On Tuesday night at the Community Council meetings the dangers to pedestrians and cyclists on some of the minor roads around Nairn was discussed. Hopefully the increasing amounts of "rat-run" traffic that causes the danger would disappear once the bypass is built.
But what about the bypass and the opportunity this gives to create new routes for cyclists? The official national cycle route to Inverness takes you up into the Cawdor hills and a 26 mile plus route to Invereness. If we are to get a bypass and dual carriageway to Inverness then that is an opportuinty to create an additional route that would be more practical and encourage more people to cycle all or part of the route to Inverness on a regular basis.
Yesterday there were plenty of suits on hand in the Commmunity and arts centre to meet and greet citizens who wanted to get the latest information on the bypass route and there was certainly no shortage of folk with concerns or otherwise generally interested in the project.
One of the project staff told this observer that no decision had been taken on cycling provision yet but it would be integral to the project. It may mean dedicated cycling lanes beside the bypass or putting cyclists onto the old A96 or even the creation of a new but detached route. Time for local cyclists to pay attention as this project goes forward and cycling provision comes under the microscope? The project team can be contacted at A96Dualling@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk
First let me state I am not talking about tourist cycle touring, or lycra clad 100miles type cycling here - I am talking GRASSROOTS day to day A to B work and back, shops and back type cycling - and the ability to do this SAFELY.
ReplyDeleteSeconds, Bravo Gurn for raising the issue!!!
I have emailed to email addresses and spoke to the people to "speak to" at these events, and so far all i have got is a brush off when it comes to what is being done for Cyclists (current NOTHING).
The Current "preferred option" plans have no provision at all for any new cycle lanes, and indeed make it *more* difficult to cycle around the area where the new bypass will be built from Tesco right the way through Nairn to the Eastern side - why? because existing minor roads will be re-routed to join the on/off junction points with very very few underpasses - this will mean the quiet backroads (when not being employed as the unoffical bypass at the moment) all congregate around on/off roundabout junctions in order to get "over" the new bypass - cyclists, cars, trucks, everyone will all meet at these junctions.
This also adds in even more distance to actually cycle around this area too, hugging the A96 bypass on the backroad for miles just to get "over" it.
Like many promises of cycle lanes and new cycle infrastructure - instead of being considered at the outset with money set aside, it will be an afterthought, shoe-horned in, with a tin of white paint and a few triangle signs to warn motorists, and the excuse of overruns of budgets.
Why will the Council(s) and Transport for Scotland break a pattern of a lifetime just for the A96 bypass.
Just look at the mess now - cycling from Nairn to Inverness to avoid the A96 - or Nairn to Forres - we all have to zig zag across country lanes and cross the A96 at various points.
I can guarantee there will be nothing done at all for cyclists.
The other day I saw on the news that the foundation stones had been laid by Moray Estates for Tornagrain. I hope whoever designs these new cycle lanes talks with Moray estates (as this will determine routes, increase traffic & possibly cycle lane usage) & the people who are responsible for the dualing of the A96, otherwise we will end up with another shambles. Maybe by then the White bridge will be fixed, oh wait, the Howford has just fallen down! (in jest).
ReplyDeleteA clear and safe low level route along the old/new A96 would be a great boon. It would be easy to cycle to Inverness in not much more than an hour. Problem at present is that the A96 is a death trap for cyclists and even the back road by Croy is very busy.
ReplyDeleteA cycle path needs to be safe, a reasonable width and fit for purpose i.e. well surfaced and kept clear of the puncture inducing debris which is the scourge of most cycle lanes alongside roads. It makes many of them virtually unusable.
@Freddie Merckx - well said :)
ReplyDeleteI commute the Croy backroad and the state of driving is terrible - its like if they slow down for more than 5 seconds their life will end, but the way the pass me, it will be my life that ends.
The Preferred options leave a lot of the existing A96 intact - and if you read the leaflets they say that doing THIS will **benefit** Cyclists - you can see in their mind thats a BOX TICKED OFF right there - but how can this be? these lefotver A96 bits are connector roads to the new A96 dual carriageway - so they will contain all the traffic getting on and off the new A96 - it makes NO SENSE!
The first @Anonymous has it right "I can guarantee there will be nothing done at all for cyclists. " it will be no more than a tin of white paint and a few triangle signs to warn motorists!
Out of interest, how do cyclists contribute to the costs of the cycle network infrastructure? Are they all motorists who contribute through associated motoring taxes? What additional provision is made to ensure that non-cycling motorists aren't inconvenienced by cyclists sharing the road network?
ReplyDeleteCyclists contribute in the same way as motorists - roads are mostly paid for out of general taxation. I think you're alluding to vehicle excise duty which is usually (wrongly) referred to as road tax, something which i think was abolished by Churchill. It is an emissions based tax - bikes don't produce emissions so are exempt, as are a growing number of cars. Not all cyclists are motorists but the actual figure is somewhere over 90 percent of cyclists.
DeleteRegarding inconvenience, many studies have shown that as the numbers of cyclists go up, it means less cars on the road and actually results in improved traffic flows - as they have left their cars at home! I don't think I've ever been held up for longer than maybe 30 seconds by a cyclist but i spend ar least 10 mins a day stuck in queues of cars.
They contribute by General taxation like you, road tax does not exist and would cover very little of the road cost even if it went directly to find the roads. If cyclists had to pay "road tax" then they would be in the zero category like many cars as it based on CO2 emissions. You would probably find that most cyclist own a car anyhow so would contribute in the same manner that you currently do.
ReplyDeleteAs for inconveniencing you, then it must a tragedy that you have to slow down and not kill other user of the road. You may even end up at you destination over a minute late. Least not forget cyclists where part of the original campaign to have roads tarred, long before cars were the major form of transport.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteOut of interest, how do cyclists contribute to the costs of the cycle network infrastructure?
You are a dinosaur. Regardless of the financial contribution cycling improves health and reduces congestion. If even 50% of the people currently using their cars for journeys around town less than a couple of miles cycled instead we might not even need the bypass !
@anonymous 7.41, @anonymous 7.52
ReplyDeleteOn a nearly daily basis I travel by car on B roads which twist and turn. Inevitably a queue of between 5-10 cars and vans build up behind cyclists who probably average between 10-15mph as the road has several inclines. It is not the time it takes for my journey, but the extra fuel that is being used by this queue of vehicles, adding to pollution and economic costs. I agree that in towns and cities better use should be made of public transport, walking and even cycling, but where there is no alternative (vans on local deliveries etc) in rural locations there most certainly is a 'cost' to the economy caused by the mixing of cyclists and motor vehicles.
Not to mention the additional fuel used by transporting cycles up and down the country on the back of a car purely for personal pleasure use.
Rather than rant at what is perceived as an anti-cyclist post, can either of you point to figures that demonstrate that cycling provides a net benefit to the economy when all factors are taken into account?
The A96 dualling needs to adequately manage separation of slower means of transport such that motorised vehicles can operate at best efficiency, both on the A96 and surrounding roads.
“Rather than rant at what is perceived as an anti-cyclist post, can either of you point to figures that demonstrate that cycling provides a net benefit to the economy when all factors are taken into account? “
DeleteA quick search for benefits to the economy for cycling bring these documents.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycling-and-economy
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680611/bikes-arent-just-good-for-you-theyre-good-for-the-economy-too
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/oct/16/why-cyling-is-great-for-everyone-not-just-cyclists
Glasgow City
http://www.gcph.co.uk/assets/0000/3794/BP37_for_Web.pdf
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3448897.ece
“On a nearly daily basis I travel by car on B roads which twist and turn. Inevitably a queue of between 5-10 cars and vans build up behind cyclists who probably average between 10-15mph as the road has several inclines. It is not the time it takes for my journey, but the extra fuel that is being used by this queue of vehicles, adding to pollution and economic costs.”
You would use no extra fuel as the car is going slower hence using less fuel, it is wind resistance which is exponential in fuel consumption, so slowing down would save you fuel.
“I agree that in towns and cities better use should be made of public transport, walking and even cycling, but where there is no alternative (vans on local deliveries etc) in rural locations there most certainly is a 'cost' to the economy caused by the mixing of cyclists and motor vehicles.”
So as long as cyclists don't go out of towns and stay on bike paths then you have created a solution?
“Not to mention the additional fuel used by transporting cycles up and down the country on the back of a car purely for personal pleasure use.”
What about the canoeists who travel with canoes on top, they must be stopped as well, what about anybody just using a car for leisure? Stop the lot then you will not be inconvienced as well!
Most driver are quite respectful of cyclists, and certainly if I had a trail of cars behind me then I would pull over, as I would if I was driving a car down a single track B road and somebody faster wanted to overtake. But it only takes one vehicle to force past to close and they have killed you and saved a minute of their journey time.
The best solution would be mutual respect, not having vehicles passing cyclists really close or fast, and if a long que then cyclists stopping to let the vehicles pass.
@Anon 7:41
ReplyDeleteThere is a net benefit to the environment as a cyclist uses zero fuel. A bicycle creates much less wear and tear on our roads. Especially in town where traffic is slow the amount of pollution from a car is huge. I suspect that if your journey takes you into a town than you will be sat in queuing traffic for far longer than you'll be waiting to overtake a cyclist.
The speed limits on roads are just that, 60mph is not the obligatory speed, it's the limit at which you might travel. You might also find that by traveling at 60mph your vehicle is less fuel efficient than travelling at a slower speed
There is a time factor for you having to slow down behind a cyclist but again there is likely to be a far greater period whereby you're sat in queuing traffic in town
I travel to Inverness from Nairn on a regular basis. I sometimes encounter vehicles doing less than 60mph, especially tractors and some lorries. Are these also a cost to the economy? But worse on a near daily basis I witness impatient drivers who'll often dangerously overtake so they can be sat in the traffic queues a couple of cars ahead of me when we reach Inverness
It's all about tolerance. Cyclists have as much right to be using the roads as anyone else, sorry if you don't like them
"Rather than rant at what is perceived as an anti-cyclist post, can either of you point to figures that demonstrate that cycling provides a net benefit to the economy when all factors are taken into account?"
ReplyDeleteDo hospitals provide a net benefit to the economy when all factors are taken into account?
Do libraries provide a net benefit to the economy when all factors are taken into account?
Why should life be all about money?