Wide cycle lane dividers: are they a waste of space & can I motorcycle on them?

[Nick H.]

I'm talking about the paved strip on the left:



More and more road space is being gobbled by these things. What's the justification for making them so wide? I don't see why I shouldn't ride my motorbike on them. If I do, am I guilty of riding on the pavement, or in a cycle lane, or what?

[Kim]

Not the cycle path - the benefit of that being a sensible width is obvious.  The segregating build-out bit.

I'm not sure of the actual reason, but it seems to me that something thick enough for a pedestrian to be able to stand on it while waiting to cross is desirable.  'Pedestrian' might reasonably include a wheelchair or pushchair, though hopefully there are dropped kerbs at proper crossings for those.

Given experiences of Magic Paint, I'd say that more than a brick's worth of physical space between the motor traffic and the cycle path users is also desirable.


But also, it may function as a tactical reduction in road with, in order to reduce motor vehicle speeds.  Sometimes that's appropriate, but I can't speak for this location.

[Jakob W]

Stick planters in them or something and get a bit more greenery back on the street, as well as enhancing mode separation! There may be some justification about emergency vehicle access, but frankly anything that's likely to stop super-twat motons from trying to cross it gets my vote (cf orcas and other such crap infrastructure)...

[Peter]

I'd say (and hope) that you would be wrong to ride on the paved strip.  You want to do it for your own convenience but the idea of the strip is to separate the cycle lane from the motorised traffic (which you are).  You might be responsible but enough wouldn't be and how would anyone know?  It's so that there is a benefit to riding a bike,  rather than the constant aggravation.  At least, I imagine that's the reason, that and to make cycling more likely from a policy point of view.

Peter

[Nick H.]

I'd say (and hope) that you would be wrong to ride on the paved strip.  You want to do it for your own convenience but the idea of the strip is to separate the cycle lane from the motorised traffic (which you are).  You might be responsible but enough wouldn't be and how would anyone know?  It's so that there is a benefit to riding a bike,  rather than the constant aggravation.  At least, I imagine that's the reason, that and to make cycling more likely from a policy point of view.

Peter

But a narrow strip achieves the separation safely. AFAICS the wide strip's only function is to make the road so narrow that filtering on a motorcycle becomes impossible. That's what's happened in some stretches in Vauxhall.  Speaking as a cyclist-cum-motorcyclist I object most strongly. If the grand plan is to make motorcycling so slow that one may as well give up and get on a bicycle, I object to that as well. And I'm going to start riding on the dividers.  I already take the utmost care not to inconvenience cyclists, let alone endanger them. I'll continue to do that - it's very important to me, and I would never want to be the sort of lout who makes cycling scary or unpleasant. So I'll start using the dividers, albeit cautiously. Maybe I'll report back with a video.

[davelodwig]

I'd say (and hope) that you would be wrong to ride on the paved strip.  You want to do it for your own convenience but the idea of the strip is to separate the cycle lane from the motorised traffic (which you are).  You might be responsible but enough wouldn't be and how would anyone know?  It's so that there is a benefit to riding a bike,  rather than the constant aggravation.  At least, I imagine that's the reason, that and to make cycling more likely from a policy point of view.

Peter

But a narrow strip achieves the separation safely. AFAICS the wide strip's only function is to make the road so narrow that filtering on a motorcycle becomes impossible. That's what's happened in some stretches in Vauxhall.  Speaking as a cyclist-cum-motorcyclist I object most strongly. If the grand plan is to make motorcycling so slow that one may as well give up and get on a bicycle, I object to that as well. And I'm going to start riding on the dividers.  I already take the utmost care not to inconvenience cyclists, let alone endanger them. I'll continue to do that - it's very important to me, and I would never want to be the sort of lout who makes cycling scary or unpleasant. So I'll start using the dividers, albeit cautiously. Maybe I'll report back with a video.

I'm with Kim on the possible use of these and I imagine TFL designed them (I hope) so that pedestrians crossing might first cross the bike path and then have somewhere to wait before crossing the road rather than standing in the bike lane and placing them into conflict with cyclists and motorists.

I think if I was attempting to cross the road and waiting on one of these dividers and a motorcyclist came riding along the essentially pavement I was standing on some cross words would be said regardless of how carefully they might be progressing.  The grand plan I imagine is not to make motorcycling so slow but to help people out of motorised transport and onto bicycles.  I had to sit in a queue of traffic the other day on my bicycle because of the narrow lanes so I couldn't filter, my only other option was to cycle on the pavement I chose to wait, it is just alas one of those things when so many people share limited infrastructure.

[Nick H.]

I don't believe they're pedestrian refuges. If they were there'd be railings, as there are on refuges already. Tfl are not crazy enough to encourage peds to cross the Vauxhall gyratory jaywalk-style without using the plentiful crossings. I think they just haven't thought it through. It's a muddle. One minute they are encouraging filtering up the inside by allowing motorcyclists in bus lanes, the next minute they are effectively banning filtering on certain roads, without consultation. 

[Kim]

I suspect they simply haven't thought of motorcyclists filtering at all.

[Andrij]

If I do, am I guilty of riding on the pavement, or in a cycle lane, or what?

Being a tw@?



When that was a plain cycle lane with just a solid line, PTWs used to use it all the time for filtering.  Until they'd get caught behind a very slow, wobbly cyclist. 

[Veloman]

Is it a Highway?

If not stay away as I believe you are breaking the law.

[red marley]

Perhaps they're that wide so that someone falling off their bike (e.g. by hitting the kerb) would not fall into the line of motorised traffic. Keeping distance from exhaust fumes also makes it more pleasant for anyone not in the lane of motor vehicles.

I am sure Porkins is a considerate motorcyclist, but I am finding that with what feels like an increase in motorbikes in London, it is making my daily urban cycling experience considerably less pleasant. At most ASL junctions once the lights change to green I find myself being overtaken on both the inside and outside by motorcyclists wishing to accelerate hard from the lights to escape the car traffic. This may be in part the ease with which motorbikes can get to the ASL box now they are allowed to use the bus lanes in most of London. Keeping motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians well apart seems like a good idea to me.

[Nick H.]

I've been reading some Tfl documents about Vauxhall - these strips are labelled as traffic islands on the maps. They aren't mentioned in the text at all. But there is this:

 

The current gyratory creates an environment heavily dominated by motor vehicles.  The wide carriageway encourages high speeds, especially outside peak periods...Large numbers of pedestrians pass through Vauxhall each day but the  existing crossings do not always follow the most direct or popular  routes, which can lead to pedestrians crossing roads away from the crossings. The Vauxhall gyratory has some of the highest numbers of collisions involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists in London

So I suppose these long islands' primary purpose is to slow down the cars by narrowing the lanes. They do this very well.
And probably their other purpose is as unofficial refuges, so my apologies to Kim. (I suppose if peds weren't supposed to use them they would have a blocky impossible-to-walk-on surface.)

So I'm not allowed to ride on them. But when there are no peds around, I probably will. I'd better find out what the punishment might be. Here's a typical one at Vauxhall- it grows from 1 foot in width to about five feet https://goo.gl/maps/TbN8tW5XfTP2

[Andrij]

So I'm not allowed to ride on them. But when there are no peds around, I probably will.

Seems I was correct.

[Nick H.]

Good for you.

If there are no peds around it's a victimless crime. Where's the harm in it?

[red marley]

I can think of two reasons.

If pedestrians or potential pedestrians see you doing it, even if they aren't on the divide at that moment, they may feel less inclined to use it in the future for fear of coming across a motorbike.

If others see you doing it they may be more likely to think it acceptable for them to ride their motorbikes (or cars) on the refuge at some point in the future.

[davelodwig]

Good for you.

If there are no peds around it's a victimless crime. Where's the harm in it?

People see you doing it, so they do it, and eventually it becomes another lane and the benefits from separation of motorised traffic are lost.

So can i drive the wifes car on the pavement as long as no peds are around then?

[Nick H.]

If I discouraged peds from crossing away from the designated crossings, wouldn't I be making them safer? That's Tfl's logic.

And if I did ride along an island I'm fairly sure nobody would copy me. I've noticed that nobody else adopts my more creative uses of road space. They're too worried about cameras. And nobody rides like a courier except for a former courier.

[Veloman]

Good for you.

If there are no peds around it's a victimless crime. Where's the harm in it?

Excellent attitude!  I suppose your moral and ethical stances reflect your attitude to life.  No one looking. let's do it then.

[davelodwig]

If I discouraged peds from crossing away from the designated crossings, wouldn't I be making them safer? That's Tfl's logic.

And if I did ride along an island I'm fairly sure nobody would copy me. I've noticed that nobody else adopts my more creative uses of road space. They're too worried about cameras. And nobody rides like a courier except for a former courier.

Are you sure that no one would copy you? and I would imagine there are many other former couriers and current couriers about.

It's a pavement, it's raised from the road surface, it's clearly demarcated not for traffic, the size and shape of it's irrelevant really, you aren't providing a public service to peds by riding on it your grumping about having to sit in traffic with everyone else.

We have a thread somewhere with pictures of cars parked in stupid places, often on pavements, is nowhere free from motorised transport to the point where even raised dividing pavements are considered ok, why not just ride down the footpath, or on the bike lane.

[Nick H.]

Experience has taught me that I wouldn't be copied.

And it's not a pavement, it's an island.

[Kim]

I don't know what your motorcycle's like, but I wouldn't use an island like that on a bicycle, simply on account of the faff of stopping and lifting it up/down the kerb.

If you're going to break the law, why not ride on the cycle path at a reasonable bicycle speed?  At least that would be consistent with what other road users are expecting.

[handcyclist]

Good for you.

If there are no peds around it's a victimless crime. Where's the harm in it?

Excellent attitude!  I suppose your moral and ethical stances reflect your attitude to life.  No one looking. let's do it then.

 

Clearly no-one has designed that divider as a space to be driven on. If you do, you are being a dick. If you have a problem with the reduction in road space, complain to TFL or whoever implemented the traffic scheme.

[Nick H.]

If the kerb is low you just ride at it and the bike climbs up. Nothing to it.

I don't like the idea of riding in a cycle lane - I'm sure I'd get lots of abuse. My approach is to avoid conflict by using bits of road space that other people aren't using.  I minimise stress and anger by not competing for space with others.  Everybody's happy and I get where I'm going discreetly and efficiently. I think I'll make a video about it for youtube so you can all tell me how immoral I am. 

[Pedaldog.]

I don't like the idea of riding in a cycle lane - I'm sure I'd get lots of abuse. My approach is to avoid conflict by using bits of road space that other people aren't using. 

Have you thought about the possibility that "Other people aren't using" those "Bits of road(?) Space" might be down to the fact that some twat on a motorbike keeps riding down it?  As a motorbike rider, of 48 years experience, seeing you do that would merit a call to the Police with your number plate details.
Hey, nobody's parked in the Disabled bay so I'll just leave my bike there for 5 minutes.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

Good for you.

If there are no peds around it's a victimless crime. Where's the harm in it?

Looking at the picture, I'd say there is a good chance a 'ped' (i.e. fellow human being might) appear from nowhere e.g. from in front of that coach.  Then what do you do?  Take a dive into the cycle lane?

Sure it's a victimless crime, right up until you create a victim.