Are LCC in LaLa Land?

[jsabine]

We're on a segregated blue path all the time, with a dirty great kerb doing the segregation. Good luck in getting to lane two unless you're good at bunny-hopping (or unless you've had the prescience to be out there all the time).

Mathew above suggests we rejoin the carriageway after we've undertaken the bus - is this not the case then?

On re-reading Matthew's post, dunno ... He's taken part in the trials, I haven't: I was commenting from a position that combined ignorance with a vague memory of a (probably TFL) diagram showing a birdseye view with a segregated line before and after.

It does strike me that the idea of rejoining the carriageway immediately after the bus is most charitably described as fucking stupid.

So do you know whether we have been on that blue path or the carriageway BEFORE this picture?

I'd assumed blue path.

As I say, leaven my posts with substantial doses of both assumption and ignorance.

[jane]

You will have been on a segregated cycle track and will return to one... no conflict with motorised traffic at all. I put that diagram there merely to illustrate that the cycle lane does not have to conflict with the bus at any point in response to Clarion's post which said it would.... if this is the final design used.   If Tfl are planning something different, well that's the kind of thing we have to look out for.  I know as well as anyone that last minute tweaks by engineers/contractors/planners can render a half reasonable solution for some cyclists useless and worse once in place.  The option of widening the bus lane is another solution, yes, but that does act a bit like a pinch point, which are generally considered more dangerous.  I agree with a lot of you... I don't like it personally,  and yes, cyclists would have to look out for pedestrians.  A lot.   But I know at least twenty new cyclists who would never dream of riding though Bow and Stratford that would do it if this kind of infrastructure were there.   I would actually like to see cycling as a mass transport option in London.  I make no apologies for that.  Because I love this city and I think a drastic reduction in motor traffic is one of the strategies we need to prevent it from becoming an unpleasant, polluted space where children, weaker, poorer and more vulnerable people feel they have no place.   Increasing cycling is a great way of doing that, and a great way of dealing with lots of other problems in this city. My preferred options of achieving this, I can assure you, are far more radical than this, but, as I get older, I realise most people would think I was a complete nutter if I tried to campaign for any of those. 
If you want to carry on riding down those busy roads, no one should be allowed to stop you, anyway.  I just don't think it's fair to expect everyone else to do it, too.  And if you are arguing that, once you have a critical mass of cyclists on these busy roads, then they become safer by virtue of the fact motorists have to learn to live with large numbers of cyclists, well, that was an argument I once believed in too.  However, over the years I have begun to realise that requires large numbers of people who would rather not cycle on those roads in their current condition, to do so.  A high enough proportion of them might bite the bullet (for that's how they see it) and create that critical mass, although I am less confident of that now. But is it fair of people like us to expect that of them? 

[Ham]

It's not just critical mass on the roads, it is more people cycling. More brothers, sisters, children, parents, cousins, friends, so cycling becomes just another thing people do - like walking and driving. So you don't have to be a cyclist to hop on a bike. So more people have experience riding on two wheels and understand the vulnerability.

And the only way to get to that is to get more people cycling. It is entirely right and proper that should be a single, clear objective. To achieve that facilities like the cycle "superhighways", new "go Dutch" facilities have to be built. They work for that purpose, we can all see that. Nothing is perfect, and there is a clear conflict with "real cycling" (that is, fast transport) in many of these. As I said upthread, that's a price worth paying in my view.

[matthew]

We're on a segregated blue path all the time, with a dirty great kerb doing the segregation. Good luck in getting to lane two unless you're good at bunny-hopping (or unless you've had the prescience to be out there all the time).

Mathew above suggests we rejoin the carriageway after we've undertaken the bus - is this not the case then?

On re-reading Matthew's post, dunno ... He's taken part in the trials, I haven't: I was commenting from a position that combined ignorance with a vague memory of a (probably TFL) diagram showing a birdseye view with a segregated line before and after.

It does strike me that the idea of rejoining the carriageway immediately after the bus is most charitably described as fucking stupid.

So do you know whether we have been on that blue path or the carriageway BEFORE this picture?

I'd assumed blue path.

As I say, leaven my posts with substantial doses of both assumption and ignorance.

Jane's post and I expect LCC's intention is that these designs are to be used to allow a bus stop to be accessed, by pedestrians, across a segregated cycle lane and in this case I can see it working but only at lower speeds and whilst covering the brakes. During the trial the pedestrians were impecibly behaved which I don't think was realistic and their presence was enough to lower the speeds to ~8mph and comfortable, as I said on a run without pedestrians I also went through at ~20mph which was rather less comfortable.

One of the post trial evaluation questions asked was how easy was it to rejoin the carriage way, I refused to answer and explained that the trial had not tested this as the bus was static and there were no other vehicles. It is on the basis of the questions regarding exiting the facility that I anticipate that it will be implimented to non segregated lanes where it will be a real hazard, how that compares with teh hazard that is a bus trying to pull left and stop through a solid stream of cyclists and then trying to pull out through a stream of cyclists I am not qualified to judge.

[citoyen]

My preferred options of achieving this, I can assure you, are far more radical than this, but, as I get older, I realise most people would think I was a complete nutter if I tried to campaign for any of those.

Heh. I'm with you there.

The way I see it, the current situation is unsustainable and the reason many attempts at improvement fail is that they're lily-livered half-measures. I'm all for imposing truly radical changes on an unwilling population, but realistic enough not to expect that in my lifetime.

[jane]

If cyclists were expected to rejoin the main carriageway after this, as far as I am concerned, it renders the facility worse than useless.  I am due to ride the route of the proposed CSH4 this afternoon... a kind of on road planning meeting... with people far more knowledgeable than I (from LCC and City Hall) about the finer details of this stuff.  I will make a point of clarifying this with them, if I can. 

[citoyen]

I don't think was realistic ... I also went through at ~20mph which was rather less comfortable.

Do you think it's realistic to expect to be able to travel at 20mph through a shared space?

Because let's not forget that we're talking about a public highway, and the needs of public transport should really be the priority.

The problem with that design, as I see it on paper, is that it's the buses and cyclists that have to compromise to accommodate each other's needs. The compromise should be imposed on the rest of the traffic, with cyclists and buses given priority.

We're never going to solve our transport problems while private motor traffic is at the top of the pecking order.

[matthew]

Jane

It may be that they intend the cyclists to emerge into an unsegregated cycle lane like so:
                   ___________________
                 /     _______________    \
________/    /                               \    \__________________
_  _  _  _  _  /_________________\_  _  _  _  _  _  _  _ 
                      | BUS STOP |

In which case provided the edge of the bus stop island and the outside of the cycle lane are aligned there is a good chance that it will work safely. If however the edge of the bus stop island and the kerb align like so:

                   ___________________
                 /     _______________    \
________/    /_______________\    \__________________
_  _  _  _  _    |  BUS          |            _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _ 
                      | STOP         |

Then this is a whole different case and positively dangerous. Good luck with your meeting.

[clarion]

Matthew, even in the first case, it will not be safe.  The sheer number of conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists (and cyclists and other cyclists as they vary speed to negotiate tight bends and random walking) make incidents probable.

[matthew]

I don't think was realistic ... I also went through at ~20mph which was rather less comfortable.

Do you think it's realistic to expect to be able to travel at 20mph through a shared space?

Because let's not forget that we're talking about a public highway, and the needs of public transport should really be the priority.

The problem with that design, as I see it on paper, is that it's the buses and cyclists that have to compromise to accommodate each other's needs. The compromise should be imposed on the rest of the traffic, with cyclists and buses given priority.

We're never going to solve our transport problems while private motor traffic is at the top of the pecking order.

I don't deny that 20mph was excessive, the whole point of that observation was that when it was truely a shared space and pedestrians were present a relaxed pace was effectively passively enforced. In a situation where I was going down hill and knew there would be no pedestrians I attempted to maintain my normal cruising speed for the gradient, as we were encouraged to do, it was then much less comfortable.

Trying to impose the compromise onto the other traffic is very difficult as the issue is that cyclists are typically to the left of the buses and therefore between the bus and the kerb when it approaches a bus stop. Either the buses and cyclists have to cross paths or the cyclists have to divert left of the bus stop.

[jsabine]

Jane

It may be that they intend the cyclists to emerge into an unsegregated cycle lane like so:
[snip]

Hmmm. I think if anything, that's even worse, as it makes the inevitable conflicts at the entrance to the segregated bit more unpredictable.
 
(Your first option that is - the second is just silly. (Probably more likely though, because of that.))

The only way I can see myself going on the door side of a bus that's boarding or disembarking is if it's as part of a fully segregated lane that gives me little or no choice at the rear of the bus. If I was in an unsegregated lane at that point, I'd be pulling out and passing the bus on the offside as god intended.

[Cudzoziemiec]

My preferred options of achieving this, I can assure you, are far more radical than this, but, as I get older, I realise most people would think I was a complete nutter if I tried to campaign for any of those.

Heh. I'm with you there.

The way I see it, the current situation is unsustainable and the reason many attempts at improvement fail is that they're lily-livered half-measures. I'm all for imposing truly radical changes on an unwilling population, but realistic enough not to expect that in my lifetime.

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?

[matthew]

Matthew, even in the first case, it will not be safe.  The sheer number of conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists (and cyclists and other cyclists as they vary speed to negotiate tight bends and random walking) make incidents probable.

I agree, I was using safe in refering to the interaction between the bikes and the bus.

That was another flaw in the trial I was part of: cyclists were told single file and no overtaking. I say again my first assessment of the facility is that they have replaced the interaction of one bus and many cyclists with the interactions between many cyclists and many pedestrians. During the trial the interactions with the pedestrians worked, but then everyone was on their best behaviour: no one was running for their bus, no one was on a phone, most walked up to the kerb and stopped as we all tried to work out the unfamilliar configuration.

Jane

It may be that they intend the cyclists to emerge into an unsegregated cycle lane like so:
[snip]

The only way I can see myself going on the door side of a bus that's boarding or disembarking is if it's as part of a fully segregated lane that gives me little or no choice at the rear of the bus. If I was in an unsegregated lane at that point, I'd be pulling out and passing the bus on the offside as god intended.

As was my response each time I was asked during the trial. 

[vorsprung]

The properly designed lanes are segregated, so they just pass the bus stop and come up alongside the bus lane again, still segregated. 

So no conflict with the bus at any point.

If I encountered such a horrendous bit of civil engineering, I'd be out in lane two avoiding it altogether like anyone else with the slightest bit of sense.

I'd also be out in lane two.

In the picture as shown it would be fairly slow in lane 2 as the traffic would be gummed up by the stopped bus

If this is seriously an example of what LCC are proposing, I must say it looks inconvenient for all and somewhat dangerous.  Don't remember seeing anything like that in Utrecht or Rotterdam, doesn't seem "Dutch" to me

[Cudzoziemiec]

In India, though, it's pretty much the norm to cycle between the bus and the kerb (if there is one), slaloming round the passengers. Or just stopping between bus and road edge. And Indian cyclists are Dutch but with zero infrastructure. I don't think this would become the norm in Britain, at least I hope not, but maybe it was part of the problem 50 years ago in Holland?

Also, "covering your brakes" - again, looking at videos, the Dutch seem to prefer to steer round each other and pedestrians rather than brake. And so do Indians. This could be partly down to the type of bike used (Indian bikes are similar to Dutch in many ways but with hand brake levers) but probably the low speeds and small speed differentials are a significant factor.

[citoyen]

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. )

[zigzag]

i've cycled to/from straford today, saw the work in progress. the cycle lanes will not be completely segregated, there are gaps to rejoin the traffic every ten metres or so. but the bus stops design is a bit daft to put it mildly. i can see a potential conflict between pedestrians/bus passengers and cyclists unless they will come up with something clever(er), i.e. fence/railings up to and after the raised section of tarmac.

[Regulator]

And why should people getting off the bus be fenced in?

[clarion]

I can see an awful lot of reasons why they shouldn't be.  It's just a recipe for conflict any way you cut it.

[Regulator]

I can see an awful lot of reasons why they shouldn't be.  It's just a recipe for conflict any way you cut it.

Yep!

[teethgrinder]

If I couldn't go on the outside of the bus I'd rather wait behind it than use that daft cycle lane. The picture makes it look like cyclists will be hemmed in by a kerb, so not much room for dodging pedestrians and even if you do get past the bus you're at risk from the bus pulling out when you merge back onto the road or anything overtaking the stopped bus and cutting in hard which will be obscured from view by a big, red bus.
The speed I'd travel at to be able to not crash into pedestrians, I might as well wait behind the bus untill it moves anyway. Much more room for pedestrian dodging in the bus lane and much less likely to need to do so.

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. )

When the cycle "superhighways" were announced they were going to be the equivolent of motorways for cyclists. I said at the time that I'll believe it when I see it and that I was expecting the usual old rubbish. Guess I was right.
There are lots of roads in London. I'm sure they could make a few of them for cyclists and emergency services (and pedestrians) only.

I'm not against segregation but I am against being fobbed off with crap.

[Pete Owens]

I'd really like to hear how people who are completely opposed to any segregation

I don't think you will find anybody completely opposed to any segregation. Where it is appropriate alongside high speed interurban roads with few junctions - or where there is pre-existing grade-separated disused infrastructure built at great expense by victorian railway and canal engineers - or to provide access through parks and the the like where there are no roads - you will find cycle paths are entirely uncontroversial.

The trouble is that cycle paths greatly increase the danger at the places where most crashes happen - at junctions - so are unsuitable for most urban streets. This is why experienced cyclists who understand the risks and value their own safety tend to avoid them and oppose their proliferation.

would deal with somewhere like the Bow roundabout and Stratford.

As I understand it, the segregation at Bow was a major contributory factor in those crashes - by encouraging the ridiculously dangerous practice of undertaking left turning vehicles thus leading them to conflicting paths through the junction. This is the fundamental flaw of all separate cycle infrastructure. Now I realise that you will not consider the blue cycle lanes as segregated enough - but whether it is blue paint - or white stripes - or armadillos and planters - or a kerb - or a chest high arrmco barrier - they will all lead you to the junction at a place where you will be crossing the path of turning motor vehicles - and the greater the degree of segregation the less likely the drivers of those vehicles are to notice an approaching cyclist.

(Just heard Peter Hendy on ITV actually blame one of the cyclists killed at Bow for their own death....gobsmacked.)

Well the actions of the cyclist concerned were certainly foolhardy - but I blame the authorities for installing infrastructure that led them to ride there.

[Ham]

Sorry, I disagree fundamentally with your conclusions.

There were two incidents and two deaths. In the first, an experienced cyclist was involved, at least a seasoned habitual cycle commuter taking the direct route to his place of work. Are you really saying the blue paint is to blame? I wouldn't look to blame him, but it seems incontrovertible that it was his riding style that brought him into conflict, not the blue paint.

The second was a woman, a visitor to London I believe? Now, the blue paint might well have brought her onto the road without sufficient skill, but I can tell you one thing for sure: She didn't ride up the blue paint to that point or get killed on the blue paint. BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE.



I would very much like to make certain that all people who ride a bike have the skills required to keep themselves and others safe. I'd LOVE that to happen with all people who drive, but the reality is just not like that. Cyclists, drivers, they are all as bad as one another because they are the same people.

The two deaths were infinitely sad, but you really have to start from a place where everyone is responsible for themselves.

[AndyMorris]

The two deaths were infinitely sad, but you really have to start from a place where everyone is responsible for themselves.

Isn't that exactly what segregated cycle facilities really don't do. They say to cyclists "If you stick to the path you'll be OK whatever you do, but if you don't you will certainly die."

Thats certainly how my non cycling friend see it and its not how it was seen 35 years ago when I started cycling, whats happened in the meantime?

[Ham]

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.