Are LCC in LaLa Land?

[Pete Owens]

Yes, Hackney has loads of people cycling, and without massive segregation, it's true. It would be interesting to find out exactly why.  I have my own ideas, but the objective truth is probably much more complex and varied.  But it's one borough,

It may be "just one borough" but it is the borough that most notably rejects the segregationist approach - and instead is pursuing a policy to make its streets inherently cycle friendly and liveable. Slowing down and reducing traffic, removing giratories, improving the public realm, making the street network more permeable for cyclists and so on. A very unusual case of doing the things that those of us sceptical of segregation tend to advocate.
Take a look at:
http://cycleandwalkhackney.blogspot.co.uk/
The go dutch brigade tend to be infuriated by the local cycle campaign - seeing them as a major obstruction and an exemplar of everything wrong about cycle campaigning - one even suggesting that they be thrown out of LCC.

And yet it is the star performing borough for encouraging cycling. The one highway authority in the country where cycle commuters outnumber those driving to work.

[AndyMorris]

Next time I want to find out anything about cycling, I must ask my non cycling friends.

Segregated facilities provide protection while you are in them, but I doubt that any users retain any sense of invulnerability outside of them. All those, that is barring the cyclists who are just invulnerable wherever they are. Look around, the facilities that exist are not a scene of carnage, neither are the bits of blue paint for all the traffic they carry. That's why there is no merit at all in your argument.

We may be violently agreeing...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cycle+superhighway+deaths

Yes it exaggerates the dangers, but it the prevailing impression of cycling in the media at the moment, did I imagine that LCC were all over Boris and his plans before the election?

[Ham]

No, we are not agreeing. Of the two deaths at Bow, only one was even on the superhighway, that one was a rider who apparently would have been there with or without the blue paint. Aldgate and the surrounding area has been the scene of serious crashes for years and years. The arteries the blue paint lines are on generally convey a huge number of vehicles of all types - before the blue paint there were crashes, after the blue paint there will be crashes. Without anything other than my impressions to back me up, I have seen far fewer incidents over recent years then I did previously. Overall death and serious injury has dropped as a proportion of the cycling population.

Yes the blue paint lures people out, and yes the facility can be deceptive but actually that deception doesn't last very long. A new rider up against a thundering artic won't think "I'm on blue paint which will keep me alive". Instead a novice rider is much more likely to think "I'll copy other cyclists" without the ability or roadcraft needed to preserve their own safety.

[rogerzilla]

A problem with car-free streets is that the cars at least keep people and dogs out of the way and (hopefully) encourage riding on the left; cycle paths are statistically the most likely place to have a crash because there are no rules.  There is a good reason why pavement cycling is banned, and a shared-use sign doesn't somehow make it safe.  Car-free roads would be a similar free-for-all.

[citoyen]

A problem with car-free streets...

Does not compute.

cycle paths are statistically the most likely place to have a crash because there are no rules.

***BAD SCIENCE KLAXON!***

[MartinC]

Next time I want to find out anything about cycling, I must ask my non cycling friends.

I thought that this was precisely the argument that underpinned segregation. That you have to ask non-cyclists what will get them to cycle and not ask experienced cyclists who already do.

[Cudzoziemiec]

But here on YACF we already know you're a nutter.  Because we're like you too.  So please do tell, just out of interest rather than for any practicality, what are your preferred, radical solutions?

In many instances, to exclude private motor traffic altogether - depends on the wider context, but I could envisage in that bus stop example above turning the two-lane road into a proper bike lane + proper bus lane, with enough space between them to reduce pedestrian/cyclist interfaces.

In city centres, private motor vehicles should be very much the minority, and then only tolerated in limited areas.

In other words, the complete reversal of the current situation, where private motor vehicles are the norm and roads designed to suit them, with the needs of public transport and cyclists accommodated in piecemeal fashion as an afterthought, often with unhappy compromises such as that somewhat imperfect bus stop design.

(I could go further but even among yacf friends there's a danger of coming across as an extremist militant nutter. )

It sounds pretty sensible to me, and not just for road-safety reasons. I'd prefer to see private driving wither away 'organically' through lack of demand rather than be kept away with bans and barriers, but I recognise that's even less likely to happen than legislation.

Sometimes we need extremist militant nutters to achieve ordinary stuff.

[Charlotte]

This discussion is just serving to solidify my dislike of cycle facilities.  Back in 2008, I made this post and my opinion hasn't changed since then:

Just imagine how many more cyclists we'd have if, instead of spending money on cyclepaths and other "infrastructure", the gubbinsment spent the cycling dosh on stuff like:

• Free and subsidized bikes to the low paid and unwaged
• Really enforcing road traffic law with respect to drivers and cyclists
• Taking VAT off bikes
• Providing free cycle training as part of the national curriculum at all schools
• Persuading employers to encourage cycle commuting through staff incentives

Oh, and here's a cynical thought to ponder:

Given that there is an increasing budget for promoting cycling, could it be that spending it on physical infrastructure (the built environment) rather than intangible services (training, policing, etc.) is a far better way to ensure that this cash makes its way into the coffers of large corporations rather than small businesses and individual contractors?

How convenient then, that campaigning groups like LCC can be persuaded to lobby for this option, rather than armies of cycling instructors and ranks of clued-in police officers...

[clarion]

Yep.

[citoyen]

Oh, and here's a cynical thought to ponder:

Given that there is an increasing budget for promoting cycling, could it be that spending it on physical infrastructure (the built environment) rather than intangible services (training, policing, etc.) is a far better way to ensure that this cash makes its way into the coffers of large corporations rather than small businesses and individual contractors?

I believe your cynicism to be justified as a general principle but... No, this is not the reason for structure over service (in fact, the LCC are not campaigning for structure *instead of* service but we'll let that one slide for the moment).

Just look at the way many local council services have been contracted out to big private contractors - the current motley mob of misrulers could easily find ways to turn "intangible" services into ways to line the pockets of their Big Business Buddies.

Serco Bike School, anyone?

[Ham]

This discussion is just serving to solidify my dislike of cycle facilities.  Back in 2008, I made this post and my opinion hasn't changed since then:

Just imagine how many more cyclists we'd have if, instead of spending money on cyclepaths and other "infrastructure", the gubbinsment spent the cycling dosh on stuff like:

• Free and subsidized bikes to the low paid and unwaged
• Really enforcing road traffic law with respect to drivers and cyclists
• Taking VAT off bikes
• Providing free cycle training as part of the national curriculum at all schools
• Persuading employers to encourage cycle commuting through staff incentives

Oh, and here's a cynical thought to ponder:

Given that there is an increasing budget for promoting cycling, could it be that spending it on physical infrastructure (the built environment) rather than intangible services (training, policing, etc.) is a far better way to ensure that this cash makes its way into the coffers of large corporations rather than small businesses and individual contractors?

How convenient then, that campaigning groups like LCC can be persuaded to lobby for this option, rather than armies of cycling instructors and ranks of clued-in police officers...

That's a suitably misanthropic attitude that's bound to garner support (not forgetting that I share your dislike of "facilities"), but it's a lot more complex, much of your wishlist exists in some form or the other alongside everything else.

 - Getting hold of a bike (taking VAT off, bikes for the less well off etc)
 Bike scheme is effing fantastic for those of us in work. Recycling schemes are all over the place (some suffered as a result of recent cutbacks) and many rubbish tips operate informal recycling. Also, the popularity of bikes and the increased volume and competition mean that you get fantastic bang for bucks these days, even down at the BSO level.

 - Learning to ride. Schools still do train, yes it would be good to see it as part of the National Curriculum but the pressure on that is immeasurable, every pressure group thinks their activity/interest would make the greatest change evah. Personally, I think there is room to finesse it into the existing PE structure, but then I would, wouldn't I? Also the consequent politicisation  is almost certainly undesirable with a myriad of unintended consequences (helmet law, anyone?)

However, there are training schemes out there, free gratis and for nothing. That, and support from cycling groups for people wanting to join. Better publicity would be good, better recognition from riders that they should fucking learn to ride properly would be good.

- Persuading employers to encourage cycling, that's happening. Slowly, but it is happening. The concept settling in people's heads that cycling is a normal activity to be encouraged has a lot to do with that. I dare say the Olympics and the brit success in TdF have something to do with that.

- Really enforcing traffic law - for all. With you 100% there, that would be a good thing. But it does happen. London centric in many ways but there again, I would say that the prevalence of bus lane cameras has really cut down the "50m won't matter as I'm turning" or the "I'm very important" driver cutting into the lane. Think back ten years - the removal of that is one of the things that has really made my life a lot more pleasant and feel safer since then.

Keeps on coming back to the key principle - the more cyclists the better.

[jane]

Yes, Hackney has loads of people cycling, and without massive segregation, it's true. It would be interesting to find out exactly why.  I have my own ideas, but the objective truth is probably much more complex and varied.  But it's one borough,

It may be "just one borough" but it is the borough that most notably rejects the segregationist approach - and instead is pursuing a policy to make its streets inherently cycle friendly and liveable. Slowing down and reducing traffic, removing giratories, improving the public realm, making the street network more permeable for cyclists and so on. A very unusual case of doing the things that those of us sceptical of segregation tend to advocate.
Take a look at:
http://cycleandwalkhackney.blogspot.co.uk/
The go dutch brigade tend to be infuriated by the local cycle campaign - seeing them as a major obstruction and an exemplar of everything wrong about cycle campaigning - one even suggesting that they be thrown out of LCC.

And yet it is the star performing borough for encouraging cycling. The one highway authority in the country where cycle commuters outnumber those driving to work.

Yes, you are right and in fact repeat what I already said. The percentage of Hackney residents cycling is way above that of other London boroughs.  And they do oppose segregation (although not every cycle route in Hackney is on the road by any means) But I don't think you can prove that the first follows from the latter without some meaningful research.  The first thing would be to establish just who is cycling, in terms of age, sex, race, culture, distances travelled, destinations etc etc for example.  There are many differences between London boroughs that might explain the relative success in Hackney.  I am not saying that the preference for other approaches in Hackney hasn't contributed to more people cycling.  I am merely admitting that I don't know, and would like to find out, as it could help us campaigning in boroughs like mine, where cycling's modal share struggles to get to 2% and has dropped recently.
Personally, I have nothing but respect for the work of cycle campaigners in Hackney.  I can't speak for individual opinions that some LCC members might hold.  I do know there have been some personal differences.  We are a broad church.  However, to interpret personal opinions as mainstream opinion within LCC as a whole is misleading.
   There has been tension between the LCC central office and the borough groups, over various issues, I won't deny that. 

And in answer to the points about lobbying for enforcement of traffic rules, increased training in schools etc etc.  Well, we do that, too. Especially at borough level.  A lot of work goes on there, done by people who aren't paid, and who have no economic  or political axe to grind, they are just cyclists who love both cycling and the city in which they live. 

[David Martin]

I've ridden, albeit briefly, in the netherlands. I've ridden far more extensively in Norway where they have much dutch style provision and similar legislation. I grew up riding around London.

So much for the credentials.

There is one clear aim in this which is to reduce the conflict, or percieved conflict between cyclists and motorists. Conflict raises stress and increases the perception of danger.

There is one way conflict occurs, motorists and cyclists both wanting to be in the same space at the same time. 'Going Dutch' addresses this in two ways. 1 is to segregate traffic so whilst they share the same time, they are in a physically different space. The second is to slow traffic to about the same pace so that whilst they may share the same space they do not share the same time. I'll come to legislation in a moment.

And this is where the 'Going Dutch' thing kicks in. Where it is expedient to maintain a relatively fast and high throughput of motor traffic (and this is recognised as appropriate in many cases) then segregation on space is the preferred option.
Where there is no clear imperative to maintain a particular throughput of motor traffic then separation on time is the prefered option, which means slowing motor traffic down to 20 or 15mph.   

And now we come to legislation - the presumption of liability. This, combined with the reduction in speed limits, does more to reduce the perception of danger and reduce conflict.

We can and we should build segregated facilities.
We can and we should not build segregated facilities where traffic reduction and traffic speed reduction is a realistic option.
We can and we should introduce sensible city wide speed limits and liability legislation that will reflect the best practice in the rest of Europe.

The growth in cycling will not be more sporty cyclists assertively defending their road position around the E&C roundabout (BTDTGTTS) but will be copenhagen style ordinary people in ordinary clothes doing ordinary things at ordinary speeds. Some cyclists need to have an attitude adjustment and realise that in a mass cycling culture, their boy (or girl) racer approach as a lycra road warrior is as appropriate as the ABD claiming they should be allowed to personally decide 'appropriate speed for the conditions'.

[clarion]

That's all very sensible.

[citoyen]

Well, if it were David M vs Biggsy for mayor of London, I know who'd get my vote.

[Bledlow]

That's all very sensible.

+1

[Cudzoziemiec]

David M's last paragraph x eight on its side.

[Cudzoziemiec]

 - Getting hold of a bike (taking VAT off, bikes for the less well off etc)
 Bike scheme is effing fantastic for those of us in work. Recycling schemes are all over the place (some suffered as a result of recent cutbacks) and many rubbish tips operate informal recycling. Also, the popularity of bikes and the increased volume and competition mean that you get fantastic bang for bucks these days, even down at the BSO level.

OT: I was in a friendly and trusted LBS yesterday and my trusted LBS friend told me that the used bikes they sell are in effect a loss leader. At best they break even on them, but they do bring people in for bits and bobs and the workshop. They've noticed this especially since the boom in trendiness of old bikes. And there are old bikes cheaper than that around.

- Persuading employers to encourage cycling, that's happening. Slowly, but it is happening. The concept settling in people's heads that cycling is a normal activity to be encouraged has a lot to do with that. I dare say the Olympics and the brit success in TdF have something to do with that.

Not OT: Smurphboy, occasionally OTP, has said that back when Bristol had 'Cycling City' status, the best thing that happened for him was a series of visits by cycling promoters to his workplace - the uptake was significant, the facilities the employer was persuaded to install (subsidised I think) were useful, and so was everyone else's realisation that cycling doesn't make you a nutter or an oddball.

[clarion]

Oh cripes!  I seem to be agreeing with, ah, ah, ah, pom pom pom whiffwhaff Boris.

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/not-all-cyclists-want-to-use-segregated-gullies-says-boris/015578

[citoyen]

You should take that as a useful warning, Clarion. Boris does not live in the real world.

[clarion]

*suitably chastened & thinking on*

[citoyen]

[AndyMorris]

CAD for cycle facilities!

streetmix.net

[Pedaldog.]

Oh cripes!  I seem to be agreeing with, ah, ah, ah, pom pom pom whiffwhaff Boris.

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/not-all-cyclists-want-to-use-segregated-gullies-says-boris/015578

Reading the page linked to it actually says "not-all-cyclists-use-segregated-gullies-says-boris" rather than "Want to use", He could be saying that as a complaint rather than a positive thing.

[spindrift]

To be fair to the stupid shitty bum clown he does go on to say:

"I'm not convinced that [segregation] would be the knock-out solution that some people suggest that it would be."

Looks like Boris has had a haircut too, he looks marginally less like a chrysanthemum.