Are LCC in LaLa Land?

[Kim]

I think the Dutch, and by extension, LCC have the right idea.  What they do in the Netherlands actually works.

That UK authorities have so far been incompetent bordering on malicious in their implementation of segregated facilities doesn't change this.  The LCC are ambitiously campaigning for high quality well maintained facilities that are (and this is the key point) appropriate for us 'serious' cyclists as much as wobbly newbies on BSOs - I can't fault that.  By definition it means that "shared use paths", giving way at every side-road and Silly Sutrans Gates™ are inappropriate.

The problem as I see it is that the cycling utopia of the Netherlands is a symptom, not an aim.  It grew out of pressure to cut the number of deaths caused by motor traffic, and alternative transport grew to fill the void.  We simply don't have that culture in the UK, and I don't see how road space can be allocated away from private motor traffic without it.  With respect to LCC and their ilk (I'm a member of the Brum equivalent) cyclists are such an outgroup that it will never be achieved in their name.  I reckon campaigning for the benefit of pedestrians (with a healthy dose of "Think of the children!") is likely to be more effective - good cycle facilities should come as a means of reducing conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.

I think New York is perhaps a more realistic model - aiming to make transport (all forms of transport) and public spaces better, by reallocating space cheaply and quickly in favour of pedestrians, buses and indeed cyclists.

[Cudzoziemiec]

^^Don't know what they're doing in NY but quite likely. Anyway, allocating public space not just from one type of transport to another but to, well, public space! Parks, trees, pavements where things happen - cafes, street theatre and art, and so on - and even to private space (gardens, houses, and cafes again).

[Kim]

http://www.ted.com/talks/janette_sadik_khan_new_york_s_streets_not_so_mean_any_more.html

I particularly like the "do it quickly and cheaply, see if it works, upgrade or revert later" approach.  Shades of the Olympic Games Lanes.

[Regulator]

Lots of people also talk abut the 'Dutch system' without realising that:

• the majority of cycling provision in the Netherlands is on road - including on the cities - not on segregated paths
• it is not mandatory to use off road cycle paths in the Netherlands except in very particular circumstances
• the Dutch have combined targeted cycling facilities with reducing or removing car movements in whole areas
• the majority of Dutch drivers are also cyclists
• the Dutch have a presumption of liability

The latter three things have probably done more to address KSIs and the attitude of drivers than the first two.

[Kim]

The latter three things have probably done more to address KSIs and the attitude of drivers than the first two.

Exactly.  The starting point has to be reducing car movements.  Otherwise you're just trying to build Stevenage.

[TimC]

I think the Dutch, and by extension, LCC have the right idea.  What they do in the Netherlands actually works.

I think this is key. The debate about cycling provision should not be about the existing minority who want to do 25mph in traffic. They (I) will continue to be able to do that, no doubt continuing to fend off the 'get in the cycle lane' comments. As now. Big deal.

However, also as Kim says, cycling in London appears (as someone who is more frequently a driver or pedestrian than a cyclist in London) to have become anarchic, aggressive, careless of others, and populated by the kind of person we previously associated with BMWs. It's patently not a sustainable model in istelf, and does nothing to persuade the less confident to get on a bike - and nor does it persuade anyone else that cycling is inherently a Good Thing.

The Kim has it right - look to protect the most vulnerable first. Provide sensible, usable, reliable and SAFE separate cycling facilities where necessary, and reduce the volume or speed (or both) of motor traffic where space is to be shared. Make the whole lot more human, pleasant and approachable. Culturally outlaw aggressive twats on the roads, whether they're in a lorry, car or on a bike. You want to ride fast? Do it on a closed track or do it out of town - or go play with the traffic!

[jane]

The LCC is a religious organisation - so desperately obsessed with increasing the numbers of cyclists that they don't really care enough about the POTENTIAL QUALITY of cycling, because all that really matters to them is that you will go to heaven if you ride a bike.

We already have an excellent physical infrastructure for cycling: roads.  This will not be bettered in terms of widths (and probably levelness of surface as well).  Despite what people answer in surveys, people overcome their fears when given the right help from friends/relatives/professionals.  There would be a lot more cyclists if every person campaigning for segregation personally helped someone they know to ride on the roads.  I did it with my old mum.  It is patronising for experienced road cyclists to campaign for segregation on behalf of others, as if newcomers have inferior potential ability.

In any case, cycling in central London has already increased a great deal despite being mostly unsegregated, and this is already spreading to outer London.  Cycling encourages cycling.

The LCC is no better than drivers who shout "get off the road".  They are defeatists.  They need to remember that roads were not built for cars.  If you want to Go Dutch, please move to the Netherlands.  Don't fuck up our London.  The more separate cycle ways there are alongside roads, the worse road cycling will get, and the more likely it is that we will be told to get off them.

Let's take your points, Biggsy.
1. "The LCC is a religious organisation"...that's just a troll type statement, so I'll ignore.
2. "So desperately obsessed with increasing numbers of cyclists that they don't care about the quality of cycling"...
Well, I wouldn't use the term desperately obsessed, again a bit troll like, but I would absolutely love my partner, my friends and relatives who will still only come out with me, parents and children at the schools I have taught  to ride, independently and enjoy it.  So, no, I don't accept that my desire for them to cycle is placed below the need for quality infrastructure that makes that cycling rewarding.
3.  "All that matters is that you will go to heaven etc..". Again troll style so ignore.
4. "We have an excellent infrastructure for cycling ... Roads.......  "  Agreed, but the way we use and design those roads, especially since the 60's has been dominated by the drive to improve motorised traffic flow almost exclusively.  That needs to change.  And I fail to see how taking road space away from cars, and giving it to cyclists and pedestrians reduces the quality of anyone's cycling experience. 
4.  "Despite what people answer in surveys, people overcome their fears when given the right help from friends/relatives/professionals.  There would be a lot more cyclists if every person campaigning for segregation personally helped someone they know to ride on the roads."
Do you really think we don't do that?  Look at Lewisham Cyclists website, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Bromley, all borough groups of LCC.  We do loads of rides, throughout the year, for a huge range of people.  It works for some, but after doing this for many years, I have to admit, it's not enough.
5. "It is patronising for experienced road cyclists to campaign for segregation on behalf of others, as if newcomers have inferior potential ability."  That used to be what I thought.  But through becoming a ride leader with an LCC borough group, several years ago,  I have discovered I was wrong.  Because I have been told by a good proportion of people who came on my rides that it was actually patronising of me to expect them to want to cycle in the way I did... That wasn't what they wanted, for themselves or their children, thank you very much. 
6. "In any case, cycling in central London has already increased a great deal despite being mostly unsegregated, and this is already spreading to outer London". This is simply not true. Central London maybe but the modal share for cycling in Lewisham has actually fallen over the last year.... The council admitted themselves in their last LIP document ( kind of travel plan) that this was the case.  And if you remember that map of cycling journeys that was floating round the social media recently, the numbers of people cycling in Outer London are still tiny.  And not growing. One of the reasons TfL created the opportunity for these boroughs to bid for extra money to create "Mini Hollands"
7. "The LCC is no better than drivers who shout "get off the road".  They are defeatists.  They need to remember that roads were not built for cars.  If you want to Go Dutch, please move to the Netherlands.  Don't fuck up our London.  The more separate cycle ways there are alongside roads, the worse road cycling will get, and the more likely it is that we will be told to get off them."
A lot of this is just rude and patronising.  I don't consider myself defeatist.  I know the roads weren't built for cars. That's why we want to take some of it back.  It's just as much my London as yours.  And if we still want to ride alongside cars, we will be able to do so.  I refer you to my earlier posts.

[Redlight]

  to Jane

[TimC]

*A lot of sense*

Yay Jane! 

[Manotea]

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/space-for-cycling-confirmed-as-separation-from-motor-traffic/

Rachel’s motion was subjected to more opposition, initially some ‘procedural mischief’ from Oliver Schick, who pointed out that her motion contained reference to a document that was not included in the AGM papers (an objection that carried little weight in light of the fact that the AGM had, moments earlier, voted to approve the accounts, which were not included in the AGM papers)

Paging Fidgetbuzz, Paging Fidgetbuzz!

[matthew]

If a road has a speed limit higher than 20mph, or if it carries more than 2000 cars (or rather fewer lorries, buses or coaches) per day, then physical separation from motor traffic is required.

Not only is this bollocks, it's never going to happen.

Possibly but I believe it is the correct aspiration to have and campaign for.

Why?

Jane has said a lot of this from a possition of far greater knowledge, but as I have thought this through and typed it up:

I can understand why they have that aspiration. I guess it comes down to LCC looking at what works elsewhere for sustaining a culture of cycling for a large percentage of journeys (in this case the for the Dutch) and seeking to replicate it. I said earlier that the best improvement for me personally would be a pothole free road surface that removed one risk from my journeys and further simplified my interaction with traffic as it would remove the need for avoiding action.

Simply put they have sought to understand what is percieved as the biggest barriers to increasing the number of cyclists, found this to be fear, and sought to address this. I agree with Biggsy that overcoming fear can be by a number of methods, training, coaching, friendly assistance or by design of facilities. However facilities have the potential for a one time fix where training assistance etc. require an ongoing effort to continually aid the next generation of cyclists or new residents in an area.

The question is as much about who we see the cycling facilities being for, those that are already riding on the road and as a refuge in the daily fight for space or those for whom they will become a gateway to cycling? I don't believe that the existing cycling population can demand the provision of cycling facilities by the highways authorities that are so taylored to our current needs as to ignore the need to also facilitate the increase in cycling, though I accept in making our lives easier they may lower the barrier sufficiently for others to decide that cycling is now acceptable.

As I said earlier for those of us who have already overcome that fear then the resulting facilities may require a modification in the way we cycle or not be appropriate to the manner in which we have become accustom to riding. The dutch model that LCC have looked to for inspiration is very much of local utility riding at a genteel pace, I don't know what the Dutch road clubs do. I also agree that the provision of poor facilities that do not remove the fear, are not practical for the existing cyclists and result in more intimidation to get off the roads will be highly counter productive and as such the quality of the implimentation and level of compromise is the key for whether the LCC can successfully achieve their goals.

The biggest benefit I percieve of the implimentation of the LCC concept is consistency of provision. I live outside of London, my local borough has a consistently poor provision for cycling, the road surfaces are appaulling, the vehicles are often quick, the cycling provision totals some way marked routes using blue signs. When I travel into London I am generally cycling along corridors of roads that I know A315, A30, A4 or Waterloo station to wherever. Following cycle routes indicated by blue signs is unwise as they often deposit me in an unknown area or potentially take me into areas of London I shouldn't go into alone without full knowledge of the back roads. Should the main arterial routes have parallel cycle paths and the local roads at the destination end become 20mph / reduced traffic then this is easier riding.

Our current experience of segregated paths in the UK is poor, they are not continuous, they disappear at odd places and don't have priority at side roads. Properly implementation should see a greater acceptance.

How LCC sees this being implimented in Central London I am not sure but in the more residentual areas of the Metropolitan expansions of North West London, and areas of South London of largely interwar and post war housing estates the implimentation appears more dirrect.

[vorsprung]

Let's take your points, Biggsy.

2. "So desperately obsessed with increasing numbers of cyclists that they don't care about the quality of cycling"...

dunno about LCC but this is what Sustrans think.  It's a real opinion held by pro separation pressure groups

4. "We have an excellent infrastructure for cycling ... Roads.......  "  Agreed, but the way we use and design those roads, especially since the 60's has been dominated by the drive to improve motorised traffic flow almost exclusively.  That needs to change.  And I fail to see how taking road space away from cars, and giving it to cyclists and pedestrians reduces the quality of anyone's cycling experience.

I think everyone agrees that road use could change for the better

4.  "Despite what people answer in surveys, people overcome their fears when given the right help from friends/relatives/professionals.  There would be a lot more cyclists if every person campaigning for segregation personally helped someone they know to ride on the roads."
Do you really think we don't do that?  Look at Lewisham Cyclists website, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Bromley, all borough groups of LCC.  We do loads of rides, throughout the year, for a huge range of people.  It works for some, but after doing this for many years, I have to admit, it's not enough.

Have to agree with Jane!  Only works to some extent

5. "It is patronising for experienced road cyclists to campaign for segregation on behalf of others, as if newcomers have inferior potential ability."  That used to be what I thought.  But through becoming a ride leader with an LCC borough group, several years ago,  I have discovered I was wrong.  Because I have been told by a good proportion of people who came on my rides that it was actually patronising of me to expect them to want to cycle in the way I did... That wasn't what they wanted, for themselves or their children, thank you very much.

On this one I disagree with you both!  newcomers should come to a safer road..maybe they can't cope with the existing road.  Segregation is never going to be enough for the real scared people.  You can't have a completely separate track to everywhere

6. "In any case, cycling in central London has already increased a great deal despite being mostly unsegregated, and this is already spreading to outer London". This is simply not true. Central London maybe but the modal share for cycling in Lewisham has actually fallen over the last year.... The council admitted themselves in their last LIP document ( kind of travel plan) that this was the case.  And if you remember that map of cycling journeys that was floating round the social media recently, the numbers of people cycling in Outer London are still tiny.  And not growing. One of the reasons TfL created the opportunity for these boroughs to bid for extra money to create "Mini Hollands"

Dunno, cycle use is up through the roof now compared to 20 years ago in Hackney.  Never go south of the river

7. "The LCC is no better than drivers who shout "get off the road".  They are defeatists.  They need to remember that roads were not built for cars.  If you want to Go Dutch, please move to the Netherlands.  Don't fuck up our London.  The more separate cycle ways there are alongside roads, the worse road cycling will get, and the more likely it is that we will be told to get off them."
A lot of this is just rude and patronising.  I don't consider myself defeatist.  I know the roads weren't built for cars. That's why we want to take some of it back.  It's just as much my London as yours.  And if we still want to ride alongside cars, we will be able to do so.  I refer you to my earlier posts.

Have to agree with Biggsy, although I wouldn't put it so strongly myself

[jane]

Vorsprung, your response to point 5 suggests that LCC is arguing for complete segregation.  Absolutely nowhere near the truth.
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, and the vast majority of Londoners live elsewhere.
And what bit of point 7 do you agree with?   Because I struggled to see his point there. It was mostly a list of insults.  People will still be able to cycle wherever they choose.  There aren't many motorways in London.

[Manotea]

I feel about cycle lanes much the same way others do about helmets, there are reasonable grounds for believing that using them encourages enforcement.

The other day I was riding over a near empty Chiswick Bridge (an outer London bridge over the Thames) in full Willesden regalia when I was flagged down by a passing Community Police Support person who advised me to use the shared use paths "for my safety" (which in fact, I often do, but mainly to avoid red traffic lights at the main junction onto the bridge, but thats a different story).

 I thanked him for his concern and suggested that whilst it may be appropriate to advise young and inexperienced riders to use the path he might want to consider whether it was appropriate to (pause to suck in stomach, stiffen sinews and declaim with the full majesty that my Willesden jersey endows) flag down club cyclists such as myself who ride thousands and thousands of miles a years to offer this advice, and if he did whether his advice was likely to be appreciated. He acknowledged the answer to both questions was probably "no". I just thank god I was wearing a helment...

[Kim]

Let's take your points, Biggsy.

2. "So desperately obsessed with increasing numbers of cyclists that they don't care about the quality of cycling"...
dunno about LCC but this is what Sustrans think.  It's a real opinion held by pro separation pressure groups

Just as an aside, this quoting style is extremely hard for me to read.  Red text looks black unless I know where there's a colour change to look for, and it's easily missed.

It's not like it's any harder to put [/quote] ... [quote] tags around some text than it is to put [color=red] ... [/color] around them.

[Kim]

I thanked him for his concern and suggested that whilst it may be appropriate to advise young and inexperienced riders to use the path he might want to consider whether it was appropriate to (pause to suck in stomach, stiffen sinews and declaim with the full majesty that my Willesden jersey endows) flag down club cyclists such as myself who ride thousands and thousands of miles a years to offer this advice, and if he did whether his advice was likely to be appreciated. He acknowledged the answer to both questions was probably "no". I just thank god I was wearing a helment...

You missed the more important point; that it's not appropriate for pedestrians, children, dogs, etc to have to share a path with (presumably relatively fast) club cyclists.

[Manotea]

I thanked him for his concern and suggested that whilst it may be appropriate to advise young and inexperienced riders to use the path he might want to consider whether it was appropriate to (pause to suck in stomach, stiffen sinews and declaim with the full majesty that my Willesden jersey endows) flag down club cyclists such as myself who ride thousands and thousands of miles a years to offer this advice, and if he did whether his advice was likely to be appreciated. He acknowledged the answer to both questions was probably "no". I just thank god I was wearing a helment...

You missed the more important point; that it's not appropriate for pedestrians, children, dogs, etc to have to share a path with (presumably relatively fast) club cyclists.

There's quite a lot of presumption in my case at the moment...

[jane]

There are always going to be Jobsworths one meets in life who enjoy giving you the benefit of their opinion.  Doesn't make them right, even if they're wearing a uniform of some kind.  I don't see this as an argument against well planned and careful use of limited segregation.  More an argument for the proper education and training of those whose job might involve interaction with road  users.

[Manotea]

There are always going to be Jobsworths one meets in life who enjoy giving you the benefit of their opinion.  Doesn't make them right, even if they're wearing a uniform of some kind.  I don't see this as an argument against well planned and careful use of limited segregation.  More an argument for the proper education and training of those whose job might involve interaction with road  users.

The jobsworths are a symptom, not the problem. It's the idiots in cars shouting "get on the cyclepath" and honking as they pass that are the problem. Who's educating them?

[jane]

A symptom of what?  However, I  must have a thicker skin than you, I just ignore them.  It doesn't happen often enough to overly trouble me. But in answer to your question, I would be in favour of some kind of advertising campaign to disabuse those poor misguided souls of their numerous misapprehensions about other road users. And their own lack of appreciation of their own responsibilities as motorists.  It's not just "you should be on the cycle path" I sometimes hear, but, "you should pay road tax" , " you shouldn't be carrying your child on the back of your bike" "you shouldn't be riding in the middle/right hand lane of the road".  I could go on.

[vorsprung]

And what bit of point 7 do you agree with?   Because I struggled to see his point there. It was mostly a list of insults.  People will still be able to cycle wherever they choose.  There aren't many motorways in London.

It's not made clear that "people will still be able to cycle wherever they choose".  It sounds more like all roads over a certain size will become "motorways" and cycles will be more excluded: either by some kind of legal sanction or de facto by the increasingly dangerous "car only" roads.

Focussing on "able to cycle wherever they choose" rather than "build a separate road" seems a better way to look at it.  Maybe that's what the LCC thinks it is saying, but the message is not clear

[Cudzoziemiec]

6. "In any case, cycling in central London has already increased a great deal despite being mostly unsegregated, and this is already spreading to outer London". This is simply not true. Central London maybe but the modal share for cycling in Lewisham has actually fallen over the last year.... The council admitted themselves in their last LIP document ( kind of travel plan) that this was the case.  And if you remember that map of cycling journeys that was floating round the social media recently, the numbers of people cycling in Outer London are still tiny.  And not growing. One of the reasons TfL created the opportunity for these boroughs to bid for extra money to create "Mini Hollands"

The trouble with "Mini Hollands" is that they will be just mini - as soon as you go outside of them, you'll be back amongst the white cabs and black vans. No problem for us hardy YACFers, but then we're all odd - we're cyclists. That's why I think the more promising ideas were not segregated paths but lower speed limits and measures to reduce traffic volumes - these would benefit everyone in many ways.

But the main point, I think, is that none of this is for us. Transport is, or should be, boring. People should choose bikes because it's a sensible means of getting where they're going. The future of transportational cycling, if there is to be one, is with people who don't care about bikes - but it has to be made by people who do.

[TimC]

But the main point, I think, is that none of this is for us. Transport is, or should be, boring. People should choose bikes because it's a sensible means of getting where they're going. The future of transportational cycling, if there is to be one, is with people who don't care about bikes - but it has to be made by people who do.

This is the crux of the matter. It is most definitely not about 'cyclists' - those who are enthusiasts - it's about getting people on bikes; POBs on BSOs. Making it easy and nonthreatening and safe. Allowing mum or dad to take the sprogs for a ride in an urban environment, getting Bridget Jones and Horace Wimp to cycle commute. All I hear from the anti-LCC group is, 'but what about me and what I do now?' No-one will stop you doing what you're doing now, so long as it's legal and considerate of others. And if they try, you'll do what you do now - ignore them or educate them.

[clarion]

Segregated lanes are not needed for unbroken sections of road, but can easily be installed.  But every segregated lane comes to a junction, where cyclists - experienced or novice - are invariably dumped into a bad place in the traffic, and just expected to cope.

LCC have completely lost the plot in promoting the utterly stupid lane diversions around bus stops which will put us in conflict with pedestrians before putting us into conflict with the bus again as it moves off and blanks off the re-entry point, or with the following traffic.  Ridiculous and unworkable, serving only to make us more unpopular than we are.  Grrreat!

[jane]

A properly designed cycle lane diversion should not put cycles in conflict with a bus once it passes the bus stop. That's not how they work.  Yes, there is the problem of people getting off the bus and crossing the lane.  It does mean cyclists have to be aware that a pedestrian may step off into the lane.  But how is this any different from the need to be aware that a pedestrian may do this off an ordinary pavement?  And this particular piece of infrastructure is not proposed for every bus stop.  Far from it.   But there are some very difficult areas of London where I think everyone is agreed something has to be done.  I'd really like to hear how people who are completely opposed to any segregation would deal with somewhere like the Bow roundabout and Stratford.

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