Why Do We Make Such An Arse Of This?
Segregated, traffic-free cycle routes sound great. In many countries, they ARE great. But for some obscure reason, not here. Nope. Something in the UK system, the mind of your typical British planner / transport engineer / escaped dadaist lunatic on acid who’s got a job at the local council, that conspires to royally mess things up.
Let’s compare and contrast - a place where they seem to have got it right:
… with this from The Cycling Lawyer in the UK:
The UK version reminds me of the alternative definition of a camel:
Camel, n. A horse designed by a committee. ~’s arse - see Cycling Infrastructure, British.
All the right components are there, yet somehow the whole is uglier, more dangerous, and less graceful than the sum of the parts.
What strikes me most about the Hillingdon example is how isolated the path is in places, and how one’s sightlines are impeded by design or planting. I wouldn’t feel safe using it in daylight never mind on a winter afternoon or evening. Around 7.38 looks like a mugger’s/rapist’s paradise.
I don’t care if a bike path slows me a little - although Copenhagen shows that with good design a constant 20kph is easily achievable - I want safe routes that you’d be happy to send your unaccompanied kids or dear old mum along.
Why Do We Make Such An Arse Of This?
Because in the UK, bicycle infrastructure is planned, designed, constructed and badly maintained by ****ing arses who never ****ing cycle, probably don’t even know what a ****ing bicycle is and couldn’t give a ****ing **** about ****ing cyclists. And as for a ****ing network, ****ing cyclists can ****-off.
Which is why in the UK, bicycle infrastructure is such a pile of ****ing crap.
Whereas, in the Netherlands, the bicycle infrastructure NETWORK is planned, designed constructed and maintained by cyclists for use by cyclists. Consequently, bicycle infrastructure is convenient, useful, safe, fast and pleasant to use.