Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: AndyMorris on 21 October, 2013, 10:41:45 pm
-
Is it me or what?
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/space-for-cycling-confirmed-as-separation-from-motor-traffic/
-
I really don't like this Go Dutch direction. LCC are getting barmy.
-
I get fed up with this in-fighting and "splitters" arguments, cyclists should have a single unifying outfit working together.
-
I get fed up with this in-fighting and "splitters" arguments, cyclists should have a single unifying outfit working together.
So what do we do when the self appointed cycle advocates talk bollocks?
-
Is it bollocks? I genuinely don't know. I ride regularly in London; I'm happy on the roads, I have no problem claiming my space, I have no problem preventing drivers trying to intimidate me and tolerating those who do. I find the vast majority of cycle provision inadequate, unhelpful, and sometimes borderline unsafe. I don't like the idea of 'Go Dutch' one little bit if it will lead to the imposition of similarly inappropriate 'provision.'
But, I'm reasonably fit, reasonably fast, reasonably experienced - and a bloke, if that makes any difference. I know many people who say that they are unhappy at the idea of riding in London, and I think some of these could be persuaded to try if there was a reasonable guarantee of being able to make a journey without having to deal with intimidatory motor traffic.
I do wonder if part of my unhappiness at the idea of segregated provision is macho bullshit about refusing to be banished from 'my' roads - the bits of Saturday's (leisure) ride that were on lightly trafficed lanes were much more pleasant than the bits that were on the Harlow bypass or the main road back down to Epping or dealing with the joy that is Leytonstone High Street.
-
So the issue is one of educating others.
More riders on the road, more the message is re inforced.
-
The problem with separation from traffic for cyclists in the UK is that historically this has been implemented by local authorities with input from Sustrans. In other words the the blind leading the blind.
Any discussion of separated facilities in the UK must take this into account. It's what we might call the "UK model" as opposed to the "Dutch model". So, when a UK group says in it favour of separation in the UK they must acknowledge this baggage.
-
Disclaimer: the only time I ride in London is to and from leisure rides. I do drive there occasionally. I dont commute by bike, though I do use a bike for shopping locally. No matter how 'Dutch' Btitain goes, it's unlikely to result in segregated provision where I live in my cycling lifetime.
All that said, the LCC's campaign to segregate cycle commuters from motor traffic on busy roads seems sensible to me. The alternative would seem to be a deliberately aggressive battle between cyclists and drivers to occupy the same piece of space. That may be attractive to some of our number, but will actively discourage many more. A lot of people I talk to about cycle commuting (my wife is a year-round cycle commuter) cite fear of traffic as their biggest reason for not doing it. It's not about making it philosophically acceptable for the confident by enabling one to ride in traffic with a metaphoric middle digit raised to car drivers, it's surely about making it a no-brainer for even the least confident to get on their bike? That tipping point wasn't reached in the Netherlands until segregation arrived.
Segregation isn't about relegating cyclists to the margins. It's about claiming more (and more) roadspace for safe cycling in an environment that isn't naturally safe. Sure, i can happily ride my MAMIL steed in the middle of five lanes of traffic, sneering my superiority at all and sundry, but doing so - even in company with other like-minded knights of the bike - is not going to do much to persuade the timid to follow my example. And the number of cyclist casualties in London is not reducing as motorised traffic retreats to its rightful second or lower place in the heirarchy of traffic....
I think the reactionary stance of those of you who oppose segregation is unfortunate. I don't for one minute accept that segregation in the busy parts of London will reduce any cyclist's right to be on the open road elsewhere; though those motons who think we should all be on the pavement will still be there, of course.
I know my view won't be popular here, but hey ho!
-
As it stands, many cyclists and maybe cyclists are put off or simply don't want to mix with often aggressive traffic. It's super that regular, confident, usually male cyclists aren't put off. But hey, they're road warriors, and the Elephant & Castle is just a Ben Hur moment and CS7 a place so show those new cyclists what they're not made of.
The binary argument is a bit tedious, it's either complete segregation or not, and somehow by even saying that word we're somehow giving in (whoever that we is). Plus, we all know that cycling facilities are sub-par, so obviously we shouldn't ever bother. In fact, when you see one, don't complain, don't try to get fixed. Just don't bother. It's easier, after all, to complain about failure than make a success.
Maybe a sensible mix of lanes where appropriate, networks of quiet streets, measures such as reduced permeability, and strict enforcements of driving laws would be appropriate. But, hey, that's a bit of a wuss out. I'm going to ride around Hyde Park Corner and swear at lorries for a bit.
-
No the LCC is not in Lalaland (wherever that may be). They are just trying to find the best way to get as many people cycling as possible, having discovered that preaching the assertive cycling gospel doesn't seem to be producing the critical mass we actually need to get our children, friends who want to cycle but are fearful, (sometimes)slower elders and less confident partners cycling regularly on our city streets. Speaking as someone who was at the AGM and is a member of the Policy Forum, we have been over and over these arguments again and again. Most people in the organisation now accept that we need to embrace the idea of dedicated space for the sake of these people, not ourselves. I changed my view myself. (Having a child helped that process, as it forced me to see cycling in London from someone else's point of view). I don't particularly need a segregated lane down the Old Kent Rd for myself. I have been riding down it pretty regularly for over forty years. However, I worried sick every time my daughter used that route. And it's this kind of road we are talking about, let's be clear, because we are also calling for all boroughs to adopt a default 20 mph. Which would leave only a few roads carrying the volumes of traffic at higher speeds where such infrastructure would be necessary. Not much more than the TLRN. If these segregated or semi segregated lanes are properly designed, with ample space and priority for cyclists at side roads, then I really can't see the objection. Forget about some of the sub standard examples already in existence. That's not what is being proposed.
-
I equally dislike a concept that says that there are roads cyclists shouldn't be on, but I also recognise that my cycling history means I am confident enough to claim my roadspace and prepared to fight for it if neccessary. I am aware that this is not the case for all potential cyclists and that less confident (macho, fearless, stupid, take your pick) cyclists are intimidated from our roads.
Cycle provision needs to address the needs of all cyclists, from those who can ride 20mph in the bus lanes and happily co-exist with the traffic to the mum trying to shepherd 3 kids to school who needs eyes in the back of her head just to see what the children are doing let alone the motorised traffic.
20mph zones and filtered permiability is great for this, it closes rat runs and takes through traffic off residential streets making local roads much more appropriate for school runs etc. But when you then reach the main thoroughfares the provission needs to accomodate all cyclists else we are going to get the confident cyclists wanting to maintain 15-20mph on the cycleway cursing the wobbly children and the mothers cursing the racing snakes for putting their little darlings at risk.
The thing about Go Dutch is that most journeys are undertaken in civies, at a genteel pace and over short distances so that the time difference between riding at 8-10mph and 15-20mph is not great. Due to the UK history of cycling provision the current cyclists are a hard core, often riding further and possibly faster than the dutch. The new facilities are NOT being intended to meet the desires of this current committed cyclists but to meet the needs of those who aspire to not use the car but are petrified at the thought of Londons roads and aware that there is a discontinuity of provision in the existing off road cycle network.
If there is a modal shift to cycling then we early adopters will be a minority of the cyclists and mayhave to adjust our manner of cycling to fit in with the crowd or risk being percieved as Mr Toad on a bike.
-
If there is a modal shift to cycling then we early adopters will be a minority of the cyclists and mayhave to adjust our manner of cycling to fit in with the crowd or risk being percieved as Mr Toad on a bike.
I think that might be true, and, personally, it doesn't worry me too much. Despite being one of those "early adopters". And to be honest some of those faster, fitter people seem perfectly happy to whizz along completely segregated shared paths at the moment (like the Surrey Canal Path) when there are at least two unsegregated faster routes available into town. Very odd. So, I think those of us who are perfectly happy and, let's be honest, actually enjoy the buzz of traffic jamming over Elephant and Castle (sadly, less exhilarating since it was, firstly, light controlled and secondly, tamed by removing one of its wonderful whirligigs) or hurtling down Archway will still be able to do so. Precisely because we are a minority.
-
And therefore we should not be seeking the perfect cycling provision for us, as that way is the reinforcement that cycling is for this hardcore minority. We need to seek to design the provision to meet the needs of those for whom cycling is an aspiration but for whom it is just too frightening at the moment.
In this way 20mph zones, filtered permiability and roadside paths with appropriate priority at side roads are big steps forward particularly if we can get them to be consistently applied so that you can be confident of quiet local roads leading to either your destination or a good quality path to link you to the quiet roads at your destination.
Personally for me the appropriate cycle provision would be a pothole and Manhole cover free road, I am confident to mix with traffic and want to be predictable to the traffic swerving to avoid poor road surfaces is not predictable. However I recognise that has no impact on reducing the barriers to others cycling it only makes my cycling more comfortable.
-
Having read the report, it seems LCC are not asking for segregation everywhere. In fact, their main thrust seems to be reducing speeds and volumes to levels which are acceptable to the timid and wobbly. You might say it's the motor traffic which they're asking to go Dutch, not the cyclists. If that were done on most streets, leaving major roads as a refuge for fast and busy cars, buses and lorries, with well-built segregation for cyclists, keeping priority over side roads and traffic turning into them, and being wide enough for wheeled hordes, then it might be good for everyone. The really difficult things would be to make lower speeds the norm and ensure decent quality lanes/tracks/paths on the main roads. And no bollards and gates, please.
-
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.
-
I ride regularly in London; I'm happy on the roads, I have no problem claiming my space, I have no problem preventing drivers trying to intimidate me ... But, I'm reasonably fit, reasonably fast, reasonably experienced - and a bloke
Right — we're the kind of riders who would cycle whatever the conditions. Maybe there's 10% of the population who are similar to us. But what about the other 90%? I was talking to my mother last night and she said that she loved cycling when she was young and would like to do it again but she simply doesn't dare — there's nowhere near her that she feels is safe enough. She's willing to cycle only when there's complete separation from motor vehicles.
-
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.
The biggest issue is going to be what the acceptible compromise will be. Failure to achieve the desired provision to facilitate the new cyclists required for a modal shift while also having that provision ignored by the existing cyclists will be percieved as wasting money by all of the cyclists, motorists and the highways officers.
-
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.
-
*applause*
-
I nominate Biggsy for mayor of London please.
-
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?
-
Each day I ride the piece of London where they are building the first "Go Dutch" cycle facility, in Stratford High Street. Each day I see it, I see disaster waiting to happen, poor design and built in conflict, I see less space and acceptance for me riding the main carriageway. Whatever happens on the cycle side, the road side - never very good - has been made substantially more dangerous for those wanting to ride over the flyover (having said that, I think there will be a safer option shaken out when the roadworks go). Maybe if they were to implement a camera controlled 20 zone it would be acceptable.
But then, I look forward in my mind's eye one year, two, three, and I can see people using that facility, many people who would otherwise not be on bikes. And I realise that I will have to ride with them, slowly, whatever. And if only because there are more people cycling, my life will be safer. I have a right to use the road, but I don't have a right to use the road in whatever way I choose, much as drivers don't have the right to drive at 80 mph through central London.
So, while I'm not sure I agree totally with the LCC, I think their aim is right.
Biggsy says they don't care enough about the potential quality and I have to say I agree with him, but I think there isn't any room for anything more than the simple message: let's get more people on bikes. Everything else will sort itself out. If all cars disappeared tomorrow and commuters took to bikes en masse, we'd all have to be riding slowly.
-
Taking a look at other articles on the As easy as riding a bike blog, what strikes me is the author's (authors'?) obsession with the Netherlands. This is something that seems to happen quite a lot - people see that there are more cyclists (and more cycling) in Amsterdam, Copenhagen or Timbuktu and think that by importing one or two ideas and practices from there to here, we can create the same conditions with the same result. But it doesn't usually work that way - it's worth looking for ideas and gadgets elsewhere but they have to be adapted to fit the environment here, which means not just hills and the sporting emphasis of bike shops, but the attitudes of government, local authority, media and bloke next door. Which in turn tends to mean those lovely wide segregated and prioritised paths turn out in practice to be narrow, litter strewn and impractical. I'm not really sure how to overcome this, but I think that the taming of motor traffic mentioned in the link upthread is a good start (lower speeds, closing rat runs, reducing priorities, etc)
-
Cudzo, I think the obsession might come from the realisation that it wasn't always like that in Amsterdam, either.
-
Could be, but I see people talking about how these places are now, not how they got there. In any case, the same applies - the journey will be different and probably need different tools even if the departure and (hoped for) destination are the same. In the case of the departure point, it can never be the same even if we Dutch politicians, flatness, etc, because the other thing is time - starting 40 years later means you not only have to make up those 40 years, you have to make up the extra changes that have happened in that time.
-
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.
-
^^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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
:thumbsup: to Jane
-
*A lot of sense*
Yay Jane! :thumbsup:
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 everywhere6. "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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! ::-)
-
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.)
-
Of course you'll be in conflict with the bus as you rejoin the carriageway. Maybe not the first couple who have to stop start past the pedestrians, but the bus has to move off eventually, so someone will get caught.
How is it different from pedestrians crossing the road? Two ways:
Firstly, how many pedestrians want to cross the road immediately? Call it 50%. Well, 100% have to cross from the stop island to the pavement, so that's worse.
Secondly, how many pedestrians fail to look when they step into the road? A few, perhaps, but the presence of big metal vehicles which can hurt them focusses their minds. That will not be the same when it's a) just a bike coming, and b) it's on the pavement anyway.
A much easier adaptation is what's seen on CS7, where the bus lane is widened at stops to let cyclists overtake properly.
-
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 helmet...
Chapeau ;D. I never thought I'd appreciate any text ending with that sentence.
-
And here's some research as reported in road.cc http://road.cc/content/news/97020-changes-road-design-could-improve-safety-cyclists
-
The properly designed lanes are segregated, so they just pass the bus stop and come up alongside the bus lane again, still segregated.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/5138/in_content.jpg?1357835855)
So no conflict with the bus at any point.
-
To me, the bus stop lane looks horrible. I'd far prefer to be on the road, checking the bus isn't going to cut me up as it pulls into the stop and ready to merge into the main traffic to overtake it while it's stopped, rather than dodging haphazard pedestrians, kids, sticks, prams and dogs. But if I were a timid potterer occasionally reaching the dizzy speed of 9mph and not at all confident that drivers would notice me, I guess I'd take the high risk of a low speed pedestrian tumble over the low risk of a high speed car bang.
But what would I like to see if I was a bus passenger? I guess I'd rather be able to step straight onto the pavement without having to think about bikes there and without having to look for the special flat crossing over the bike lane, especially if I were old, slow, had luggage, pram, kids or even was... timid.
-
... 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! ::-)
1) It ain't necessarily so. Certainly not true in the Netherlands & Denmark, & I recently (May) participated in trials at TRL of junctions which didn't do that, paid for by Transport for London because they're investigating putting 'em in.
2) That's bloody silly of LCC. My most recent TRL trial was of just such a lane, & the near universal opinion of those who tried it was that a good old-fashioned layby bus stop is better & safer, & if you have the space for the silly lane, you have space for the layby bus stop.
-
Layby bus stop: bearing in mind these things are not only for bike users, never mind cyclists, layby bus stops do have the disadvantage that the bus has to rejoin the traffic flow. With an in-lane stop, the bus is already there and doesn't have to wait for a suitable gap, thus speeding up bus journeys and contributing in a small way to the de-assumptioning that car is always much, much quicker. Mind you, the best way to speed up bus journeys, other than in places like London which have the Oyster card, would be to stop the driver selling tickets.
-
Mind you, the best way to speed up bus journeys, other than in places like London which have the Oyster card, would be to stop the driver selling tickets.
I wonder if having free for all busses would reduce congestion and improve transport time for everyone, to an extent that it would save our economy enough money to fund it.
-
Well, it would be good business for the people who mend bus suspension!
-
Layby bus stop: bearing in mind these things are not only for bike users, never mind cyclists, layby bus stops do have the disadvantage that the bus has to rejoin the traffic flow. With an in-lane stop, the bus is already there and doesn't have to wait for a suitable gap, thus speeding up bus journeys and contributing in a small way to the de-assumptioning that car is always much, much quicker. Mind you, the best way to speed up bus journeys, other than in places like London which have the Oyster card, would be to stop the driver selling tickets.
Which is why the CS7 solution actually works
-
I nominate Biggsy for mayor of London please.
I second
-
Layby bus stop: bearing in mind these things are not only for bike users, never mind cyclists, layby bus stops do have the disadvantage that the bus has to rejoin the traffic flow. With an in-lane stop, the bus is already there and doesn't have to wait for a suitable gap, thus speeding up bus journeys and contributing in a small way to the de-assumptioning that car is always much, much quicker. Mind you, the best way to speed up bus journeys, other than in places like London which have the Oyster card, would be to stop the driver selling tickets.
Which is why the CS7 solution actually works
If it looks like I imagine it to, then I'd expect it to work well for the bus and for the cyclists in the bus lane and to be better for pedestrians than a layby stop, as the pavement won't narrow just where it's busiest, but it won't do anything for the 'cyclists' on the pavement.
-
And here's some research as reported in road.cc http://road.cc/content/news/97020-changes-road-design-could-improve-safety-cyclists
From the link
Intersections and junctions should be redesigned to trigger cyclist behaviours, rather than leaving decision making up to the individual judgement of the cyclist. They recommended removing the decision making process entirely, or at least moving it to an earlier point in the approach.
What a load of patronising crap
please no.
-
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.
The irony is that Westminster is currently moving towards this situation *without* provision for cyclists.
Look at the southbound carriageway from Parliament Square to Westminster Bridge, for example, which was recently redesigned to "improve" traffic flow (ie make it faster) for vehicles turning onto the Embankment, but consequently made it much more dangerous for those of us on bikes who want to head south over the bridge. Even as a confident, experienced Lycra-clad urban road warrior, I have altered my route to avoid this junction - ie the de facto exclusion you fear segregation will introduce is here already, but without any of the benefits of segregation.
And this kind of motorcentric junction redesign isn't an unfortunate quirk, it's a deliberate policy. It's not LCC who are in La-La Land.
-
The properly designed lanes are segregated, so they just pass the bus stop and come up alongside the bus lane again, still segregated.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/5138/in_content.jpg?1357835855)
So no conflict with the bus at any point.
Loads of conflict with bus passengers, though, & the bus stop hides bikes & some bus passengers from each other. Even with the exceptionally well-behaved cyclists & passengers disembarking from a parked TRL bus, there were a few suddenbrake moments in the trial I did.
The trial recognised that in real life, bus passengers will not confine themselves to the portion of the bike lane raised to pavement level. It didn't have random pedestrians walking in the bike lane, though, which is pretty well guaranteed.
-
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.
Local news had a piece about Brighton yesterday. They polled a bunch of residents on whether the Green council had been doing a good job and the resounding answer was no - largely disgruntlement about the 20mph limits and parking restrictions - while the transport and environmental experts felt that measured objectively, these changes had improved the city.
The problem is the narrow perspective of individuals. You need to impose the changes on them for their own good, whether they see it or not.
Unfortunately, while we have the likes of the entirely self-centred Eric Pickles in government, the will of the individual will always be seen as trumping the good of the majority, even where the will of the individual is self-defeating due to irresolvable conflict with the will of other individuals.
-
The properly designed lanes are segregated, so they just pass the bus stop and come up alongside the bus lane again, still segregated.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/5138/in_content.jpg?1357835855)
So no conflict with the bus at any point.
Jane, having ridden through the mock up of this configuration at the TRL trials it's got substantial flaws. The main one is how the cycle lane rejoins the road after the bus stop. OK if the intent is that the lane remains segregated by a kerb this doesn't occur but from the evaluation questions asked that is not how TFL currently plan to implement it. But if the intent is to rejoin the carriageway then the cyclist in the lane has no visibility of the indicator on the bus (assuming it is used) and is in front / to the left of the bus when the drivers attention is understandably focussed on his right hand mirrors.
As a concept I can understand why it is attractive to the highways engineers but in practice it exchanges the interaction of one bus and multiple cyclists for the interaction of multiple cyclists and multiple pedestrians and at least buses are moderately predictable. However during the trial the worst run through the facility I had was when there were no pedestrians and I was the lead cyclist so at my natural pace for the down hill set up, hitting the ramp where the peds are intended to cross at 20mph (100 rpm) on my fixie was uncomfortable to say the least.
Its not a great solution to the problem of enabling a bus to stop and pull away in the presence of a stream of cyclists, where accessing a bus lay-by is considered to difficult to either pull in through the stream of cyclists or out through the cyclists. However I can't think of a better one than bus lay-bys and appropriate driver and cyclist training such that cyclists let buses out and don't go up the inside of a slowing bus cycle lane or no cycle lane. The worst option is the normal cycle lane that just disappears into the bus stop marking and reappears on the far side.
Of course if the intent is a fully segregated cycle lane that never interacts with the motor traffic and the intent of this design is to provide pedestrian access to the bus then this is a good way forward but that is not how the questions at the trial were indicating the layout would be used.
-
Kim: You've probably seen some examples of space being taken away from motor vehicles during your time in Bristol, but you wouldn't have recognised it cos it happened before your arrival (I don't know when you were here, so guessing). Queen Sq (http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/leisure_and_culture/parks_and_open_spaces/information_on_parks_and_open_spaces/Leaflet%20The%20Restoration%20of%20Queen%20Square%201699-1999.pdf) used to have a dual-carriageway running diagonally through it from the '30s until the early '90s, and where the fountains are now in the centre used to be a gyratory system (and of course, going way back, it was all parking for ships...).
Edit: Wiki says they started thinking of closing or at least reducing the traffic volume on the dc through Queen Sq way back in the 1960s!
-
The properly designed lanes are segregated, so they just pass the bus stop and come up alongside the bus lane again, still segregated.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/5138/in_content.jpg?1357835855)
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.
-
The properly designed lanes are segregated, so they just pass the bus stop and come up alongside the bus lane again, still segregated.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/5138/in_content.jpg?1357835855)
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.
See you there.
I am really not sure what issue it is trying to address or what is either behind us in that picture, or what is beyond the bus - have we left the road to join the blue path, or were we on a segregated blue path all the time?
I've no idea where they plan to create such carbuncles, but the volume of cyclists in many parts of West London make the whole concept terrifying. The potential for interface with bus passengers is huge - pedestrians lose their ability to look or think when they simply have to get that bus, large numbers of cyclists are very focussed on reaching their destination as quickly as possible and won't be interested in letting bus passengers cross the blue path.
-
The properly designed lanes are segregated, so they just pass the bus stop and come up alongside the bus lane again, still segregated.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/5138/in_content.jpg?1357835855)
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.
See you there.
I am really not sure what issue it is trying to address or what is either behind us in that picture, or what is beyond the bus - have we left the road to join the blue path, or were we on a segregated blue path all the time?
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).
I've no idea where they plan to create such carbuncles, but the volume of cyclists in many parts of West London make the whole concept terrifying. The potential for interface with bus passengers is huge - pedestrians lose their ability to look or think when they simply have to get that bus, large numbers of cyclists are very focussed on reaching their destination as quickly as possible and won't be interested in letting bus passengers cross the blue path.
I think 'terrifying' probably overstates the matter, but it's definitely the kind of thing that makes it look as though we're heading for two-tier bike provision as condemned above. That lane's probably quite attractive at 8 or 10 mph - at 12 or 15, not so much.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 found this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pvhkx0153k of how they actually do it in Dutchland. It is a little different from both the TRL trial and the LCC design, in that there is no rejoining the carriageway - it's a totally segregated lane - and there is no ramp, the cycle lane stays flat and is separated from the pavement and stop by a low kerb with a lowered section for wheelchairs, prams, etc. None of the bus stops in the vid look particularly busy, but at the end you see one with a barrier, which seems to acknowledge that passengers do get in the way of the bikes - and they've decided to prioritise the bikes.
Charlotte would not like it all and I'm not sure I would either! But Charlotte isn't there - what really strikes me is not the bus infrastructure but the cyclists' behaviour, they are all riding at about the same speed, on similar bikes, slowly and a bit randomly. I think your average London commuter would be like a boy racer in a crowd of Reliant Robins. Which brings me to my next thought:
It's all very well putting this infrastructure in for cyclists and it can address the issues of perceived safety, lack of confidence and similar which put many would-be bike commuters off. You can also import box bikes and omafiets to address the problems of practicality, allowing you to ride in normal clothes, transport kids to school and shopping home and so on. The Netherlands has a similar climate so we know that needn't be a problem and even the hills aren't going to feature too much in London. But there still remains the problem of commute lengths, which will become more of a problem at the slower speeds this infrastructure will compel. If we're trying to get a society that uses bikes (as opposed to a cycling culture, which we already have thanks to Wiggins and Wiggle) because they're a sensible way of getting to school, work, a night out, then we come up against the problem of that society being unconsciously/undeliberately ordered around people being able to get long distances at high speeds. We may only be starting 50 years after the Dutch, but we have a hundred years of catching up to do. And as the vid shows, even there plenty of people find it more convenient to use a bus or a car.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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. :D So please do tell, just out of interest rather than for any practicality, what are your preferred, radical solutions?
-
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. O:-)
-
The properly designed lanes are segregated, so they just pass the bus stop and come up alongside the bus lane again, still segregated.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/5138/in_content.jpg?1357835855)
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
-
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.
-
But here on YACF we already know you're a nutter. :) Because we're like you too. :D 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. ;D )
-
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.
-
And why should people getting off the bus be fenced in?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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. :D 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. ;D )
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-PP6FXdbj7B0/UmhX6ekOh6I/AAAAAAAAq9Q/UgXpmIKT23o/s640/S0139126.jpg)
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!***
-
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.
-
But here on YACF we already know you're a nutter. :) Because we're like you too. :D 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. ;D )
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.
-
This discussion is just serving to solidify my dislike of cycle facilities. Back in 2008, I made this post (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=9294.msg162827#msg162827) 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...
-
Yep.
-
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?
-
This discussion is just serving to solidify my dislike of cycle facilities. Back in 2008, I made this post (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=9294.msg162827#msg162827) 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.
-
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.
-
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'.
-
That's all very sensible.
-
Well, if it were David M vs Biggsy for mayor of London, I know who'd get my vote.
-
That's all very sensible.
+1
-
David M's last paragraph x eight on its side.
-
- 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.
-
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
-
You should take that as a useful warning, Clarion. Boris does not live in the real world.
-
;D
*suitably chastened & thinking on*
-
;)
-
CAD for cycle facilities!
streetmix.net (http://streetmix.net)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Milton Keynes and Stevenage has the best segregated facilities in the UK. The Milton Keynes Redways aren't "busy" even in rush hour.
-
I was reading something about Stevenage the other day and it said bikes are 2.7% of traffic there, whereas according to this, (http://londontransportdata.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/long-run-trend-in-commuting-into-central-london/) they're almost 12% in London. Why? Maybe because commuters into London usually originate in London, whereas residents of Stevenage are likely to travel to other towns (or have come from other places into Stevenage)? I don't know but it's a possibility. There are figures from 1850 there which show walking to be almost double all other methods together - probably cos nobody travelled far to work back then. So we have a bind - people won't cycle or walk cos it would take hours, and they can travel so far to work cos they have cars, trains and so on.
-
but how does the visiting or new resident find their way around the red routes? My memory from about 20 years ago was that navigation was horrendous.
-
but how does the visiting or new resident find their way around the red routes? My memory from about 20 years ago was that navigation was horrendous.
I don't think it's improved, from what David tells me.
-
Cycle-paths are impossible to navigate for non-locals - it's the law.
If they were as simple as the roads network, cyclists might use them for journeys of several miles or more. We wouldn't want that!
-
I was reading something about Stevenage the other day and it said bikes are 2.7% of traffic there, whereas according to this, (http://londontransportdata.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/long-run-trend-in-commuting-into-central-london/) they're almost 12% in London. Why? Maybe because commuters into London usually originate in London, whereas residents of Stevenage are likely to travel to other towns (or have come from other places into Stevenage)? I don't know but it's a possibility.
Because unlike London, Stevenage has a well-designed high capacity road network that makes driving quick and easy.
-
^^This
London has more cyclists, train passengers and bus passengers partly because it has a massively subsidised public transport system compared to the rest of the UK, but mainly because driving a car in the centre is almost impossible. People will always go for what is easiest.
-
Good thread and interesting reading. I have to agree I'm another one that thinks that particular bus stop design pictured upthread is very bad and am surprised any cycling organisation would think it a good idea. It does'nt seem to be acceptable to bus passengers or cyclists. Did the trials contain pensioners and children? And I thought well designed cycle infrastructure could be used by new and experienced cyclists alike, but the cyclists on here seem against it, it seems to increase the liklihood of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. Like many others I'd avoid that and continue with the motorised traffic. That does'nt seem a sound design model. Jane how did your 'sort of road planning meeting along CSH4' go? Any updates?
We're told the current system has'nt recruited the required/desired number of cyclists (whatever this magic number is?) and that segregation is the answer. Our road network has been over 100 years in the making, and lots of it followed much older routes going back many 100's if not 1000's of years. So developing any sizeable network is not going to happen overnight, or over a short period of time, I think most people realise that. But I concede you've got to start somewhere. But lets at least try and make any modifications to the existing network decent ones, otherwise we're just repeating the tokenistic inadequate cycle routes of the past, which frankly I see enough of already.
I've seen figures that decent cycling infrastructure costs between £200k and £1m per km, and in these penny pinching times that sounds a lot. And thats before any extra costs like all the extra storing and locking facilities for all these potential new cyclists' bikes. I know in terms of the rumoured costs of projects such HS2 that's loose change, but I've not seen any figures banded around of what the LCC proposes as a sufficient budget to make its dream come true, and realistically what the chances are of getting that. I think the LCC needs to return to reality a little and concede that at best its going to happen in small steps over the course of many years. That being the case, here and now in the real world, I find it a bit puzzling that there is such vehement opposition to cycle training. We are regularly told fear and intimidation is one of the reasons that deters potential new cyclists, but even with segregation are'nt these novice cyclists also going to be intimidated by cycling along with very large numbers of other cyclists? I consider myself a competent cyclist but cycling CS7 in rush hour roulettte, in the current 'not enough cyclists' climate, can be a hellish experience. I honestly feel I'm more likely to be taken out by another cyclist than I am by any motor traffic. I know training is percieved by some as being a skillset that needs acquiring and as such is another barrier to cycling, but not being able to ride a bike is a barrier to cycling but that does'nt mean we should'nt teach anyone to learn. I cannot see something that better equips cyclists to deal with the roads as they are now as bad thing.
I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who said its being presented in binary terms. There have been personal attacks by some LCC members that leave a nasty aftertaste (not in this thread particularly but the discussion in general), and the debate seems to be framed in terms of having to be in one camp or the other, rather than having elements of both. It all seems a bit one dimensional. There's has not been enough talk in the wider debate of other points that will make a positive contribution, such as actual enforcement of 20mph zones, the HGV issue, maybe change traffic light phasing to give priority to cyclists, increased prosecutions of drivers who runover cyclists etc.
For the record I've not done cycle training nor am I a member of the LCC or CTC, I come from a bigger group, I'm simply a cyclist.
-
^^This
London has more cyclists, train passengers and bus passengers partly because it has a massively subsidised public transport system compared to the rest of the UK, but mainly because driving a car in the centre is almost impossible. People will always go for what is easiest.
Yes. That's why all those Dutch cyclists look like ordinary bods, cos they are. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3085647.stm) people in the UK have the longest commutes in Europe at an average length of 8.5 miles taking 45 minutes. This sounds to me like slow driving but also a problem in getting people to work by bike, cos if you ride at say 12mph - seems like a reasonable speed for a non-cyclist on a BSO - then adding in stops at junctions and so on, your commute is going to take longer even though you're moving more of the time (and enjoying it :)). It's like we can't change the way we get to work until we change the way we distribute work, housing, and stuff, but we can't change that because of the way we get to work - and we're in a slow spiral of choking gloom. We'll have to have a revolution, powered by cake.
-
We'll have to have a revolution, powered by cake.
I'll go for that! :D
-
Some of you might be interested in this. I have still to ride down this route.. will try and do so this week and see what I think of it in practice. It has to be safer than what was there before. Whether it's the best solution, I don't know. I'll reserve judgement until I've ridden it. http://ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/londons-first-truly-super-cycle-highway.html?m=1 (http://ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/londons-first-truly-super-cycle-highway.html?m=1)
-
Some of you might be interested in this. I have still to ride down this route.. will try and do so this week and see what I think of it in practice. It has to be safer than what was there before. Whether it's the best solution, I don't know. I'll reserve judgement until I've ridden it. http://ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/londons-first-truly-super-cycle-highway.html?m=1 (http://ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/londons-first-truly-super-cycle-highway.html?m=1)
I rode from Bow roundabout to Stratford and back again at the weekend (with the building work not yet finished), and I think it looks a bloody menace.
The island bus stops look downright dangerous, with a twin 45 degree wiggle between high kerbs bringing you into direct conflict with pedestrians. There's no clarity yet on how junctions with minor roads will be handled - and I can guarantee that, no matter what the signs say, car drivers may wait for a gap in the cyclists before pulling forward, but will then sit across the cycle lane waiting to be able to pull into the main traffic lane.
Turning right is something I hadn't considered before reading the article you link to (probably because I never do turn right along there), but I'm not happy about being effectively forced to make a jug-handle/Copenhagen turn rather than simply merging across into the correct lane for where I want to go. And once you're in the cycle lane, you'll be pretty much stuck in it until the next junction, as although there are gaps in the dividing kerb, they're much too short to allow you to merge out into the L/H principal traffic lane - you'd effectively be pulling out of a junction, not changing lanes.
This of course means it's going to be much harder to use the flyover when travelling from Stratford towards Bow - you'll be forced onto the (slower, riskier) roundabout instead.
I already avoid the segregated lanes on the roundabout because they're simply inappropriate for my normal journey (turning right from the A12 Blackwall Tunnel Approach onto Stratford High Street, that road positioning would give me at least two opportunities to be crushed by a truck), but avoiding this lovingly provided lane is just going to look (and probably be) bloody-minded - it'll cause resentment or anger if I try it.
I shall have to try it once it's actually fully open and working as intended, and try to judge as I find rather than giving rein to the prejudices above.
-
Is there a plan for keeping them swept?
-
New piece of newspeak: Cycle Proofing
http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/cycle-proofing-what-does-it-actually-mean-in-practice (http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/cycle-proofing-what-does-it-actually-mean-in-practice)
Sounds well meaning, but I fear will be misused to mean "There a crap cycle path over there, so for safety we will ban discourage cyclists from using this important road full of important people".
-
The TfL right-turn method does look very cumbersome. The Copenhagen way relies on there being an empty ASL or crossing to turn round in. Turning right across three lanes of busy, probably fast traffic, is off-putting at best, often scary and dangerous at worst. The whole road is made of ugly.
-
What you will find is that this facility is not something that you can use at your normal 'trying to keep up with the traffic' speed. These facilities are nto designed for today's cyclists, they are designed for those who want to cycle but will not cycle in the way that Jon, or myself would wish to.
if you (as a battle hardened London cycle commuter) go and ride in the city in the Netherlands then you will get annoyed at the pace of the cycle traffic. it moves at a fairly steady pace, much like the traffic on the road moves at a steady, busy pace. It is not a training ride or a lung bursting commute, but an amble at a functional but not sporty pace.
Expecting a vista of wide open roads that you can blast along at your own speed is as much a fallacy as the open roads in a car advertisement.
-
What you will find is that this facility is not something that you can use at your normal 'trying to keep up with the traffic' speed. These facilities are nto designed for today's cyclists, they are designed for those who want to cycle but will not cycle in the way that Jon, or myself would wish to.
if you (as a battle hardened London cycle commuter) go and ride in the city in the Netherlands then you will get annoyed at the pace of the cycle traffic. it moves at a fairly steady pace, much like the traffic on the road moves at a steady, busy pace. It is not a training ride or a lung bursting commute, but an amble at a functional but not sporty pace.
Expecting a vista of wide open roads that you can blast along at your own speed is as much a fallacy as the open roads in a car advertisement.
I have to say that this sort of patronizing tone really gets my goat.
I'm not a superman, I'm just a fat old bloke who rides a bike.
Why am I as a cyclist, who manages to use my bike safely, expected to put up with substandard facilities so that some day, someone might just feel brave enough to ride their bike?
You've had 35 years of faffing around with facilities and they are all crap, and non cyclists are even more convinced that cycling is really dangerous. Now you expect us to put up with more faffing, in the name of 'Dutch' standards and cycle proofing.
If someone wants to ride a bike they will, if they can't be arsed and someone asks them, they will think of the most acceptable excuse.
Give up.
-
And, should you ride in the road, drivers will feel they have free licence to drive you into the kerb, because 'you should be on the cycle path' ::-)
-
Ahh YACF. The last refuge for middle aged men who like riding in heavy traffic.
-
if you (as a battle hardened London cycle commuter) go and ride in the city in the Netherlands then you will get annoyed at the pace of the cycle traffic.
I've done fifty thousand miles in London and am never anything other than utterly serene when I cycle in The Netherlands.
-
I'm not a superman, I'm just a fat old bloke who rides a bike.
I must have been cloned in my sleep!
-
To try and get some real world perspective as to how much it costs moving forward (*cringe*I can't believe I actually said those words, slaps self in face as punishment) to fund the 'first proper' cycle route, does anyone have any idea of the cost of this 1.5km section in both directions?
-
Ahh YACF. The last refuge for middle aged men who like riding in heavy traffic.
I'm not just middle aged, I am fat and slow as well.
Put your thinking hat on.
What properties might middle aged men, who like riding in traffic have?
Hints:
- Do you get to be middle aged if you crash a lot?
- Do you enjoy cycling if you find it stressful and scary?
And yes we are an arrogant lot, we wouldn't have each discovered our own version of VC, if we weren't arrogant enough to ignore the signs, the paint, the behaviour of most other cyclists and the odd policeman.
None of the above are safety issues, they are all, partly the fault of 'Bicycle Advocates' who bang on about how scary cycling is is and how you need protecting from the traffic.
-
I suspect most non-cyclists have no idea who these 'bicycling advocates' you're so keen to disparage are, nor are they being told it's 'scary'. I further suspect they may use their eyes and ears and see the roads they'd have to cycle on and not unreasonably may think "that's not for me". It's ironically far more patronising to suggest that other individuals are incapable of making their own decisions and that they're making 'excuses' if they don't follow you and jump on their new bike and do a few laps of rush hour E&C.
Experienced cyclists may know that it's not as dangerous as it seems, but you need to empathise with someone who doesn't have that experience. I'm not seeing a lot of that empathy to be honest. Just the usual bullshit about 'having done this since the time of the dinosaurs' and if I can do it, so can anyone else. Well, whoopee for you. And you know what, even some 'experienced' cyclists don't particularly like mixing it up with busy traffic. There's plenty of roads and places in London I'd avoid on a bike.
-
When I ride in London, I do it for fun. It's exciting, stressful, and gets the heart rate up -especially if the experience is spiced up by a few angry cabbies, RLJ-ing fellow 'cyclists', and some added bus and tipper-truck fun.
Exactly the cocktail that's designed to attract non-cycling folk to come and join in the fun, eh Ian? Can't think why the roads aren't mobbed with POBs on BSOs on their way to commuting nirvana.
;) 8)
-
I like riding in London for exactly the same reasons. And I also like not having to. I could post some nice video of the 15 mile commute I could have, (if I lived in that direction) from Carnoustie, or the 7 mile commute several of my colleagues do, one on an electric bike because she'd never do it otherwise. 7 miles of which a tiny fraction is actually on road. The rest is on (mostly) high quality cycle path.
And the redone one along the river - must video that as it has glow in the dark edging lights. Nothing like hurtling along at 20mph with the waves from a high spring tide crashing so close to your wheels that you feel the spray.
That cycle path has been there since 1920's - we really should have a centenary celebration in ten years time.
-
From the OP link:
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. Both of these criteria are ‘tipping points’ in their own right. That doesn’t mean that cycle tracks – or forms of light segregation – have to be employed. Measures could obviously be taken to remove motor traffic from a given street, so that the PCUs per day value falls below 2000.
I wonder if Jane or someone involved with the scheme could tell us roughly what proportion of London's roads would be given lower speed limits and/or traffic calming/reduction/slowing/etc measures and what would have infrastructure built, assuming the plan were implemented as LCC desire?
-
Ahh YACF. The last refuge for middle aged men who like riding in heavy traffic.
Its not just middle aged blokes who arn't supporters of paint based advocacy http://hergreenlife.com/2013/10/24/i-am-the-indicator-species-a-female-cyclists-manifesto/ (http://hergreenlife.com/2013/10/24/i-am-the-indicator-species-a-female-cyclists-manifesto/)
-
There are some points to make here. Firstly the rather poor cherry picking of stats. If you are going to do stats then do them properly. So one cyclist in Denmark was killed on a facility by a right hook? Is that in any way significant or is it just shroud waving?
Secondly, the facilities shown are not good. They don't really achieve separation in either time or space. If it is a road with more than a 20mph limit then remove car parking. If the argument is that a road needs to be 30 mph for throughput of traffic, then don't allow parked cars to obstruct it. Removing car parking clears enough space to allow a de-facto separated lane for cyclists and removes conflict.
Using one bad facility to argue against all facilities is just as valid as a non-cyclist using one particularly nasty roundabout to argue against any cycling.
-
There are some points to make here. Firstly the rather poor cherry picking of stats. If you are going to do stats then do them properly. So one cyclist in Denmark was killed on a facility by a right hook? Is that in any way significant or is it just shroud waving?
Secondly, the facilities shown are not good. They don't really achieve separation in either time or space. If it is a road with more than a 20mph limit then remove car parking. If the argument is that a road needs to be 30 mph for throughput of traffic, then don't allow parked cars to obstruct it. Removing car parking clears enough space to allow a de-facto separated lane for cyclists and removes conflict.
Using one bad facility to argue against all facilities is just as valid as a non-cyclist using one particularly nasty roundabout to argue against any cycling.
Are any of the facilities in the UK after 35 years of bicycle advocacy really much better?
-
I wonder if Jane or someone involved with the scheme could tell us roughly what proportion of London's roads would be given lower speed limits and/or traffic calming/reduction/slowing/etc measures and what would have infrastructure built, assuming the plan were implemented as LCC desire?
LCC is campaigning for all boroughs to adopt 20mph. In practice that would leave only the TLRN with higher speed limits. They are the largely all big roads that run right through London and beyond. So, segregation or semi segregation is not something that should be needed in many situations at all. Here's a link to a map of the TLRN.http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/TFL_Base_Map_Master.pdf (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/TFL_Base_Map_Master.pdf)
-
Thanks. So if I'm reading that map correctly, even the majority of A roads would be subject to "subdued motor traffic" to coin a phrase, rather than what we normally think of as "Dutch lanes". If it all goes according to plan, of course. It's ambitious and also a rather different use of segregation to what we normally have here - and, I think, to what we've been arguing about in this thread.
I do like that one of the TfL areas is known as "DBFO"!
-
...
Using one bad facility to argue against all facilities is just as valid as a non-cyclist using one particularly nasty roundabout to argue against any cycling.
Are any of the facilities in the UK after 35 years of bicycle advocacy really much better?
Well exactly.
David's point would hold water if it was just the one crap facility. It doesn't take much time to find more than a couple ...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/March2013.htm
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/maultway.jpg)
etc ...
-
David's point would hold water if it was just the one crap facility. It doesn't take much time to find more than a couple ...
etc ...
I takes a long time to find one good facility
-
Here are a number of good facilities in my borough of Hackney that has the highest proportion of cycle commuters in the country.
http://cycleandwalkhackney.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/cycling-and-walking-in-hackney.html
Note that very few of them involve segregation in the sense of separate cycle lanes, but together they rebalance street activity more fairly between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. To characterise these kinds of non-segregation strategies as favouring middle aged experienced road warriors would be to miss the point. These favour inexperienced and confident cyclists alike, not to mention pedestrians and other more vulnerable road users (in contrast to the bus lay-by example above that certainly does not favour vulnerable bus users).
This is the kind of stuff I'd like to see LCC do more of. It is a great pity that Oliver Schick of Hackney LCC, who has been influential in getting much of this done was somewhat marginalised in the report linked in the OP.
-
Here are a number of good facilities in my borough of Hackney that has the highest proportion of cycle commuters in the country.
http://cycleandwalkhackney.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/cycling-and-walking-in-hackney.html
Note that very few of them involve segregation in the sense of separate cycle lanes, but together they rebalance street activity more fairly between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. To characterise these kinds of non-segregation strategies as favouring middle aged experienced road warriors would be to miss the point. These favour inexperienced and confident cyclists alike, not to mention pedestrians and other more vulnerable road users (in contrast to the bus lay-by example above that certainly does not favour vulnerable bus users).
This is the kind of stuff I'd like to see LCC do more of. It is a great pity that Oliver Schick of Hackney LCC, who has been influential in getting much of this done was somewhat marginalised in the report linked in the OP.
Brilliant, I'd love to see more of that, proper reclaim the street stuff. Love it.
-
and actually rather more Dutch than the sort of things their segregationist detractors are pushing for.
-
I wonder if Jane or someone involved with the scheme could tell us roughly what proportion of London's roads would be given lower speed limits and/or traffic calming/reduction/slowing/etc measures and what would have infrastructure built, assuming the plan were implemented as LCC desire?
LCC is campaigning for all boroughs to adopt 20mph. In practice that would leave only the TLRN with higher speed limits. They are the largely all big roads that run right through London and beyond. So, segregation or semi segregation is not something that should be needed in many situations at all. Here's a link to a map of the TLRN.http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/TFL_Base_Map_Master.pdf (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/TFL_Base_Map_Master.pdf)
I'm pretty sure that is not how the proposers of the motion see it.
They are calling for segregation on any road that has either speeds above 20mph OR more than 2000 vehicles per day - which is not busy by any stretch of the imagination. It is using a dry technical definition to disguise a fundamentalist segregationist position - in effect dismissing any of the myriad ways in which streets can be made more cycle friendly (such as we see in Hackney) in any but the quietest of residential back streets.
-
If you had been at the AGM, you would have realised that it is absolutely not the case that LCC is dismissing the "myriad ways in which streets can be more cycle friendly". In the afternoon, six policy and campaign development workshops were held, only one of which included segregation. These were Safe Routes to Schools, Quiet Zones, Dedicated Space on Main Roads, Greenways, 20mph speed limits and Liveable high streets. I led the Safe Routes to Schools one, and we didn't mention segregation at all. Closing rat runs, default two way cycling on all roads, restricting parking, reducing speed limits all these are integral and important components of policy. Even if LCC central were secretly committed to widespread segregation (which they aren't, I am sure) cost alone would preclude it's adoption as the main tenet of policy... It's by far the most expensive solution.
And it is unfair to blame LCC for the mass of sub standard infrastructure already out there. Cyclists are just one stakeholder group amongst many. For example, in Lewisham we have a junction that TfL wants to remodel due to a large number of pedestrian casualties. (Courthill Rd and Lewisham High St). The solution they consulted on was complex and expensive and involved banning left and right turns to all traffic, creating a one way Gyratory type system, that cyclists would be forced round alongside fast moving cars and trucks. Did we ask for segregation. No. We suggested a simple all green phase for pedestrians across the whole junction which would have improved pedestrian safety cheaply and easily. But this, according to TfL, is not possible. It will restrict "traffic" flow unacceptably. So what do they propose? Toucan crossings and cycle lanes on the pavement for short stretches, allowing cyclists to turn into all arms of the junction from the pavement. Now, we can reiterate our wish for the all green phase (which we will), but we don't have the power to enforce it. But we can't outright oppose the pavement lanes, merely register our concern that this is an expensive and unnecessary piece of infrastructure, because without it, cyclists will be in a worse position than they were before, at this junction.
-
...
Using one bad facility to argue against all facilities is just as valid as a non-cyclist using one particularly nasty roundabout to argue against any cycling.
Are any of the facilities in the UK after 35 years of bicycle advocacy really much better?
Well exactly.
David's point would hold water if it was just the one crap facility. It doesn't take much time to find more than a couple ...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/March2013.htm
etc ...
And your rebuttal would hold water if there was only one bad bit of road that cyclists were excluded from by the priviledge of motor traffic.
Jane hits the nail on the head rather well. I suppose that I am fortunate here in that the cycle facilities are generally of high quality, useful and add to the cycling experience rather than detract from it.
-
Ahh YACF. The last refuge for middle aged men who like riding in heavy traffic.
Ah trolling, the mark of the true believer. Make your case clearly and with purpose or just don't comment.
-
I'm not so sure as you are Jane that they are not committed to widepread segregation.
Adrian over on CycleChat posted this about an email he received from the LCC's Communications Manager on the matter: -
I have exchanged emails with Mike in the recent past. The most disturbing thing in this one is that the LCC believe the issue to be settled
Without high-quality separate facilities for cycling on main roads there will never be mass cycling in this country because people will be too scared to cycle
There's not a single post-industrialised country in the world that has achieved mass cycling any other way
I would argue that the pro-motoring lobbyists are delighted when cyclists insist on sharing the road, because that means more space for their cars
Sorry you don't agree, but the arguments over segregation are over – separation is essential on busy roads and at large junctions, or there will be no mass cycling
Kind Regards
Mike
Mike Cavenett
Communications Manager
London Cycling Campaign
-
It's rather disappointing to see that Copenhagen has had 7 deaths of cyclists under the wheels of right turning lorries (the equivalent of a UK left hook).
http://cphpost.dk/national/minister-takes-action-after-latest-fatal-bicycle-accident
-
I'm not so sure as you are Jane that they are not committed to widepread segregation.
Adrian over on CycleChat posted this about an email he received from the LCC's Communications Manager on the matter: -
I have exchanged emails with Mike in the recent past. The most disturbing thing in this one is that the LCC believe the issue to be settled
Without high-quality separate facilities for cycling on main roads there will never be mass cycling in this country because people will be too scared to cycle
There's not a single post-industrialised country in the world that has achieved mass cycling any other way
I would argue that the pro-motoring lobbyists are delighted when cyclists insist on sharing the road, because that means more space for their cars
Sorry you don't agree, but the arguments over segregation are over – separation is essential on busy roads and at large junctions, or there will be no mass cycling
Kind Regards
Mike
Mike Cavenett
Communications Manager
London Cycling Campaign
"Busy roads......large junctions". As far as I am concerned, that doesn't necessarily equate to "widespread segregation". As we don't know the content of Adrian's email, it's hard to put Mike Cavenett's response in context. This is what I know to be true: segregation is only one of the measures being considered by those charged with formulating LCC policy. There may well be some individuals in the central office who would like to see more widespread segregation, that is possible. But policy is not formed by those individuals alone. There are representatives from the borough groups also on the policy forum and the meetings are open to any LCC member to attend. You can find out all about the policy forum on the LCC website. It seems pretty democratic to me. Anyway, I have said about all I have to say on the matter, here. Everyone must know what I think by now.
-
Separation at busy junctions is well-nigh impossible, and I don't know of a scheme which succeeds there. In fact, most lanes which are segregated for the easy bits just spew you out into the gutter before a massive junction, without the time to get across the lanes if you need to turn right for example.
-
I wrote a reasonably quite well thought out reply setting out my case for segregated routes, but in the end what is the point. We'll never get anything good only half measures and poor jobs while we can't come together as a movement and be clear on our needs and the needs of future cyclists. The hardcore I wear my road warrior badge with pride will clash with the pro segregation and we will argue ourselves into the wall.
Actually let's cut it out with the cyclists. This is about people.
We've been sold a pup in the form of vehicular cycling, I don't see why I should have to worry about taking the lane, or how close the overtake was, or having to stack the speed on to get round a roundabout or cross two lanes of traffic. I shouldn't have to fight my way to work or home again, my commute doesn't have to be a battle. I don't care if you can ride at 20mph (I can't my girlfriend certainly can't), I couldn't give a toss if you want to show off your club jersey on your epic personal best setting trip to the office.
I'm just going to work / the shops / the movies / ...
I don't want to die, I don't want those I love and care about to die.
But I do want them to be free of the shackles of petrol prices and traffic jams, to experience the joy of pedalling though the environment, to get some exercise in a fun way, but as it stands teaching them to cycle like vehicles ain't working and unless one bright shining morning everyone get's up and decides to cycle we probably won't get the critical mass needed to reclaim all of the streets.
So hang up the bravado and ask yourself what would get the most terrified of the traffic person you know to cycle? Is it telling them to take the lane... I doubt it. This isn't about us and them it's about everyone, it's about the kids, mothers, fathers, people not yet born, it's about stopping the senseless death on our roads.
It's OK to bang on about your right to use the road, that's not going to help much when you've just been smudged under the wheels of a tipper truck.. Oh hang on let's make this more emotive, that's not going to help much when your kid's been killed by a tipper truck.
Does this post sound emotional and not backed by science and the law... GOOD.
Because this argument shouldn't be segregation / no segregation it should be how do we make it safe for people to use our towns and cities however they choose. Change road layouts, put proper paths in, restrict motor vehicles, ban trucks, whatever, let's just stop getting people killed instead of arguing on the internet.
-
Only one thing needs to change: Drivers' attitude.
-
Two things need to change Clarion. The second is the mentality that Cycling is some sort of dangerous activity.
We keep being sold this idea, often to get us to buy more bits of magic protective clothing, but the stats just don't back it up. With all this supposed risk of being squished by motor vehicles, cyclists on average live longer than non-cyclists.
-
I accept your correction of my oversimplification.
-
Only one thing needs to change: Drivers' attitude.
Best way to achieve that: Redesign the roads.
-
Maybe peopel inside are a little scared of this vision of cycling in the city..
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7344/10163915895_328558ba40_b.jpg)
(From the awesome bikeyface blog.)
-
Only one thing needs to change: Drivers' attitude.
Undoubtedly, but like us they've been sold a lie. Let's not forget that drivers are also people. Just people told that there is no other way and that the car represents freedom a freedom they can't have because everyone else has been told the same.
I'm usually quite calm but even I find myself a little het up while sitting in a traffic jam, add that to person on a bicycle cutting though or seemingly holding them up. People aren't logical they are emotional beasts by nature.
We've designed our environment all wrong. I'd quite happily make every residential side street in the country 20mph (or less) and cover them in speed cameras but we could also make them less attractive as cut through's, I don't want to cycle in the lane on a busy dual carriage way or have to navigate major junctions but we do need those bits of infrastructure so how do we get people round / through them safely. If your first response is by taking the lane, going faster you are doing it wrong I think.
We've built ourselves a crap environment, one that's good for motor vehicles but rubbish for people. We need to start thinking in terms of people.
-
Only one thing needs to change: Drivers' attitude.
Best way to achieve that: Redesign the roads.
Which is what "Going Dutch" seems to be all about - in part by segregation, in part by lowering speed limits, volumes and general busy-ness. I reckon it's the second that's really going to deliver results. Except that still doesn't address the perceived or real need for motorising my journey, due to distance, luggage, need to drop kids off to school, pick up shopping, etc etc. Without that, all the free high-speed buses and guaranteed safe cycling in the world is just tinkering at the edges. It really does look like a social catch 22. :(
-
I'm not so sure as you are Jane that they are not committed to widepread segregation.
Adrian over on CycleChat posted this about an email he received from the LCC's Communications Manager on the matter: -
I have exchanged emails with Mike in the recent past. The most disturbing thing in this one is that the LCC believe the issue to be settled
Without high-quality separate facilities for cycling on main roads there will never be mass cycling in this country because people will be too scared to cycle
There's not a single post-industrialised country in the world that has achieved mass cycling any other way
I would argue that the pro-motoring lobbyists are delighted when cyclists insist on sharing the road, because that means more space for their cars
Sorry you don't agree, but the arguments over segregation are over – separation is essential on busy roads and at large junctions, or there will be no mass cycling
Kind Regards
Mike
Mike Cavenett
Communications Manager
London Cycling Campaign
That's definitely confirmed it that the CEoGB have infiltrated LCC :facepalm:
-
And that's the Communications Manager? :o
-
...........while we can't come together as a movement and be clear on our needs and the needs of future cyclists. The hardcore I wear my road warrior badge with pride.....................................................
If you're concerned that cyclist should come together for the common good then labelling anyone who disagrees with your point of view with a ridiculous and simplistic stereotype is hardly likely to help.
-
I suppose that I am fortunate here in that the cycle facilities are generally of high quality, useful and add to the cycling experience rather than detract from it.
I've read a lot of your posts on this topic, so yes, I think you are fortunate. :)
I've lived and cycled in a number of places, all with shite cycle-paths. (including parts of Flanders!) I've seen the odd decent facility, and I sometimes find it convenient to use some of the crapper ones. I've also read a lot of internet discussion from other cyclists in many parts of the UK. My non-scientific, but honest conclusion is that my experience is not unusual. And that you are very fortunate!
You say you've ridden in London a fair bit - how did you find those facilities?
-
Cycle path or no cycle path, I have never felt as intimidated in Germany/Netherlands/Denmark as I do in GB.
There is much more to the message Go Dutch than infrastructure, imo :thumbsup:
-
And that's the Communications Manager? :o
I've resigned my membership of LCC and made it clear that I don't want to be associated with such appalling condescension and ignorance.
-
Cycle path or no cycle path, I have never felt as intimidated in Germany/Netherlands/Denmark as I do in GB.
There is much more to the message Go Dutch than infrastructure, imo :thumbsup:
The biggest single common factor about why it is so much more pleasant to cycle in the countries your mention...
... presumption of liability. The one thing that the 'Go Dutch' acolytes (such as the 'Cycling Embassy of GB') conveniently overlook.
-
separation is essential on busy roads and at large junctions, or there will be no mass cycling
I am not a dutchman, but AFAICT, this is rather different from the level of segregation that prevails in the Netherlands
-
...........while we can't come together as a movement and be clear on our needs and the needs of future cyclists. The hardcore I wear my road warrior badge with pride.....................................................
If you're concerned that cyclist should come together for the common good then labelling anyone who disagrees with your point of view with a ridiculous and simplistic stereotype is hardly likely to help.
In a thread where people are being labelled 'fundamentalist segregationists' and similar language? I think a little hyperbole to make a point is deserved, especially as davelodwig's words were the most eloquent on this thread so far.
It is about people. Not about drivers and cyclists. I've said it before. We have to see beyond our particular tribe and our particular needs.
It's worth quoting this again:
Because this argument shouldn't be segregation / no segregation it should be how do we make it safe for people to use our towns and cities however they choose. Change road layouts, put proper paths in, restrict motor vehicles, ban trucks, whatever, let's just stop getting people killed instead of arguing on the internet.
-
I really really want to share Jane's optimism about LCC and its future strategy. I've been a member and supporter for the last 13 years but am having some doubts about future support.
When this thread first started, my feeling was that the detail of implementation is so important here. I'm not against the principle of street redesign that ends up segregating cycle traffic from motorised traffic, but clearly its success depends on how it is implemented and what other soft measures are brought into place. I was, and I think still am, willing to give LCC a chance since there is some considerable talent among its ranks.
But, there are some warning signs that leave me feeling really uneasy. The publicity surrounding the Go Dutch campaign seems to be putting a large emphasis on segregated cycle routes. The well-publiscised bus lay-by replaces cycle-motor vehicle interaction with cylce-pedestrian interaction to the detriment of both more vulnerable groups. Digging down a bit (and Jane has explained this well), there is clearly much more going on with LCC's work, but the headline stuff is at best a distraction from the much more widespread and achievable measures necessary to transform our urban environments (e.g. cycle training at school and work, pavement widening, speed control, parking restriction, line-of-sight engineering etc.). The problem with associating in people's minds 'segregation == safe' is that it implicitly reinforces the fear that 'roads == danger' and so you create a dependency on the inevitably limited mileage of separated cycle routes. I am hoping this is just a flawed LCC publicity strategy rather than actual flawed policy itself. Mike Cavenett's email, assuming it is not out of context, leaves me with no confidence in future LCC publicity though.
There is a parallel with discussion of, dare I say it, helmets in that both segregation and helmets generate huge amounts of discussion, provide an easy-to-grasp concept of cycle safety, but (in my view at least), are largely irrelevant in comparison to other aspects of behaviour and design. As tempting as it may be for LCC and others to latch on to segregation as a way of engaging infrequent and potential cyclists, I think the approach is ultimately self-defeating in that it sends the wrong message about public road space and long-term transformation of our cities.
The Hackney experience is an important one in that the transformation has occurred without a large emphasis on segregation. I am relieved to see Oliver Schick from Hackney back on the LCC Elected Policy Forum, so perhaps there is a greater plurality of influential views than one might assume from the publicity.
-
Everyone is talking about the new cycle lane and bus stop using words that make it sound as if they know what they are talking about like
lay-by replaces cycle-motor vehicle interaction with cylce-pedestrian interaction to the detriment of both more vulnerable groups
(just one example - no personal slight intended)
The truth is, nobody knows because it hasn't been done. Today on going past I noticed that there is a raised section of the path by the stops, flattening out the difference between bike path and pavement. Do you know, that might just work? Sure it may take a little getting used to, but then everyone will take care around it, much as happens in the flattened pavement/path/road in Exhibition Road. As far as I am aware, none of the predicted carnage has occurred there. This might just be the start of something quite original - road space being used by people. I can see that some days I'll be on the road, others I might take the path.
I think we really need to see how this all pans out before panning it.
Just because cogent and broadly held views are being expressed doesn't make it right - anyone remember the Olympics?
-
That's definitely confirmed it that the CEoGB have infiltrated LCC :facepalm:
CEoGB?
-
Oh, and another thing.
All this "mixing pedestrian and cyclist won't work". Why do you think that might happen? Yes, that's right, there's a recognition in everyone's consciousness that the cyclists are likely to contain a measure of knobheads who will ignore the needs of the more vulnerable pedestrian (at least, in a hierarchy of needs fashion). Doesn't that sound awfully familiar?
(oh and it's Cycling Embassy of Great Britain)
-
Everyone is talking about the new cycle lane and bus stop using words that make it sound as if they know what they are talking about like
The reason I mentioned it was that I was expressing concern about the presentation of new schemes and how that particular presentation creates an intersection between people getting on and off the bus with people riding on the cycle path.
I'd hope with the testing at the Transport Research Laboratory that any implemented scheme would be safer and less conflict-inducing than that mockup, but I remain concerned that it was even considered as a way to promote the future direction of LCC efforts.
-
That's definitely confirmed it that the CEoGB have infiltrated LCC :facepalm:
CEoGB?
Cycling Embassy of Great Britain http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk (http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk)
-
Your response was more measured than some, but this whole thread is people talking about what they think will happen with a certainty bordering on fervour. Nobody knows what our cities will start to look like if more people take to bikes.
I've said this before, the mindset change that can happen is far broader than simply having more bums on saddles, it is acceptance of the bike and all that goes with it. The evidence to date - the changes over the last 10 years in London - show that it can make a difference.
(and I say this as someone who prefers the A13 and Canning Town to CS2 or 3, Stratford....oops)
-
I really really want to share Jane's optimism about LCC and its future strategy. I've been a member and supporter for the last 13 years but am having some doubts about future support.
When this thread first started, my feeling was that the detail of implementation is so important here. I'm not against the principle of street redesign that ends up segregating cycle traffic from motorised traffic, but clearly its success depends on how it is implemented and what other soft measures are brought into place. I was, and I think still am, willing to give LCC a chance since there is some considerable talent among its ranks.
But, there are some warning signs that leave me feeling really uneasy. The publicity surrounding the Go Dutch campaign seems to be putting a large emphasis on segregated cycle routes. The well-publiscised bus lay-by replaces cycle-motor vehicle interaction with cylce-pedestrian interaction to the detriment of both more vulnerable groups. Digging down a bit (and Jane has explained this well), there is clearly much more going on with LCC's work, but the headline stuff is at best a distraction from the much more widespread and achievable measures necessary to transform our urban environments (e.g. cycle training at school and work, pavement widening, speed control, parking restriction, line-of-sight engineering etc.). The problem with associating in people's minds 'segregation == safe' is that it implicitly reinforces the fear that 'roads == danger' and so you create a dependency on the inevitably limited mileage of separated cycle routes. I am hoping this is just a flawed LCC publicity strategy rather than actual flawed policy itself. Mike Cavenett's email, assuming it is not out of context, leaves me with no confidence in future LCC publicity though.
There is a parallel with discussion of, dare I say it, helmets in that both segregation and helmets generate huge amounts of discussion, provide an easy-to-grasp concept of cycle safety, but (in my view at least), are largely irrelevant in comparison to other aspects of behaviour and design. As tempting as it may be for LCC and others to latch on to segregation as a way of engaging infrequent and potential cyclists, I think the approach is ultimately self-defeating in that it sends the wrong message about public road space and long-term transformation of our cities.
The Hackney experience is an important one in that the transformation has occurred without a large emphasis on segregation. I am relieved to see Oliver Schick from Hackney back on the LCC Elected Policy Forum, so perhaps there is a greater plurality of influential views than one might assume from the publicity.
I agree with you Jo and your sentence that I've bolded gives me great concern for what future campaigning is going to be delivered by the LCC.
Plus, the horrible taunts (which I've been hearing) of Oliver and his own ideas has been very inappropriate. Coupled with an increasing snobbishness of local LCC campaigners by HQ. Its all too apparent if you are on Twitter.
-
I suppose that I am fortunate here in that the cycle facilities are generally of high quality, useful and add to the cycling experience rather than detract from it.
I've read a lot of your posts on this topic, so yes, I think you are fortunate. :)
I've lived and cycled in a number of places, all with shite cycle-paths. (including parts of Flanders!) I've seen the odd decent facility, and I sometimes find it convenient to use some of the crapper ones. I've also read a lot of internet discussion from other cyclists in many parts of the UK. My non-scientific, but honest conclusion is that my experience is not unusual. And that you are very fortunate!
You say you've ridden in London a fair bit - how did you find those facilities?
I grew up in London and as an 11 year old was merrily pedalling my way round the Kingston one way system (as it was before they changed it round to make it more cycle friendly). Most of the facilities in London are poorly thought out and rarely used. There are some that are good, but most are inappropriate and would be better served with a blanket speed reduction (separation on time, not space) on the roads on which they are placed (Torrington Place I am looking at you).
It works like this - Where you have few junctions and arterial roads with relatively high speeds (30mph + where traffic can readily travel at those speeds) then space separation is a good strategy to reduce conflict. The other method should there be not room for designated space is to identify and clearly sign alternative routes that are as attractive in terms of speed and convenience to the arterial route.
Vehicular cycling is ideal where the speeds of motor and cycle traffic are comparable - there becomes little conflict and people feel safe. Segregated routes (which must be of high quality with an appropriate design speed and priorities at junctions) can provide part of the answer, but these should either be on long arterial runs with few junctions, or entirely separate from the road (for which it is hard to find space in London) Implementing routes which are not up to the design speed for commuters (Wandle trail anyone?) is a recipe for frustration.
The key things are (in this order) 20mph limits and presumed liability, then infrastructure to identify convenient and appropriate routes away from fast traffic (how far away is a matter for debate).
-
Another benefit to segregation that nobody seems to have hinted on: It allows cycle traffic to keep flowing when the motor vehicles are jammed. Even a shared-use pavement can be useful in that situation, though good quality segregation that allows cycling at speed is much, much better.
Maybe you're all road-warriors with narrow drop-barred bikes and nerves of steel or something, but even some experienced cyclists don't like filtering, some cycles are impractical to filter on at the best of times, and sometimes the motorists deliberately set out to make it difficult for you.
-
even some experienced cyclists don't like filtering...and sometimes the motorists deliberately set out to make it difficult for you.
That's me that is. Even on a Brom which is probably one of the easier bikes to filter on :(
I'm very, very tired of battling my way to work and battling my way back. And while the Cable Street cycle path is hardly a shining example of infrastructure, it's amazing how many cyclists choose to use it, even the fully-kitted out roadies - it has proper roads running parallel to it if they wanted.
-
Another benefit to segregation that nobody seems to have hinted on: It allows cycle traffic to keep flowing when the motor vehicles are jammed. Even a shared-use pavement can be useful in that situation, though good quality segregation that allows cycling at speed is much, much better.
Maybe you're all road-warriors with narrow drop-barred bikes and nerves of steel or something, but even some experienced cyclists don't like filtering, some cycles are impractical to filter on at the best of times, and sometimes the motorists deliberately set out to make it difficult for you.
Heard of Bus Lanes? They have the added advantage of being wide enough, and regularly swept.
-
Yes, I like bus lanes for exactly that reason.
Unfortunately, they tend to have buses in them.
-
There's a little stretch of shared use path on the run up to Albert Bridge. It avoids some irritatingly narrow filtering that I used to have to do every day. Now I pootle up that path and make a simple left right turn onto the bridge. It's been a revelation in terms of stress levels. I use it both ways now.
However, I really wouldn't want to use something similar over the whole of my route.
What I'd like to see though is little bits of thoughtful infrastructure that make junctions a bit easier, or allow me to cut a corner at traffic light controlled junction.
That bus lane bypass I've seen makes no sense to me, the cyclist turns off the carriage way, slows to a safe speed to avoid pedestrians and then has to merge back into the traffic.
Why not make the bus do that? Pull the bus right off the road with a strip of kerb seperating the bus from the rest of the road, other buses and cyclists just go straight on. The bus lane could then kink back into the road with the rest of the traffic forced through a chicane so the bus emerges directly into its own lane - here cycles could cut across the lane and into the bus lane. There used to be something analogous on Chelsea bridge where the traffic was directed out from the carriageway and bicycles went straight on into a new cycle lane. This seems to have changed in a recent road redesign though.
-
Another benefit to segregation that nobody seems to have hinted on: It allows cycle traffic to keep flowing when the motor vehicles are jammed. Even a shared-use pavement can be useful in that situation, though good quality segregation that allows cycling at speed is much, much better.
So is segregation a safety (subjective or objective) issue or just a matter of letting us get thru traffic more easily. LCC portray it as a necessity, before the 8's to 80's will even think of getting on a bike.
Maybe you're all road-warriors with narrow drop-barred bikes and nerves of steel or something, but even some experienced cyclists don't like filtering, some cycles are impractical to filter on at the best of times, and sometimes the motorists deliberately set out to make it difficult for you.
You don't need nerves of steel, its less stressful than using the facilities we get.
-
Another benefit to segregation that nobody seems to have hinted on: It allows cycle traffic to keep flowing when the motor vehicles are jammed. Even a shared-use pavement can be useful in that situation, though good quality segregation that allows cycling at speed is much, much better.
So is segregation a safety (subjective or objective) issue or just a matter of letting us get thru traffic more easily. LCC portray it as a necessity, before the 8's to 80's will even think of getting on a bike.
Both?
Maybe you're all road-warriors with narrow drop-barred bikes and nerves of steel or something, but even some experienced cyclists don't like filtering, some cycles are impractical to filter on at the best of times, and sometimes the motorists deliberately set out to make it difficult for you.
You don't need nerves of steel, its less stressful than using the facilities we get.
You need to be able to balance your bike through narrow gaps without wobbling into wing mirrors etc, while maintaining an awareness of the traffic situation, and keeping your spidey-sense tuned for potential lemmings and doorings. It's actually quite hard work.
While I'm the last person who could be described as an apologist for inadequate facilities, Silly Sustrans Gates, for all their many faults, don't contain frustrated humans who may jump out and assault you if you cock it up and touch the post.
-
I agree with you Jo and your sentence that I've bolded gives me great concern for what future campaigning is going to be delivered by the LCC.
Plus, the horrible taunts (which I've been hearing) of Oliver and his own ideas has been very inappropriate. Coupled with an increasing snobbishness of local LCC campaigners by HQ. Its all too apparent if you are on Twitter.
I'm on twitter (well, Lewisham Cyclists is) and I haven't seen this. We must be missing some cycling related feeds, I guess. such personal attacks are inexcusable, if this is happening. Oliver has worked long, hard and honestly for cyclists in Hackney and across London.
-
This morning, about half of the Stratford system was open (the western half, going west) so I used it.
You know what? It's good. Stratford High Street has long been one of the worst bits for anyone contemplating cycling in to work from the East, there are no practical alternatives (there is one off road-ish alternative, but I wouldn't describe it as practical and not many know about it). As ever nothing is perfect, those bus stops will probably work, but the Bow Roundabout looks like it will still be a danger spot. There is a massive ASL, but that will count for nothing when it clogs up with traffic. Anyway, I will likely use it out of preference from the flyover.
If all the roads like Startford High Street got this treatment I for one would be happy.
-
Yes, I like bus lanes for exactly that reason.
Unfortunately, they tend to have buses in them.
Except in Bristol, where they have parked cars instead.
-
You need to be able to balance your bike through narrow gaps without wobbling into wing mirrors etc, while maintaining an awareness of the traffic situation, and keeping your spidey-sense tuned for potential lemmings and doorings. It's actually quite hard work.
You don't have to, you can always wait in line.
-
In a thread where people are being labelled 'fundamentalist segregationists' and similar language? I think a little hyperbole to make a point is deserved, especially as davelodwig's words were the most eloquent on this thread so far.
Your point makes no sense to me. If your complaint is that people are being labelled then arguing that more labelliing will help is a bit odd. If you want a consensus then you need a more inclusive approach
I certainly agree that segregation is a part, but only a part, of making things better. Vehicular cycling where segregation can't happen is part of the solution too. The main thrust of the post I quoted was that there was only one agenda and that we must all support it regardless.
I agree with Clarion - driver attitude is the most important thing. Everything derives from this. Perceptions of cycling safety are driven by driver attitude, sometimes very directly - people know how they drive and know that they wouldn't like to be cycling with people driving the way that they do. Even segregation depends on driver attitude - unless some one persuades drivers to allow road space and budget for it then it can't happen on any scale.
-
I think it depends on (and affects) societal attitude more than just drivers'.
-
Yes, I like bus lanes for exactly that reason.
Unfortunately, they tend to have buses in them.
Except in Bristol, where they have parked cars instead.
And in Chester where cycles are banned from the bus lanes.
-
And Liverpool, where the ex-bus lanes are now full of jammed motor vehicles full of cretins who thought the bike was holding them up.
-
Yes, I like bus lanes for exactly that reason.
Unfortunately, they tend to have buses in them.
Except in Bristol, where they have parked cars instead.
And in Chester where cycles are banned from the bus lanes.
That's a strange rule. I suppose the bus co, or someone, decided cyclists were delaying the buses. But do cyclists take notice of this rule? Do the police enforce it?
-
Not directly answering Cudzo's question but the police were very keen to enforce a no cycles bus lane in London.
This might have had tragic results.
-
Yes, I like bus lanes for exactly that reason.
Unfortunately, they tend to have buses in them.
Except in Bristol, where they have parked cars instead.
And in Chester where cycles are banned from the bus lanes.
That's a strange rule. I suppose the bus co, or someone, decided cyclists were delaying the buses. But do cyclists take notice of this rule? Do the police enforce it?
The one I'm most familiar with is the one on the Nth bound Wrexham road which has 6 buses an hour scheduled. I've never seen police enforce it. I used it illegally for a few months until I got a punishment pass from a bus which skimmed my elbow. Now I use the 4 foot wide 2 way shared bit of the pavement I'm afraid it's not a principle I'm prepared to die for.
OT the signage for that bus lane is only legal with an associated TRO is there an online D/B of TROs anywhere?
-
TROs should be accessible somewhere in your local authority, I'd guess most have them online.
-
TROs should be accessible somewhere in your local authority, I'd guess most have them online.
Not Chester. They publish a few recent ones but this lane must be at least as old as the Park and ride - 10 years at a guess. I might understand it if there were a lot of buses but the only ones scheduled are every quarter hour from the Park and Ride and one every half hour from Wrexham. It's not the only one either.
-
I think it depends on (and affects) societal attitude more than just drivers'.
Yes, that's probably a more precise expression of what's meant. However we have a society where you could easily argue that drivers and society's attitude were one and the same thing.
-
You need to be able to balance your bike through narrow gaps without wobbling into wing mirrors etc, while maintaining an awareness of the traffic situation, and keeping your spidey-sense tuned for potential lemmings and doorings. It's actually quite hard work.
You don't have to, you can always wait in line.
Yes, exactly. That was the point I was making. If you aren't up to filtering, for whatever valid reason, you can either wait in the queue, or if one is available use a segregated facility to make better progress. It's what I usually do.
-
That bus lane bypass I've seen makes no sense to me, the cyclist turns off the carriage way, slows to a safe speed to avoid pedestrians and then has to merge back into the traffic.
Why not make the bus do that? Pull the bus right off the road with a strip of kerb seperating the bus from the rest of the road, other buses and cyclists just go straight on. The bus lane could then kink back into the road with the rest of the traffic forced through a chicane so the bus emerges directly into its own lane - here cycles could cut across the lane and into the bus lane. There used to be something analogous on Chelsea bridge where the traffic was directed out from the carriageway and bicycles went straight on into a new cycle lane. This seems to have changed in a recent road redesign though.
The issue with this is simply that if the modal shift to cycling we all desire occurs then the bus will have to pull left through the stream of cyclists to access the layby and then either wait for a gap or bully it's way back out again. This in of itself is fine provided that the bus drivers all behave courtiously when trying to pull in and out and the cyclists extend equally courtiously to let the bus in and out.
-
That bus lane bypass I've seen makes no sense to me, the cyclist turns off the carriage way, slows to a safe speed to avoid pedestrians and then has to merge back into the traffic.
Why not make the bus do that? Pull the bus right off the road with a strip of kerb seperating the bus from the rest of the road, other buses and cyclists just go straight on. The bus lane could then kink back into the road with the rest of the traffic forced through a chicane so the bus emerges directly into its own lane - here cycles could cut across the lane and into the bus lane. There used to be something analogous on Chelsea bridge where the traffic was directed out from the carriageway and bicycles went straight on into a new cycle lane. This seems to have changed in a recent road redesign though.
The issue with this is simply that if the modal shift to cycling we all desire occurs then the bus will have to pull left through the stream of cyclists to access the layby and then either wait for a gap or bully it's way back out again. This in of itself is fine provided that the bus drivers all behave courtiously when trying to pull in and out and the cyclists extend equally courtiously to let the bus in and out.
I reckon a give way line in the bus lane would take care of that. At least on paper.
-
Do you mean the bus should give way to the cyclists or the cyclists to the bus? If we ever get to a modal shift with a near constant stream of cyclists, I can't see either working.
It does occur to me that perhaps the "floating bus stops" are floating in the wrong place. If the road is wide enough for a bus lane, then you could have the cycle lane carrying straight on and the bus stop on an island to its right. This would only work on wide roads, because otherwise the waiting bus would block the whole road - and if it's a quiet enough road for that not to matter, it probably doesn't need any infrastructure. Also, without bends the cyclists in the cycle lane would approach the crossing pedestrians at higher speed, probably.
-
On CS7, there are pretty much constant streams of cyclists, and buses do find it hard to pull in, as there is rarely a bus length between cyclists.
-
Do you mean the bus should give way to the cyclists or the cyclists to the bus? If we ever get to a modal shift with a near constant stream of cyclists, I can't see either working.
Cyclists (and taxis, motorbikes, whatever) in the lane should give way to the bus leaving the stop. It's just formalising what's already in the highway code.
-
That makes sense and I'd have thought would work when the bus is pulling out - indeed it's only courtesy really. But, as Clarion notes, I was thinking about letting the bus pull in to the stop. There's several ways to think of it: as lanes of traffic. In this case, the bus is in lane 2 and has to wait for a gap in lane 1 - the cyclists - so it can pull in, just like it would if it had been in the "fast lane" of a dual carriageway. Or we could adopt the principle that a stream of less traffic (the bus) gives way to one of more traffic, just like a minor road giving way to a major one. But in practice - nobody ever thinks of a stream of cyclists as a traffic lane in its/their own right, do they? It/they are thought of as being part of a larger lane. Perhaps the (an) answer would be to give cycle lanes the same legal status as other traffic lanes? Obviously this would need amendments to the HC and probably laws, as well as a big re-education/publicity action.
-
If it's a shared lane, and the buses are staying in the lane (which, tbf, is much of the time on CS7), then the flow of cyclists is funnelled through past the stopped bus in the widened part of the lane. As the bus pulls away, some cyclists complete their manoeuvre and pull in, others slow down and either abandon the overtake, allowing the bus to pull ahead, or don't start. Some eejits do still try their chances, but it's not very effective usually.
Much smoother, less disruptive, and immensely simpler and cheaper than any of the other solutions proposed.
-
OK, just got back from the Eastbound run, and it is fully open.
In the interest of science, I went under the flyover and around the roundabout.
The approach to the roundabout has a standard bus-into-the-bike-lane stop, with nowhere for cyclist s to go and nowhere for the buses to pull out, so far so normal. Then there's the confusing lights as reported intoday's diamond geezer http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2013_10_01_archive.html#8937310924521735091 - of course as a non-cyclist, he doesn't have the same perspective, actually they aren't so much confusing as boring. And, when the traffic snarls up completely here, it'll be everyone for themselves.
Onto the cycle lane eastbound. In contrast to the westbound, there are two normal bus-into-bike-lane stops, and one lane shimmy round. For my money, I'll have a lan-shimmy-round any day of the week, those who have been moaning about it, what better arrangement can you think of?
The one area I think is not exceptionally good is dealing with the traffic turning left into Westfield, that looks to be a recipe for disaster, unless it is governed by lights. Otherwise, it is SOOOOOOOOO much more pleasant than before. One thing that will be a little problemette that I didn't think about before - the lane is so wide that it will encourage two way cycling, in the short time I was there I encountered one such already, which is not how it is intended to be used (I don't think) and may well complicate matters.
But for the first time in my living memory Stratford High Street can be ridden by anyone without scaring the bejasus out of them.
-
OK. That's some progress, at least.
-
Charlie Lloyd from LCC rode the route from Bow to Stratford. His video is here... As he says not great quality in the rain, but it gives a picture. http://lcc.org.uk/articles/mayors-cycle-superhighway-2-extension-the-first-step-towards-going-dutch-for-london-cyclists His comments are interesting, definitely not the comments of a diehard segregationist.. He highlights the drawbacks accurately.
-
A good job he was going at a moderate pace at 2:09.
-
A good job he was going at a moderate pace at 2:09.
That's the left turn highlighted in my report, Short of having a bikes only phase (which would be unlikely to be observed, there are already three traffic flows taking their turn at those lights) I can't see what might be done.
-
But it is an illustration of the exactly the sort of danger inherent with parallel provision that cause many of us to be sceptical of segregation.
At least at a set of lights (unlike the priority junctions) it would be possible to solve the problem by providing a stage for each stream of traffic arriving at the junction - and if this was a serious piece of infrastructure there would be such a stage. As it is, it is just another case of painting a bit of surplus tarmac blue leading cyclists to dangerous approaches at the junctions just like every other c**p UK facility. The only difference in this case is that there happens to be a lot more surplus tarmac as the width of the road is far in excess of that needed for the volume of traffic using it. The fact that they are unwilling to do anything that might disadvantage motor traffic to the slightest degree at the point where cyclists are most in need of protection demonstrates which road users the real priorities of those who designed the scheme.
-
I'm pretty sure that that is not the case at all. The only alternative is to slow all traffic down to 15mph or slower. You will always get conflict between the faster moving cars wanting to turn left and cyclists. End of.
Unless of course you can come up with a design that is actually workable in the real world.
From what I can see on the video, and what I have ridden elsewhere, this looks like it is a massive bonus. Some extra signage indicating that left turnign drivers should ensure the way is clear before crossing the cycle lane would be good (if such an authorised sign exists)
-
But it is an illustration of the exactly the sort of danger inherent with parallel provision that cause many of us to be sceptical of segregation.
At least at a set of lights (unlike the priority junctions) it would be possible to solve the problem by providing a stage for each stream of traffic arriving at the junction - and if this was a serious piece of infrastructure there would be such a stage. As it is, it is just another case of painting a bit of surplus tarmac blue leading cyclists to dangerous approaches at the junctions just like every other c**p UK facility. The only difference in this case is that there happens to be a lot more surplus tarmac as the width of the road is far in excess of that needed for the volume of traffic using it. The fact that they are unwilling to do anything that might disadvantage motor traffic to the slightest degree at the point where cyclists are most in need of protection demonstrates which road users the real priorities of those who designed the scheme.
Too many of your assumptions and statements are plain wrong, I'm afraid. You either don't know this section (most likely) or are an incurably miserable sod ;)
There are currently already 4 phases to the lights, as I suggested adding another for bikes would not only add extra time to the cars but be very unlikely to be observed by cyclists. I don't discount the possibility of being a lot more clever with the phasing, but I 'm not holding my breath. The problem is that you have the major artery and a busy road, all needing to feed into Westfield via Wharton Road. It's the typical scenario where they might have used a roundabout - I'm glad they didn't.
Whatever else you might accuse this facility of, it certainly is NOT just painting a bit of surplus tarmac blue.
As to whether or not they have just reclaimed surplus tarmac, well. You haven't seen the congestion here have you? The idea that there was surplus tarmac would come as a surprise to the drivers and planners. There is no question in the minds of anyone who knows and uses this route that the scheme will disadvantage drivers. That's one of the things that worries me about it, whether this will result in poorer driver consideration if I'm not in the facility (as I probably won't be over the flyover)
It may not be a perfect shield of invulnerability for cyclists, but it is likely the single best facility in London, and one that answers a real problem and demand.
-
I've watched the first minute of the video and I'm disappointed and worried already. The very first side road, at 48s, is very nearly just a normal treatment; the blue paint stops and although there is still a cycle lane which, in theory, has priority over the side road, there is minimal separation from the main carriageway - just a paint line. It looks like left hook city. I thought there was supposed to be about a car's length between main carriageway and cycle lane so that turning traffic does treat it as a separate junction and give way? I can't see this one being particularly safe.
-
My overall impression is that it's just another cycle lane. Not particularly bad but not especially good, just the normal lane which fades down at each side road. The only novel thing about it seem to be the floating bus stops, which as far as it's possible to tell don't seem to be that bad.
-
The unique thing isn't the lane, it is the context.
East London is cut off by the the Lea, by the Marshes and by the industrial wasteland that is now the Olympic Park. If you want to come into London from the East, there are effectively only 4 routes, the A13, Stratford High Street, A12, Lea Bridge Road - this image shows what's happening http://goo.gl/maps/B7rwp . In contrast to everywhere else in London. there are no back streets, no alternatives. For all those to the east of Stratford, Stratford High Street is the only practical option. That's the case for vehicles as well, with obvious conflict. The A13 has had cycle provision added on the sides, but that is really badly affected by junctions.
The A12 next north (not the actual A12 which is effectively motorway and bikes are banned, but the underlying streets) is a mixed bag that dumps you into Hackney
Lea Bridge is structualy incapable of being updated along much of its length because of the terrain around.
For years there have been campaigns to improve the lot of the cycling commuter, which have been steadfastly ignored in preference to the needs of motorised traffic. Before the olympics they even took away much of the bus lane infrastructure that made life bearable. It has been really shit in the meantime.
This facility is a real triumph, they took away a whole freakin' lane from the motorist and gave it to the cyclist, astonishing because there was the width to do the normal half arsed thing on the wide pavement. I can think of nowhere else in the UK where anything like this has happened.
So before you start carping and whinging, consider that. For all its failings, this deserves to be lauded to the skies.
-
You may be miffed at the criticism, but calling it carping and whingeing is unjustified. Lauded to the hilt is overstating it somewhat, I'd reserve that for something that did'nt have a number failings (of which a number of perfectly reasonable ones have been identified in this thread).
I agree it sets a good precedent of taking away motor vehicle space and making dedicated cycling space, and despite having initial concerns of the bus stop bypass I'll reserve judgement on them for now, give it a few months, and see the pedestrian and cyclist feedback.
But it does nothing to address the big bottleneck before the flyover and motor traffic encroachment in the cycle lane, does not address the danger at the roundabout where the deaths occured, and still has the left hook possibilities at 2.09 in that vid as you state. Oh and EEK that bit at the beginning of the video at 11 secs where he pulls over and wait for a gap to get to the smurf road gave me the fear. Not a safe place for groups of cyclists to be gathering waiting for a gap.
These are the bits that concern me. All well good being segregated from the traffic along the straights between junctions but they were'nt the main danger points before, so all the main danger points to the mass hordes of potential new cyclists remain. It seems we have the extra costs of the segregation model without the promised protections of the go dutch model, not ideal. I guess the worry is that not too many compromises are made. It seems inevitable to me there's going to be a funding gap between what the campaigners want and what TFL are prepared to fund. Its ensuring this gap is not bridged by sidestepping the danger points, as this is not likely to decrease the number of fatalities or increase the number of new cyclists, if indeed perceived danger is the major barrier to increased cycling levels.
I don't blame LCC for this particularly, and I have duly noted from this thread the good work they do. Ultimately it is TFL, and I'd totally despair at having to deal with them, especially when those in charge are more adept at foot in mouth moments than addressing the real issues. Todays example:
http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2013/11/london-road-casualties-rise-for-first-time-in-seven-years-with-serious-cycle-injuries-up-18.html
Anyway as said its a small step in the right direction, I just wish there was'nt so much unsavoury infighting that pervades all the similar threads, regardless of forum, across the internet. Human nature I suppose. This forums thread has been better than most and I think the criticism has by and large been constructive, so please take it as such. Thank you and good luck to all those working in this area, you must all have the patience of saints and skins as thick as rhinos.
-
My update after a week of operation.
It's not if there will be an accident, it is when.
There are two areas
The car left hook at Wharton Road will happen, hopefully not too bad, I think Carpenters Road has the potential to be more dangerous. The bus stop ped/bike interface probably won't happen as people are a bit wary around there, much more likely (ie a racing certainty) are the areas near the pedestrian crossings. When the road clogs up (as it does every day at rush hour) the pedestrians filter every which way through the stopped traffic, they now pop out into the bike lane where some riders will be doing inappropriate speed.
-
Saw this photo in another forum:
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYTMgkMCIAAy6T7.jpg
-
Well you got a free swimming pool into the bargain ;D :facepalm:
-
I saw that in RL
-
So it sounds as if after all the fanfare, the cynics were right and it's yet another crap facility. Ok, it's probably an improvement on nothing, especially in terms of confidence boosting, but it's still a long way from Amsterdam. It's somewhere in the North Sea, neither full, safe and boring segregation, nor the Englishman's freedom of the Queen's highway. And it has the same weak points as always - junctions.
-
It's somewhere in the North Sea.
Or under it if you look at that picture :)
-
This will be a brief and somewhat general addition to the debate but here goes - after walking the route Eastbound from the Bow roundabout approach I find the CS2 extension / improvement a bit of a mixed bag.
Firstly, it is undoubtedly BETTER than how it was before! Is it great - NO. However, I do get the feeling that TFL are crawling (all be it slowly) towards a better benchmark.
Secondly, bits I liked - although not an outright fan of segregation the wide seperate blue way certainly is safer on the whole than fighting with the traffic and does appear to be confidence inspiring and will hopefully attract more cycling in that area, and give regular cyclists respite from traffic for at least part of their journey. Compared to the preceeding bit from the City up to Bow roundabout it is bliss!
Thirdly, bits I didn't like - Bow roundabout and access to CS2 from the flyover is still a mess and still dangerous, however, I don't know if any upgrade to this section was intended as part of the extension or if this will come in the near future as part of the Junction Review. It was a rainy day and (as pictured somewhere!) there was a bit of flooding to small sections of the superhighway. The interfaces with the junctions, I don't understand why the solid blue does not extend across these with some king of priority markings for cyclists. It does look a bit like you're protected along straight bits then on your own at the junctions - perhaps when I get the chance to cycle it, it will feel different, and of course walking the route I didn't get a feel for the traffic lighting and how that effects the journey.
Lastly, just for Ham - yes there was one cyclist going the wrong way along the eastbound route - I agree this was bound to happen, and there was NO post in the second of the 'bus sections' just a neat blue filled in square from where it had been plucked ;-).
I hope to get to test this bit out on the bike very soon, and I also wonder if they have snagging left to do - I did get the feeling they have not quite finished.
-
Here's a really uplifting example of how removing segregation can utterly transform an urban space for the better. And this is not something from Scandinavia or the Netherlands, but in car-loving Cheshire...
http://youtu.be/-vzDDMzq7d0
We should be demanding more of this visionary thinking.
-
If anyone is visiting this part of the world it is worth taking a trip to Poynton to see just how transformational the scheme is.
-
What a marvelous scheme in Poynton! A success story.
-
What's interesting is that they did nothing for cyclists, pedestrians or traffic flow, instead they did it for shopkeepers and residents but it has benefited all those groups of people too.
-
They've done something similar in Ashford (Kent). Over the years, the town centre had become isolated by the growth of the ring road, eventually becoming little more than an island in the middle of a six-lane ring gyratory. It was really difficult to get to the town centre and as a result, the town was dying on its arse.
They've completely changed the priorities and the main route now skirts only one side of the town centre. Part of the old ring road has been transformed in a similar way to the Poynton system (or indeed like Exhibition Road in London), with the distinction between footpath and carriageway blurred. It's still not perfect but is a massive improvement.
As Cudzo says, *everyone* benefits from this type of approach.
-
(There are half a dozen threads where this could have gone, I chose this one because it's already the longest)
A common complaint in towns and cities today is the privatisation of public areas, which can mean anything from commercial sponsorship and naming of sports stadiums to gated communities, none of it seemingly relevant to anything in this board. But perhaps the way we use roads is another symptom of the same trend.
Thus, with no other viable alternative to provide transportation between the sectors, cars have proliferated, not only on the grid roads, where they have created congestion, but also within the sectors, where the environment is deteriorating and public space is converted into parking space.
...
By removing all cars from the sector, a lot of space is liberated. It is estimated that about 25% of the total surface area of the sector is currently used by cars, either for driving or parking...
...
In fact, a lot of space, which is currently used for parking in the market street, could be leased out to commercial activities...
That's from a discussion of Chandigarh, an Indian city designed in the 1950s by Le Corbusier. (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bangalore-bikers/naf2HurcrjY) (scroll down to "Sector 19") The details are not transferable to other places because of the city's specific design, but the problems are ubiquitous and the attitudes which might be used to solve them are universally applicable.
-
Carlisle, being Carlisle started to build an inner city ring road but never finished it. The dual carriageway only encloses about one quarter of the town centre, the rest is still in continuity with the rest of the town. A blessing in disguise, I guess.