Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:17 am
Maybe it helps clarity in considering the value of 'cycle lanes' if the different types are considered separately. All seek to give cyclist an identified space and route, but in very different circumstances.
Off-road routes: Nearly always the shortest link between points, as they use old railway lines, or cut across open land and parks. Lovely, because you can hear the birds sing and say hello to the cows. You often can say hello to people too! Good for making friends.
On-road routes: These only happen when there is no space or money for off-road and a lot of traffic. Typical in built-up areas, especially in older cities where houses pose a bit of constraint on the 'perfect solution'. They allow cyclists to keep going when car drivers conspire to block the road. Not so good for cyclists who like to snake in and out between cars but fine for others who enjoy getting through to a green light fast.
Off-road along footways: These are only put in when pavements are wide enough, and roads too narrow. This annoys many in the UK, but somehow fine in other (more tolerant) countries. Not suitable for those who want to keep their HR above 160 commuting to work by bike. As are indeed all cycle lanes, but do you have to go fastest ALL the time?
Green boxes at traffic lights: Allow cyclists to breathe slightly less polluting air, not directly spewed out by Mitsubishi Terminators or Chrysler crossfires! The also give you a guarantee to get through the lights in one go, in stead of maybe being stuck at red again because there was not one of those 'evil' on-road cycling lanes to help you to the front.
Funny to have this argument really! In big-time cycling countries like Holland, cycle lanes have been part of road planning since the 1920's, and not many are moaning they should be ripped up. Quite nice to see groups of four or five or more school kids in the countryside riding along chatting on their way to school or home again. Quality of life?
Does not seem to disable their chances in cycle sport either. Nuff said.
Off-road routes: Nearly always the shortest link between points, as they use old railway lines, or cut across open land and parks. Lovely, because you can hear the birds sing and say hello to the cows. You often can say hello to people too! Good for making friends.
On-road routes: These only happen when there is no space or money for off-road and a lot of traffic. Typical in built-up areas, especially in older cities where houses pose a bit of constraint on the 'perfect solution'. They allow cyclists to keep going when car drivers conspire to block the road. Not so good for cyclists who like to snake in and out between cars but fine for others who enjoy getting through to a green light fast.
Off-road along footways: These are only put in when pavements are wide enough, and roads too narrow. This annoys many in the UK, but somehow fine in other (more tolerant) countries. Not suitable for those who want to keep their HR above 160 commuting to work by bike. As are indeed all cycle lanes, but do you have to go fastest ALL the time?
Green boxes at traffic lights: Allow cyclists to breathe slightly less polluting air, not directly spewed out by Mitsubishi Terminators or Chrysler crossfires! The also give you a guarantee to get through the lights in one go, in stead of maybe being stuck at red again because there was not one of those 'evil' on-road cycling lanes to help you to the front.
Funny to have this argument really! In big-time cycling countries like Holland, cycle lanes have been part of road planning since the 1920's, and not many are moaning they should be ripped up. Quite nice to see groups of four or five or more school kids in the countryside riding along chatting on their way to school or home again. Quality of life?
Does not seem to disable their chances in cycle sport either. Nuff said.