: they are typically quite flat because the railway can't handle big gradients.
More support here for conversion of old rail routes, they have such easy gradients there is really no need for ebikes. On many, a simple singlespeed cycle would be appropriate.
Yes, old railway routes are ideal for cycleway conversion, and as a bonus that preserves them for future railway use if necessary, too. The Bristol-Bath path is an excellent example. Ideally tarmac them - some can be very rough indeed.
Bonus: they are typically quite flat because the railway can't handle big gradients.
However - If they do convert them back the cyclist walkers start complaining. Look at the Bathgate - Aidrie line.
Let us image that some of the Hertfordshire lines were converted back (or to trams) - Hatfield - St Albans as one of them. The protest on the lack of the walking route would be very loud that they would need to build another one next to it. Maybe that is the solution, but in the unlikely event that this disused railway lines are converted back expect people fighting for it not to happen.
The closest I got to taking a test was the cycling test ran by the police when I was 9. It was a big deal to have it. But yes I could cause a serious injury by dangerous cycling and be back on the road the next day doing the same thing. I would not disagree the law does need to change here. But then you see a lot of stories with disqualified drivers that continue driving.
Assuming everyone took 1 test and passed it, that would be an extra 6 million tests a year. There are currently 850k tests a year performed, so a 7-fold increase
That isn't going to happen. However a free mandatory online theory test every few years, perhaps with online course covering the sort of material you see on a speed awareness course, would ensure that people are aware of new laws. Commercial drivers have to do a day of CPC training every year. Setting aside a couple of hours every few years to keep your license seems a reasonable change.
The goal wouldn't be to stop the million uninsured/unlicensed drivers out there, it would be to increase training for the vast majority of license holders who think they are safe drivers, but haven't looked at a highway code for decades.
See rule 66, which says cyclists *should* not ride more than two abreast, implying that up to two is permitted. (That's not a *must*, so not a legal limit, from what I can see.)
I never did a cycling proficient course, but I was the kind of nerdy kid that read my mum's highway code book when she was learning to drive. (I also owned an I Spy book "On the roads and Motorways", when I lived nearly 100 miles from a motorway!)
I drifted away from cycling as a teenager, and didn't come back to it until my 20s, by which time I'd passed my driving test and got a lot more on-road experience. That definitely made me a better cyclist than if I'd kept pedalling throughout.
I genuinely don't get why drivers get so wound up about cyclists. When I drive, it's rare to catch up a cyclist and usually possible to overtake safely within seconds. I'm more likely to catch up a vehicle going slightly slower than me which is more difficult to overtake.
Interesting contrast, I am very easy to pass on a hill as I am not going fast (but less like to stop and let someone pass as I don't want to lose momentum), but I do try and let motorists pass as quickly as I can by stopping in gateways if needed so they pass on my terms rather then take a high risk move that is likely to seriously injure me.
All depends on patience that's all. In my car I have pulled over to let faster vehicles pass when I have an awkward load on the roof - last time was a 3m metal ridge piece which I assumed would whip up/around if I got fast enough.
The seem to see us all as red light jumpers, but I agree I don't know why we are the enemy. Even on a single track road I will pull over and let a car past as soon as I get to some tarmac wide enough to let them by safely, which is normally in under 1 minute. They would be stuck behind a tractor on such a road for much longer. (or someone doing 40mph on a normal A road in heavy traffic when the maximum speed is 60mph)
As someone who is probably 95% pedestrian, 5% cyclist, 0% car driver - I would say that the biggest problem in this country is for cyclists.
Cyclists are in many cases given the 'choice' of cycling along dangerously busy main roads (endangering themselves) or illegally cycling along pavements (potentially endangering pedestrians, but at a guess less of an accident risk than following the busy main road).
We need more in the way of dedicated off road cycling routes, as is done on large parts of the continent (and yes, I know that sadly Continent-bashing and doing things 'our own way' rather than listening to what other countries have to say is rather fashionable right now amongst our political masters). This rather macho 'cycling on busy roads is good for you' attitude does seem to be a peculiarly British thing.
From 20 years of observations, the vast majority gain absolutely nothing by overtaking me in urban areas, unless joining the queue for the next red light a few seconds earlier is considered a win. I rarely cycle on roads out of town. I do the Taff trail but that's nearly all off road.
Less fumes, but they are quieter, so more likely to approach undetected and come as a surprise when they do pass. Busses with engines at the back are already relatively stealthy.
As a pedestrian I have nearly overlooked many a Toyota prius.
Sorry lost the post I wanted to quote but -
I have seen more and more cycle lanes in London and Croydon recently. From conversations I get the impression they are getting very very unpopular with motorists - causing large delays. But if motorists were always patient and careful then perhaps they would not lose lanes to drive in.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
However - If they do convert them back the cyclist walkers start complaining. Look at the Bathgate - Aidrie line.
Let us image that some of the Hertfordshire lines were converted back (or to trams) - Hatfield - St Albans as one of them. The protest on the lack of the walking route would be very loud that they would need to build another one next to it. Maybe that is the solution, but in the unlikely event that this disused railway lines are converted back expect people fighting for it not to happen.
I seem to recall that building a new railway line is not much more expensive than resurrecting a disused one. I mean the costs of creating the embankments and cuttings etc are minor compared to track, signalling and electrification. Is that true ?.
It's not for MAMILs* (or any other type of fast, confident road cyclist), it's for utility cycling. Without it there won't be any utility cycling, because cycling on fast main roads is a really unpleasant experience.
(To be fair I don't get why MAMILs very often choose to cycle on main roads when there's a "yellow road" alternative - they surely don't enjoy it, do they?)
It was a response about the hilly country roads that are MAMIL territory, probably zero utility cyclists.
Main roads are more direct and straighter - they want to keep up a fast pace which makes narrow twisty roads less suitable (unless they have challenging hills)
Why would you need to dig up hedges (or at least much of then)? Why not just have the cycle route behind them, maybe even with a second hedge the other side.
That’s simply not true unless you are planning demolitions and politically challenging amounts of road space being taken away (which affects buses too).
However - If they do convert them back the cyclist walkers start complaining. Look at the Bathgate - Aidrie line.
Let us image that some of the Hertfordshire lines were converted back (or to trams) - Hatfield - St Albans as one of them. The protest on the lack of the walking route would be very loud that they would need to build another one next to it. Maybe that is the solution, but in the unlikely event that this disused railway lines are converted back expect people fighting for it not to happen.
In most cases the cost of building a cycleway next to a new railway and adding another fence between it and the railway would be pretty marginal compared with the rest of the cost of building a modern railway. And it'd have operational advantages, such as being able to be used for road access to the railway for maintenance and emergencies.
I doubt adding the cycle path to the Cambridge Busway added much to the cost of that, either.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Most prefer not to be. Lots of hedges and trees are being removed in Milton Keynes to make the Redways visible to the roads so they feel safer. It's near enough entirely perception, but perception matters a lot (just like riding a bike on a busy 60mph road is never, ever going to feel safe, regardless of how the facts bear up).
Removing hedges (or cutting them right down periodically) is not a particularly expensive thing, that said.
Cost isn’t the issue. Hedges are a major wildlife and conservation issue and ripping out old hedges would be a bad look and possibly cause damaging ’green’ group internecine conflict (The same way people who don’t really give a monkeys about the environment jump on the HS2 ancient woodlands issue)
Cost isn’t the issue. Hedges are a major wildlife and conservation issue and ripping out old hedges would be a bad look and possibly cause damaging ’green’ group internecine conflict (The same way people who don’t really give a monkeys about the environment jump on the HS2 ancient woodlands issue)
Just about the worst environmental problem in the world is being caused by carbon emissions and other emissions from vehicles. Therefore, these things may be acceptable "collateral damage" in order to help "greenify" the transport network by enabling utility cycling, particularly as a new hedge could be planted further over and thus replace it over time.
Cost isn’t the issue. Hedges are a major wildlife and conservation issue and ripping out old hedges would be a bad look and possibly cause damaging ’green’ group internecine conflict (The same way people who don’t really give a monkeys about the environment jump on the HS2 ancient woodlands issue)
I suspect they have other reasons for not liking HS2, and use that as an excuse - as I am sure HS2 can be re-routed to avoid ancient woodlands, knowing that the land between the Chilterns and Birmingham appears to be generally open fields.
I suspect they have other reasons for not liking HS2, and use that as an excuse - as I am sure HS2 can be re-routed to avoid ancient woodlands, knowing that the land between the Chilterns and Birmingham appears to be generally open fields.
It's difficult as a 300km/h line needs to be quite straight so will always go through something. But the benefits of HS2 (much as I'm in favour of it) are probably not as big as the benefits of considerably increased utility cycling on short-distance journeys.
Instead of hedges cycleways beside roads could be protected by trees, which should catch most vehicles that, for whatever reason, suddenly leave the road.
However - If they do convert them back the cyclist walkers start complaining. Look at the Bathgate - Aidrie line.
Let us image that some of the Hertfordshire lines were converted back (or to trams) - Hatfield - St Albans as one of them. The protest on the lack of the walking route would be very loud that they would need to build another one next to it. Maybe that is the solution, but in the unlikely event that this disused railway lines are converted back expect people fighting for it not to happen.
In most cases the cost of building a cycleway next to a new railway and adding another fence between it and the railway would be pretty marginal compared with the rest of the cost of building a modern railway. And it'd have operational advantages, such as being able to be used for road access to the railway for maintenance and emergencies.
Making a disused railway into a cycleway does have the advantage that the line of route is preserved from other development, but the full width needs to be kept if there is any prospect of bringing trains back. To some degree it also protects against demolition/infilling of structures. In practical terms only a tiny fraction of disused railways are ever going to be re-opened, and if that is proposed then the promoters probably have to swallow the cost of providing a reasonable alternative for active travel. There'd be pressure to do that anyway, even if the old alignment was completely disused.
However most people wouldn't really be happy walking/cycling a few feet from heavy or fast trains separated only by a flimsy fence, as might happen if a former double track was restored as a single rail track. That might work for a tramway, heritage (like Bitton) or other minor route. Tramway conversion also allows steeper gradients so any former cutting/embankment can be levelled out, creating extra width for parallel active travel routes as seen around Compton Acres on the Nottingham tramway.
Just about the worst environmental problem in the world is being caused by carbon emissions and other emissions from vehicles. Therefore, these things may be acceptable "collateral damage" in order to help "greenify" the transport network by enabling utility cycling, particularly as a new hedge could be planted further over and thus replace it over time.
Until they are electric…
Acceptable environmental damage doesn’t exist with the very noisy green extremists, and then that noise is amplified by those opposed for other reasons. Spending quite a lot of money on a small group wont win many votes and have a lot more voters suggesting ‘better’ things to spend the money on.
However most people wouldn't really be happy walking/cycling a few feet from heavy or fast trains separated only by a flimsy fence, as might happen if a former double track was restored as a single rail track. That might work for a tramway, heritage (like Bitton) or other minor route. Tramway conversion also allows steeper gradients so any former cutting/embankment can be levelled out, creating extra width for parallel active travel routes as seen around Compton Acres on the Nottingham tramway.
There are paths alongside railways all over the place. I'll agree they aren't the most salubrious of places, but they are much better than cycling on a 60mph main road.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
When they will still emit carbon until the grid is 100% carbon-free, which with the extra demand electric vehicles bring won't be happening until we stick up a few new nuclear stations. How do the Greens feel about that I wonder?
Cycling is preferable to all powered vehicle use (and e-bikes to larger powered vehicles).
It’s because a huge amount of car drivers are loaded with PCP finance on their latest “Status symbol” and therefore think they have more rights than anyone else. God forbid they have to add 30 seconds to their journey time either
There are paths alongside railways all over the place. I'll agree they aren't the most salubrious of places, but they are much better than cycling on a 60mph main road.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
When they will still emit carbon until the grid is 100% carbon-free, which with the extra demand electric vehicles bring won't be happening until we stick up a few new nuclear stations. How do the Greens feel about that I wonder?
Cycling is preferable to all powered vehicle use (and e-bikes to larger powered vehicles).
There are paths alongside railways all over the place. I'll agree they aren't the most salubrious of places, but they are much better than cycling on a 60mph main road.
If the other cycling option was say five miles within a couple of metres of high speed or heavy freight trains, I'd probably reject both that and the main road cycling and drive instead.
If the other cycling option was say five miles within a couple of metres of high speed or heavy freight trains, I'd probably reject both that and the main road cycling and drive instead.
The nearest I've been on a path (and not near a station) next to a fast main line is between Harpenden and Luton. See here.
The path is adjacent to the down fast line but I'm not sure whether the line is 100 or 125 there. Although the trains seem close, the actual distance is about 5m from the track. I'm sure there are instances of smaller distances.
Depends on the frequency. If it's a typical train line in the UK with 2 or 3 passenger trains an hour and maybe 1 or 2 freight per day, that would be fine for me.
Depends on the frequency. If it's a typical train line in the UK with 2 or 3 passenger trains an hour and maybe 1 or 2 freight per day, that would be fine for me.
The nearest I've been on a path (and not near a station) next to a fast main line is between Harpenden and Luton. See here.
The path is adjacent to the down fast line but I'm not sure whether the line is 100 or 125 there. Although the trains seem close, the actual distance is about 5m from the track. I'm sure there are instances of smaller distances.
Around 8m according to my distance measurement from your link. Rail to rail separation on a double track is around 2m so you'd be around 3-4m if one trackbed of a former double track was converted to a path.
I'm sure most of us have stood on a platform while a train passes at 100mph plus. Now imagine you are a less confident walker or cyclist doing similar but at ground level and not looking for (and maybe unaware of) the approaching train.
Around 8m according to my distance measurement from your link. Rail to rail separation on a double track is around 2m so you'd be around 3-4m if one trackbed of a former double track was converted to a path.
I'm sure most of us have stood on a platform while a train passes at 100mph plus. Now imagine you are a less confident walker or cyclist doing similar but at ground level and not looking for (and maybe unaware of) the approaching train.
It's also going off on a niche as this Forum likes. The number of small branch lines between towns that will be reopened is very small. So most converted to cycleways will stay as cycleways.
Also, exactly how many 100mph+ single track branch lines are there?
(To be fair I don't get why MAMILs very often choose to cycle on main roads when there's a "yellow road" alternative - they surely don't enjoy it, do they?)
I don't get that either. I'd get no pleasure from riding along a busy A road. I do ride along a busy six lane road to work but I'm in a bus lane most of the way and it's cheaper, and as quick or faster, than driving. I remember Newport Road before they put in the bus lanes. It wasn't fun.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Making a disused railway into a cycleway does have the advantage that the line of route is preserved from other development, but the full width needs to be kept if there is any prospect of bringing trains back. To some degree it also protects against demolition/infilling of structures. In practical terms only a tiny fraction of disused railways are ever going to be re-opened, and if that is proposed then the promoters probably have to swallow the cost of providing a reasonable alternative for active travel. There'd be pressure to do that anyway, even if the old alignment was completely disused.
However most people wouldn't really be happy walking/cycling a few feet from heavy or fast trains separated only by a flimsy fence, as might happen if a former double track was restored as a single rail track. That might work for a tramway, heritage (like Bitton) or other minor route. Tramway conversion also allows steeper gradients so any former cutting/embankment can be levelled out, creating extra width for parallel active travel routes as seen around Compton Acres on the Nottingham tramway.
A new fence alongside a cycleway should not be made flimsy, and almost certainly wouldn't be as flimsy ones need more fixing. How many trains do you think will fly past on a single track?
All the glass half empty ones.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Statistically walking is less safe than cycling. Around 700 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles every year. No doubt severe head injury is the cause in many cases. Should pedestrians have to wear a helmet too?
Yes, old railway routes are ideal for cycleway conversion, and as a bonus that preserves them for future railway use if necessary, too. The Bristol-Bath path is an excellent example. Ideally tarmac them - some can be very rough indeed.
Bonus: they are typically quite flat because the railway can't handle big gradients.
Average deaths per 1 billion km from 2001 to 2010 higher for pedestrians
cyclists: 28
pedestrians: 35
For KSI though it's the other way round
cyclists: 553
pedestrian: 322
Either way it's the same order of magnitude, and the argument always seems to be victim blaming (Pedestrians should wear helmets // cyclists shouldn't need to wear helmets) rather than blaming the cause of the deaths (car drivers - usually ones travelling below the speed limit)
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
) 'opinion' as to whether that journey is necessary?
