Is this the worst cycling event EVER?

Eribiste wrote:

On the plus side, is this a chance to try out lots of different saddles?

Pervert!

TheHungryGhost wrote:

I can confirm that the original details about this event had made it clear that you could bring your own bike - but not cycle to the event - bikes would have to be transported in.

You are also not allowed to walk to the event.  Locals have been complaining that despite the event being less than a mile from their house, they would have to drive to a pickup point, and then get bussed in.

As an Aberdonian, I was planning on going with my kids, but now I'm just thinking they should finally open this road.  

More concerning is the failure of either the Council or Transport Scotland to take ownership of the issue where the new road cuts across the Deeside Way.  There was initially supposed to be a bridge, but this was dropped from the plans.  Part of the path has not been completed

Details here - http://www.aberdeencycleforum.org.uk/?page_id=19

But this is the gist of the issue (quoted from above link)

"At the west [Peterculter] end of the bridge the dual use path is  offset from the Deeside way by approximately 30 meters, the current entrance to the dual use  path is in the path of oncoming traffic.  Pedestrians and particularly cyclists have to go into the path of oncoming traffic on the bridge to access the path."

This is the nearest smiley I can find describing my reaction to what you describe

As a non-Aberdonian, it looks to me like the event the Council have designed is simply insane.

TheHungryGhost wrote:

You are also not allowed to walk to the event. 

Is that some special by law?

How does that work with 'freedom to roam'?

brooksby wrote:

Why is your own bike considered less safe than some BSO they're going to let you ride at the event?  I know my bike better than their's, thank you very much! 

Because on your own bike you may go at "excessive" speeds (i.e. above walking pace) and crash into someone in hi-vis and a construction hard-hat with so much kinetic energy that they suffer nothing more serious than a bruise or scratch horrific life changing injuries.

Will nobody think of the navvies?

brooksby wrote:

Why is your own bike considered less safe than some BSO they're going to let you ride at the event?  I know my bike better than their's, thank you very much! 

That was my first thought - I'm much more wobbly and unsafe on a cycle I've never used before than the one I do 30km a day on!

burtthebike wrote:

"Is this the worst cycling event EVER?"

Could we not have whip round and give them some sort of award?  Wouldn't have to cost much, a gift wrapped puncture tube perhaps, or a BSO from the local supermarket.

perhaps a "Cyclists Dismount" sign to put up at the start of the ride.

StuInNorway wrote:

Once the road opens, and the traffic on the "old" road drops, then there might be possibilities to improve cycling facilites there, but until the new road opens there is simply not space to do so.

All the evidence from the past 60 years shows that traffic on local roads won't drop, but that suppressed demand will be released and because of the traffic induced by the new road, local traffic will increase.  The assumption that new roads will reduce traffic on existing roads is wrong and has been proved wrong every time, but it is still trotted out by the road builders and developers, who are as honest as the politicians who support them.

If local roads were made cyclist/pedestrian only with emergency vehicles exempt, you might be right, but the chances of that happening are slightly less than winning the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.

burtthebike wrote:

StuInNorway wrote:

Once the road opens, and the traffic on the "old" road drops, then there might be possibilities to improve cycling facilites there, but until the new road opens there is simply not space to do so.

All the evidence from the past 60 years shows that traffic on local roads won't drop, but that suppressed demand will be released and because of the traffic induced by the new road, local traffic will increase.  The assumption that new roads will reduce traffic on existing roads is wrong and has been proved wrong every time, but it is still trotted out by the road builders and developers, who are as honest as the politicians who support them.

If local roads were made cyclist/pedestrian only with emergency vehicles exempt, you might be right, but the chances of that happening are slightly less than winning the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.

Lets face it though they have been promising this by pass since before most of that information was available 

burtthebike wrote:

All the evidence from the past 60 years shows that traffic on local roads won't drop

I think in this case it might. Aberdeen is so isolated that there is a finite amount of traffic, which is probably already clogging up the existing roads. An example I know very well is the Broughton bypass just north of Preston. The traffic through Broughton has practically stopped, as they have actually made it awkward NOT to use the bypass. It's made a huge difference to what was a 20 minute jam at busy times on the Broughton crossroads. They've even made a good job of providing an alternative route for cyclists round what would be a nightmare roundabout. As for cycling on the bypass, you CAN but you'd have to be the most insane, self obsessed idiot to try.
Just because it's your right to ride on a road doesn't mean you should. It can't be pleasant riding on a 70mph dual carriageway with nowhere to go. I see it on the A590 near levens. Lovely quiet road running parallel to the dual carriageway, but some cyclists insist on using the main road. Why? Had a discussion with as colleague about cyclists on the snake pass. That would terrify me as the speed differential uphill would be so huge, yet it's too narrow and twisting for a safe pass. Though on the counter side, I'm perfectly happy riding up the A6 to Shap. Because it's wide, pretty straight and, for an A road, very quiet. That's because the M6 takes the load, much like the Aberdeen road will do.

Guanajuato wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

All the evidence from the past 60 years shows that traffic on local roads won't drop

I think in this case it might.

Well, in my experience as a professional transport planner with an MSc in transport planning and a keen observer of transport, I disagree.  You think that the traffic is finite, but have no evidence to show that it is, and that there isn't massive suppressed demand from people who don't drive because of the existing congestion.

Thanks for your input, but I'll go with my opinion based on my knowledge, experience and the evidence.

Taking the opening of Inverness West Link as an example - a major selling point by the Council was that it would reduce city centre congestion.
The opponents of this scheme argued that this would be negligible (and that the primary motive was to open up development land)
The West Link opened a year ago, and guess what? We now have a busy West Link - ie lots of traffic is using it, but the town appears just as busy as ever (ie, there might be some reduction, but not so much anyone would notice)

If you look at the models they used to predict traffic flow what is striking is
1)   The 'experts' don't know how the models work - they stick numbers in, and come out with comments like 'it just works'
2)   There is no statistical accuracy output for their predicted local traffic reduction
3)   There is no consideration of seasonal local factors (eg, tourist traffic, in the case of Inverness - not so applicable to Aberdeen)
4)   There is no factor to take into account 'suppressed demand'
5)   There is no factor to take into account long-term future planned building developments / residential areas / retail areas - and the influence they will have on 'city centre congestion'

burtthebike wrote:

All the evidence from the past 60 years shows that traffic on local roads won't drop, but that suppressed demand will be released and because of the traffic induced by the new road, local traffic will increase.  The assumption that new roads will reduce traffic on existing roads is wrong and has been proved wrong every time, but it is still trotted out by the road builders and developers, who are as honest as the politicians who support them.

Although I agree with you, I know of a counterexample:

The Norwich Southern bypass.  It took several years for drivers to start using it, but eventually the numbers of cars on the southern part of the outer ring road did drop.  Now, 26 years later, the ring road is once again congested, but that will be accounted for by the enormous growth in car ownership rather than suppressed demand.  There are still downsides:

1.  Cyclists find it harder to cycle out of Norwich, because small road crossings have been shut and no bike pathways were been built* under the road.

2. Unlike the immediate post-war bypasses, no provision was made for cyclists who also want to ride all or part of the route.

3.  Cars and lorries travelling around Norwich on the A47 travel more miles, at high speed, thus contributing even more to global warming.

So the assumption hasn't been "proved wrong every time".   I'll vote for your suggestion that local roads should only be for cyclists, pedestrians and ambulances, with the proviso that the ambulances will be lightweight pedelec long johns and that people with walking difficulties are also allowed ultralight electric transport.  When we need a car, we could use our own or a car club car, kept in the out of town underground car park with a field of rape on top.

New roads would reduce traffic if they were made strictly for non motorised traffic and segregated pedestrians from cyclists and runners and all from animal riders.  We've run out of land, so it's time to consider building multistorey roads or reducing our population.

*Correction, there was one near Bawburgh but, menacingly, motor vehicles are now allowed to use it too.

janusz0 wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

All the evidence from the past 60 years shows that traffic on local roads won't drop, but that suppressed demand will be released and because of the traffic induced by the new road, local traffic will increase.  The assumption that new roads will reduce traffic on existing roads is wrong and has been proved wrong every time, but it is still trotted out by the road builders and developers, who are as honest as the politicians who support them.

Although I agree with you, I know of a counterexample:

The Norwich Southern bypass. 

Got any figures to support that?