Are LCC in LaLa Land?

[David Martin]

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.

[Cudzoziemiec]

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?

[AndyMorris]

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/

[David Martin]

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.

[AndyMorris]

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?

[jane]

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

[Cudzoziemiec]

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"!

[mattc]

...

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 ...

[AndyMorris]

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

[red marley]

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.

[AndyMorris]

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.

[Pete Owens]

and actually rather more Dutch than the sort of things their segregationist detractors are pushing for.

[Pete Owens]

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

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.

[jane]

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. 

[David Martin]

...

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.

[vorsprung]

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.

[mcshroom]

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

[alexb]

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

[jane]

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. 

[clarion]

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.

[davelodwig]

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.

[clarion]

Only one thing needs to change: Drivers' attitude.

[mcshroom]

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.

[clarion]

I accept your correction of my oversimplification.

[Kim]

Only one thing needs to change: Drivers' attitude.

Best way to achieve that: Redesign the roads.