# dumbass LCC bike lane on Stratford High Street



## dellzeqq (27 Oct 2013)

last month's FNRttC safety talk featured 'avoid the stupid bike lane' in Woolwich. Our next ride to Southend, Burnham or Southwold will have a heftier warning along the lines of 'avoid the totally dumbass LCC bike lane on Stratford High Street'.






Yup - they're building this sucker, if only to prove that the LCC really does hold pedestrians in contempt. Never mind the inevitable stopping and starting as the bike lane crosses a dozen side streets, just imagine the delight that Ashok and his mates will experience whizzing around the bus stops scaring the daylights out of people queueing for a bus.

I confess I wasn't the first to spot this horror. We rode along Stratford High Street yesterday and Agent Hilda (as in woman, 53 years old*, not some big macho cyclist) said 'oh-no what the **** is that!' And then we worked out that any cyclist doing the sensible thing and sticking to the carriageway is going to have a cab driver on her or his back wheel giving them sputum-flecked abuse - just like the old days on Chelsea Bridge. Have we really gone back fifteen years in time?

The nub of the matter is this. The LCC doesn't do cities. The slicing and dicing of public space, where people move precisely in accordance with some master plan is actually a kind of Le Notre rus in urbe fantasy. Not nice.

* whoops - now I'm going to have to kill you all


----------



## TheDoctor (27 Oct 2013)

Words fail me. That's the daftest bike lane I've seen...well, ever.


----------



## theclaud (27 Oct 2013)

Nooooooooooo! Is that for real?


----------



## StuAff (27 Oct 2013)

I think the bike lane on Southsea seafront is pretty stupid (narrow, risk of dooring and sucidal peds along the whole length, and I never use it going eastbound as you end up having to cross the road to rejoin the traffic anyway), but that one makes it look almost like a good idea.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Oct 2013)

theclaud said:


> Nooooooooooo! Is that for real?


it is for real. It is there.

On the plus side there's not very many stretches of road that can accommodate this kind of nonsense. On the minus side it cost two and a half million quid.


----------



## StuAff (27 Oct 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> On the minus side it cost two and a half million quid.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Oct 2013)

StuAff said:


>


you smile, Stu, but the DfT is putting money in to this as well. It's not just GLA precept payers that are being shafted.


----------



## StuAff (27 Oct 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> you smile, Stu, but the DfT is putting money in to this as well. It's not just GLA precept payers that are being shafted.


No, that was an eye-roll. And it would probably take the same amount again to put it right...........


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Oct 2013)

ah - I didn't see the eyes roll! 

and, of course, you are absolutely right. But you might recall that this stretch of road (it's just after the flyover) has already had two complete makeovers in the last three years.


----------



## StuAff (27 Oct 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> ah - I didn't see the eyes roll!
> 
> and, of course, you are absolutely right. But you might recall that this stretch of road (it's just after the flyover) has already had two complete makeovers in the last three years.


Even worse. It's another £2.5m.....


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Oct 2013)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEoer6Erh1o


----------



## martint235 (27 Oct 2013)

There was a thread about this a while ago. Despite the stupidity I was quite cynical at the time and believed that people were daft enough to actually build it. How long till the first li'l ol' lady with her shopping steps off bus straight into the path of a cyclist moving at fair speed.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Oct 2013)

martint235 said:


> There was a thread about this a while ago. Despite the stupidity I was quite cynical at the time and believed that people were daft enough to actually build it. How long till the first li'l ol' lady with her shopping steps off bus straight into the path of a cyclist moving at fair speed.


and the craziest of many crazy things is that (unless I've misunderstood the TfL video) the cyclist will have the right of way. Who is going to stand there with a stop go board for pedestrians?


----------



## david k (27 Oct 2013)

i think the key is the slow sign for cyclists, isnt this safer for the average family cyclist over trying to go round the bus?


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Oct 2013)

david k said:


> i think the key is the slow sign for cyclists, isnt this safer for the average family cyclist over trying to go round the bus?


or waiting behind the bus? 

Cities are founded on people walking. The LCC simply doesn't get that.


----------



## gavintc (27 Oct 2013)

StuAff said:


> I think the bike lane on Southsea seafront is pretty stupid (narrow, risk of dooring and sucidal peds along the whole length, and I never use it going eastbound as you end up having to cross the road to rejoin the traffic anyway), but that one makes it look almost like a good idea.


I agree, the problem is that motorist expect you to be using it. I have had the odd toot from a following car.


----------



## david k (27 Oct 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> or waiting behind the bus?
> 
> Cities are founded on people walking. The LCC simply doesn't get that.



does it have to be one or the other? could we have both cycle lanes and pavements?


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Oct 2013)

david k said:


> does it have to be one or the other? could we have both cycle lanes and pavements?


who knows? All I see is crazy conflicts at junctions (there's another TfL video telling you how to turn right), a less human city and two and a half million quid down the Swanee. A bus lane, with a proper give way arrangement where the slip joins the High Street would have cost under a hundred grand.

Happily expenditure on this nonsense is capped at just under a billion!


----------



## StuAff (27 Oct 2013)

gavintc said:


> I have had the odd toot from a following car.



I've had more than a few. Plenty of them clearly haven't read the relevant sections of the Highway Code. Or are plain thick if they think a cyclist doing 25 mph in that lane is a good idea when there's a perfectly good road....


----------



## stowie (28 Oct 2013)

Can I say that, from what I have seen (tend to travel on it 3-4 times a week) that :

I quite like the idea?

The bus bypass thing looks a bit stupid and I am sure there are better ways to do it, but the rest of the cycle way actually crosses very few side roads which aren't light controlled.

I get the point about the environment for pedestrians. But LCC didn't fluck this up, the urban vandals planners did this when they decided to put a impassable junction at one end, a massive gyratory at the other and linked the two by destroying the high street for a three lane urban motorway. In an ideal world the whole lot of this would be ripped out to be replaced by a location that people want to linger, after all the multi-lane road is no longer necessary since the M11/A12 link road was built. But in an ideal world Mayor Robin Wells would not be left in charge of anything more dangerous than a plastic spoon and someone might have thought a bit harder about Olympic legacy than plonking a huge shopping centre next to a smaller, slightly shabbier shopping centre.

The cycle way is taking a lane from the road, and the pedestrian area is pretty wide. Unfortunately no-one seems to want to link either side of the road and I think the central mounds of brick and forlorn vegetation are there to stay.

I am prepared to keep an open mind as to whether the facility works until it is actually open for business. I have cycled through some of it when the cones were knocked over and it seemed much better than the old days of mixing it with speeding traffic.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Oct 2013)

but Stowie..........you're a reasonable sort of chap. Consider this - they could have put a bus lane in for a twentieth of the price. All the really big (in terms of numbers) bike routes are along bus lanes - think London to Greenwich andLondon to Morden. They could even have done as Adrian suggests and put recessed bus stops in to allow cyclists to ride on by. And, while I think that several opportunities (given the horrendous amount of money spent so far) have been missed - there does, as you say need to be some connection between the north and south sides and it looks as if Newham have no intention have making that connection - this further separation of north from south actually makes that worse.

You're right about the Bow Roundabout, but I think that's a separate thing. The two-stage red lights, something along the lines of a super-ASL may make a difference, although I suspect that you and I would both welcome a (costly) reversion to some kind of crossroads.

Here's the killer. That part of the High Street is probably going to fall apart commercially when the new leases run out in (I'm guessing) five years time. We'll be left with the occasional convenience store and some coffee shops serving the people who live directly above - that's not a bad thing in itself, but, as you suggest, Westfield and a resurgent town centre are too much of a draw. Nothing interesting will survive on the north side and the south side will be deserted. The bike lane is going to contribute to that falling apart, and, in an odd kind of way, the LCC (it is their design) will have what they want when the pedestrians go.

I agree on the gyratory. It's beyond understanding. I wonder if there is a town in the UK that has thrived despite having a gyratory system (Kingston-upon-Thames comes to mind, but the town centre just upped and moved to the river).

Robin Wales? Is he the man who's kicking out the residents from Carpenters?


----------



## Davidc (28 Oct 2013)

It's mad.

More than half of cycling infrastructure being built in Britain is mad.

Sane ways of doing it do exist.

Will someone please buy all UK traffic designers and planners a ticket on the Harwich to Hook of Holland ferry and a couple of nights hotel room, to go and look at Rotterdam and The Hague? It'd cost less than £2.5M and be money much better spent.


----------



## Frood42 (28 Oct 2013)

I used to cycle through here 4 times a day, but now due to the roadworks I have reduced that to 2 times a day.
I would wonder who thought it was a good idea to have three lanes on this road in the first place... a much worse decision than these bus stops.
It is such a pity that the rest of the CS2 is such a stinker, I do think this is somewhat an improvement, albeit with some concessions.

It is good to see that a lane has been taken away from motor vehicles in creating this cycle way, while I do not wholly agree with segregation, if this can help to slow the traffic just a little I am in favour, and there will be those who are less confident about going around a bus into an outside lane with fast moving traffic, so they can keep their momentum going. The only issue I foresee is ignorance from either pedestrians or cyclists as to who should give way.

At the times of day that I go through Stratford I cannot imagine this causing me too much of an issue, and with the footfall I see along this route I don't see that it will be too much of a problem for most.

I don't mind them, but I want to see these in action before I say nay or yay, and if it is wrong hopefully they will learn from it.

There are videos on YouTube showing this is how the Dutch do it, and there are quite a few people who like the idea of Dutch style infrastructure, so why not these?


----------



## mike-LCC (28 Oct 2013)

First, this new cycle track wasn't built by the London Cycling Campaign to our design, although we did successfully propose segregated tracks on this route instead of insisting anyone who cycles this way has to mix it with the thousands of fast-moving cars and lorries on Stratford High Street.

If it had been built to our design, the tracks would be wider with sloping kerbs to allow easier overtaking and give cyclists more use of the width; there would be more-direct and less-confusing right turns rather than those that Transport for London has designed (see video earlier in this thread); there'd be a safe route for cycling through Bow roundabout (minus the flyover), which would also benefit pedestrians, instead of the flawed 'early start' traffic lights there now; and there would be a safe, convenient and direct cycle route from Stratford (minus the one-way system) all the way into the City and on to the West End, giving hundreds of thousands of ordinary people in East London the choice to cycle to the city centre.

No, this new route isn't perfect, but we entirely support the principle of removing motor traffic lanes to provide protected space for cycling, separated from motor vehicles on major streets like Stratford High Street. This is necessary because 95% of Londoners wouldn't dream of cycling in this kind of motor traffic. And this is how we prevent avoidable deaths like those of Svitlana Tereschenko, Philippine de Gerin-Ricard and Brian Dorling - all of whom have lost their lives mixing it with motor traffic on Cycle Superhighway 2.

On the matter of the bus stop bypass, it's bizarre reading so many criticisms when this design (or something very close) is used in by the thousand all over the Netherlands with no complaints from or conflicts with pedestrians or bus users. Maybe you should try it first? 

@dellzeqq says "cities are founded on people walking". This sounds very grand but it doesn't at all match the reality of Greater London, where we use a mix of walking, buses, tubes, trains, cycling and driving to get around. What's clear from the evidence is that those cities that encourage mass cycling (not just a few super-fit ultra-assertive road warriors) enjoy highly desirable health and economic benefits. LCC believes these benefits should be available to everyone, including children, less-confident cyclists, disabled people on adapted bikes, the elderly, *as well as* fast commuters - just as they are in Denmark and the Netherlands. 

We believe that policies that encourage mass cycling are also likely to create greater levels of walking, as well as relieving congestion on roads and public transport. It's a gross misrepresentation to suggest LCC somehow wants this area to be devoid of walkers. On the contrary, evidence from cities like New York shows that encouraging cycle journeys is likely to generate wealth for adjacent businesses because so many more people are likely to stop and shop.

It's a shame to read negative comments here, especially since this route is even open yet. What is certain is that LCC has a mandate from a majority of our members to campaign for tried-and-tested Dutch-style cycling measures, as well as having the support of tens of thousands of Londoners who've signed our petitions and joined our protest rides calling for Dutch-style cycling measures on our streets.


----------



## stowie (28 Oct 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> but Stowie..........you're a reasonable sort of chap. Consider this - they could have put a bus lane in for a twentieth of the price. All the really big (in terms of numbers) bike routes are along bus lanes - think London to Greenwich andLondon to Morden. They could even have done as Adrian suggests and put recessed bus stops in to allow cyclists to ride on by. And, while I think that several opportunities (given the horrendous amount of money spent so far) have been missed - there does, as you say need to be some connection between the north and south sides and it looks as if Newham have no intention have making that connection - this further separation of north from south actually makes that worse.
> 
> You're right about the Bow Roundabout, but I think that's a separate thing. The two-stage red lights, something along the lines of a super-ASL may make a difference, although I suspect that you and I would both welcome a (costly) reversion to some kind of crossroads.
> 
> ...



I am pragmatic about these things. If Newham and TfL want to have a a streetscape that doesn't work at a human level and divide it with a no mans land of straggling plants and concrete, then no-one is likely to change their mind. What I do know is that the A11 is horrible to cycle on and, again if TfL et al. are not prepared to restrict motor vehicles then a separated space is good for me.

The bus lane thing is strange. It would seem to be a natural solution. Maybe it would have needed more than one lane to implement properly and it was deemed unfeasible because of this? The lanes on the road are somewhat narrow.

The sad thing about the high street is that the Olympics are such a missed opportunity to really change Stratford. Granted, with the huge increase in footfall it is more welcoming than in the bad old days when it was one of those few places in London where I felt unsafe, but it could have been so much more. The high street now has no human level. I have no issue with high rise buildings, but look at those on this road and there are many which have no frontage at ground level aside from fancy coloured wood slats over breeze block to hide the internal car parks. I fear you are right with the commercial space - the whole street is disjointed and unwelcoming and no-one is going to bother walking from the centre. I wonder if cycling may be its only hope - clearly drivers won't stop there on the way to the ample parking at Westfield, and walking is a bit too far, but if the connection to Bow area opens up then the journey is ideal cycling distance. Maybe the cycle path will help save the area? I am ever the optimist...

Oh, I misspelled Sir Robin Wales. And yes, he is the chap who, along with UCL, seemed very keen to shuffle along the residents of the carpenters estate to build some new student accommodation. I assume that the high rise Carpenters isn't in keeping with the brave new world imaginings of Newham council. He also had a huge scrap with the Queens road traders when he wanted to demolish the market to build "multi use retail and residential" (read flats and tescos) and a smaller covered market. The traders actually won in 2009 with Boris refusing permission. He also locked the Newham "woodcraft folk" out of a council meeting when they came to ask questions about walking and cycling provision in the borough. When you end up locking out the "woodcraft folk" I think you should start taking a good look at the way the council is run. Finally he was Mayor when Newham council moved to a huge glass building perched at the end of the docks (where transport by anything other than car is challenging) where they spent over £18M on refurbishment - a sum which was around 2/3 the total spent by every other London council on HQ refurbisment in three years.
He got his knighthood for services to local government.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Oct 2013)

mike-LCC said:


> First, this new cycle track wasn't built by the London Cycling Campaign to our design, although we did successfully propose segregated tracks on this route instead of insisting anyone who cycles this way has to mix it with the thousands of fast-moving cars and lorries on Stratford High Street.
> 
> If it had been built to our design, the tracks would be wider with sloping kerbs to allow easier overtaking and give cyclists more use of the width; there would be more-direct and less-confusing right turns rather than those that Transport for London has designed (see video earlier in this thread); there'd be a safe route for cycling through Bow roundabout (minus the flyover), which would also benefit pedestrians, instead of the flawed 'early start' traffic lights there now; and there would be a safe, convenient and direct cycle route from Stratford (minus the one-way system) all the way into the City and on to the West End, giving hundreds of thousands of ordinary people in East London the choice to cycle to the city centre.
> 
> ...


the shroud waving is tasteless. You should give it up. You've consistently failed to assess the risk to cyclists in London, and you've consistently advocated supposed remedies that are measured by expenditure, and, conveniently, put the LCC at the fulcrum of that expenditure. You have become, in short, just another interest group making your way in the world.

As for the petitions - 45,000 is not such a big deal in a city where there are getting on for three quarters of a million regular cyclists. Indeed - you might as well have stencilled the words 'not very important' across the collective foreheads of London's cyclists. No mayoral candidate is going to quake before a paltry 1500 votes per borough, and there's bound to be at least one who will calculate the electoral benefit in promising to reduce expenditure on Andrew Gilligan's crazy dream. And, who knows, somebody might put two and two together and ask for a refund on the two hundred million quid that was blown on (entirely forgotten) LCN+

The snide comment about 'super-fit road warriors' is as foolish as it is predictable. The Cycling Superhighways and bus lanes are full of cyclists who one could not reasonably describe as 'super-fit' or 'any-kind-of-fit'.

That's the small stuff. The big stuff is probably not going to sink in, but I'll give it a go. London's strength is that people mix. They mix when they walk on the footpath. They mix when they take the bus and the tube. It's fair to say that cycling is much more convivial than driving a car, but slicing up public space, introducing another barrier to that mixing, assigning this bit or that bit to this or that little group isn't convivial - it's uncivilised. That's the bit you don't and won't get.

Now.... I entirely agree that three lanes each way is nuts, but the remedy suggested upstream, to, in effect, replicate Tooting and Clapham High Streets was to reduce the width and make a bus lane - a bus lane nine metres wide if need be. You could have a bit of parking, there's be space for cyclists to go round buses, there's be a footpath that wasn't quite so beset. It would have been the usual overlapping mish-mash that makes up cities rather than the 'drawn from twentythousand feet' coloured diagram so beloved of those that would tell us what to do. That, of course, doesn't tick the LCC's rhetorical box.

The one saving grace is that the money will run out pretty soon. Oh happy day!


----------



## downfader (28 Oct 2013)

They seem to cope in the Netherlands with it:
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/n...and-bus-stops-a-response-to-transport-for-all

(although it slightly wider and less stop-start)


----------



## Howard (28 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> (although it slightly wider and less stop-start)



And it's in the Netherlands, not Stratford.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Oct 2013)

So for the sake of keeping a bus in the main stream of traffic, so it's got a better chance of moving off, cyclists have to sit around and wait for everyone, and get a purpose built pedestrian combat zone to boot.
Charming!


----------



## downfader (28 Oct 2013)

Howard said:


> And it's in the Netherlands, not Stratford.


what would you all like in Stratford then? I'm sure some of you have access to pencil and paper and can sketch it out. Trouble is I often read a lot of moaning in this section of the forum with little in the way of solutions being proposed.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> what would you all like in Stratford then? I'm sure some of you have access to pencil and paper and can sketch it out. Trouble is I often read a lot of moaning in this section of the forum with little in the way of solutions being proposed.


well I think that if you read the thread you'll get a decent idea.

I'd be looking for a sense of place. The gyratory turns the centre of Stratford in to a traffic scheme rather than a place where people meet, linger, or recognise themselves. Turning back the clock to a two way high street would be good. Building the old street pattern over the northern leg of the gyratory would be really good, and, given the value generated by land sales, would actually make a profit. That's not going to happen, of course, because the DfT and the Council are in thrall to Westfield.

As for the High Street west of the town centre - well, both Stowie and I have set out our stalls. One thing that would't trouble me is congestion - Tooting and Clapham are so congested that nobody with any sense thinks that they are on the way to somewhere.


----------



## downfader (28 Oct 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> well I think that if you read the thread you'll get a decent idea


No. Still cant see a solution being proposed.


----------



## funnymummy (28 Oct 2013)

They work fine in Brighton


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Oct 2013)

yes. Indeed. Is there, perhaps, something (or somebody) missing?


----------



## mcshroom (28 Oct 2013)

What that lane does is move from having a small number of predictable interactions with vehicles to a large number of far less predictable interactions with pedestrians, especially as the pedestrians are getting off the bus away from the road and therefore not expecting to interact with traffic. On another forum we've been discussing the design and one of the contributors was part of the TRL trial of this design of farcility. He had concerns that even with the pedestrians being on their best behaviour and knowing that this was the facility being tested, it was still more dangerous for him than the option he chose in the end of pulling out into lane 2 It also had a dangerous reentry for the undertaking cyclists back onto the main carriageway. It would have made far more sense to have put the bus stop in the area that cycle lane has been put and left the cycles in the large bus lane that would then be vacated.

LCC is IMHO becoming part of the problem, in that it is obsessed with segregation, where the highest levels of cycling in London are in Hackney - the borough which has mostly rejected segregation and instead gone for the cheaper and more effective approach of making areas permeable to cyclists whilst not to motor traffic. Why not concentrate on what is actually working, rather than large blue-painted prestige projects that get lots of headlines, and spend the massive amount of investment you are getting in London compared to the rest of the UK, but are not getting the same increases in cycling rates?


----------



## mcshroom (28 Oct 2013)

Remember to add the obligatory mobile phones to those pedestrians as well.


----------



## mcshroom (28 Oct 2013)

2737039 said:


> And i-pods?


Come on, we're not that modern out here


----------



## funnymummy (28 Oct 2013)

2737033 said:


> Do you have any photos of a couple of dozen passengers getting off a bus, with or without pushchairs and small children, while a few cyclists are going past?


Sadly, no..But I've ridden along there when there's hoards of Uni students - Many foreign, getting on & off the buses & never had any issues, neither has anyone I know.
I'd much rather this system, maybe I have to slow down for a few seconds 'just in case' but it's a hell a lot better than how is it was, having buses pull into the cycle lane, having to stop behind buses, or try puling out into busy traffic, then have the bus pull out as you're halfway past it.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Oct 2013)

mcshroom said:


> What that lane does is move from having a small number of predictable interactions with vehicles to a large number of far less predictable interactions with pedestrians, especially as the pedestrians are getting off the bus away from the road and therefore not expecting to interact with traffic. On another forum we've been discussing the design and one of the contributors was part of the TRL trial of this design of farcility. He had concerns that even with the pedestrians being on their best behaviour and knowing that this was the facility being tested, it was still more dangerous for him than the option he chose in the end of pulling out into lane 2 It also had a dangerous reentry for the undertaking cyclists back onto the main carriageway. It would have made far more sense to have put the bus stop in the area that cycle lane has been put and left the cycles in the large bus lane that would then be vacated.
> 
> LCC is IMHO becoming part of the problem, in that it is obsessed with segregation, where the highest levels of cycling in London are in Hackney - the borough which has mostly rejected segregation and instead gone for the cheaper and more effective approach of making areas permeable to cyclists whilst not to motor traffic. Why not concentrate on what is actually working, rather than large blue-painted prestige projects that get lots of headlines, and spend the massive amount of investment you are getting in London compared to the rest of the UK, but are not getting the same increases in cycling rates?


I'm glad you mentioned Hackney, because, while it is in some ways a special case, it does offer a model which is quite different to the (extremely successful) radial routes south of the river. As you say, Hackney is permeable by bike, but pretty darn impermeable by car. If you were to commute from the Town Hall to Finsbury Circus you'd find that cycling is quicker and cheaper. I'm not talking 'super-fit' here, but, rather, trustafarians on dutch bikes, elderly gents on Bromptons and young women with baskets on the handlebars. Broadway Market is bikes nose to tail. Hackney Council has, then, done the absolute opposite to the giant brains responsible for the demise of Stratford High Street - they've created congestion, complication and delay for motor traffic and opened up little road-based routes for cyclists.

The fly in the ointment is the Regents Canal towpath where, sad to say, bicycles are a menace to pedestrians.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2736963, member: 30090"][/quote]
£914,000,000. 

And don't forget the £200,000,000 blown on LCN+. Anybody seen that recently?


----------



## subaqua (29 Oct 2013)

Frood42 said:


> I used to cycle through here 4 times a day, but now due to the roadworks I have reduced that to 2 times a day.
> I would wonder who thought it was a good idea to have three lanes on this road in the first place... a much worse decision than these bus stops.
> It is such a pity that the rest of the CS2 is such a stinker, I do think this is somewhat an improvement, albeit with some concessions.
> 
> ...


 I stopped using it and started going up Viccy park Rd as that is less scary !!

I had to come home along it from bow to stratford the other day and it is truly awful. still not as bad as the other part of cyclescaryhighway 2 from bow to aldgate


----------



## subaqua (29 Oct 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm glad you mentioned Hackney, because, while it is in some ways a special case, it does offer a model which is quite different to the (extremely successful) radial routes south of the river. As you say, Hackney is permeable by bike, but pretty darn impermeable by car. If you were to commute from the Town Hall to Finsbury Circus you'd find that cycling is quicker and cheaper. I'm not talking 'super-fit' here, but, rather, trustafarians on dutch bikes, elderly gents on Bromptons and young women with baskets on the handlebars. Broadway Market is bikes nose to tail. Hackney Council has, then, done the absolute opposite to the giant brains responsible for the demise of Stratford High Street - they've created congestion, complication and delay for motor traffic and opened up little road-based routes for cyclists.
> 
> The fly in the ointment is the Regents Canal towpath where, sad to say, bicycles are a menace to pedestrians.


 yup Hackney is a delight to ride through now

my route to the city is Vic park road Mare street and then along andrews road parallel to canal then through some little estates to pitfield street after the A10 . takes about 5 mins longer but is 2 miles longer than my old route.

i rode regents canal towpath once - the cyclopaths using it need pushing into the water.


----------



## ozzage (29 Oct 2013)

The main issues I have are the kerbs and the fact that it's in east London and I'm in west London! Do the same on Uxbridge Road and I'll be over the moon! I cycle every day in the apparently "beloved" bus lanes and would give that up in a second for something like this CS2 extension.

Bravo London for doing something semi-decent for a change. And sorry, this is much more HUMAN than all the bus lanes and extra traffic lanes in the world. If you want to save the traders along the way, as well as improve peoples' lives, then get as many people as possible onto bikes. They aren't stopping at shops from a taxi or bus!


----------



## Frood42 (29 Oct 2013)

subaqua said:


> I stopped using it and started going up Viccy park Rd as that is less scary !!
> 
> I had to come home along it from bow to stratford the other day and it is truly awful. still not as bad as the other part of cyclescaryhighway 2 from bow to aldgate


 
I used to do this:
http://app.strava.com/activities/90702051

But now I do this:
http://app.strava.com/activities/91089297

(sometimes I only do 20 miles http://app.strava.com/activities/91088958 rather than 30 miles)

The CS3 along the A13 is much more open, and is a bit stop and start due to side roads and lights, however at least I don't have to put up with motons who shouldn't hold a license (and of course the current road works which makes it a very undesirable place to cycle through).

Thing is, even when it is finished, I am not sure that it will attract the numbers they want, as it all looks a bit disjointed when you finally get to Stratford, and if you are not on a Barclays hire bike where do you park? The shopping centre has really missed a number there, the cycle parking is not convenient or even easy to find. They have an outside shopping area, where you could have easily had bike parking, rather than a rack or two hidden in car parks which are not easy to get to...


----------



## StuartG (29 Oct 2013)

mike-LCC said:


> This sounds very grand but it doesn't at all match the reality of Greater London, where we use a mix of walking, buses, tubes, trains, cycling and driving to get around. What's clear from the evidence is that those cities that encourage mass cycling *(not just a few super-fit ultra-assertive road warriors)* ...


Is that supposed to include me and you are looking for laughs?

But it is not a laughing matter. You show no perspective of seeing the issue from the pedestrian's viewpoint. Aren't they supposed to be at the top of the pyramid? They are messy, many are old, poor sighted or mothers trying to control kids, disabled or even people running for a bus - across the toe tripping infrastructure. Which brings me to my personal experience. The only injury I have suffered in over 40 years pounding London's streets is just one such cycle cut through, At night with dodgy lighting and pavement obstructions I went flying smashing and cutting open my head. (Its was Southwark jobby on Fountain Drive).

You have the arrogance to suggest we go to the Netherland. Been there (and Denmark). I was clearly unlucky to see something so stupid. I will take your word they do exist - when you do such a lot for cyclists you are going to make some mistakes. The situation in London is quite different. The one good thing we have is bus lanes. Not built for us but a darn sight more useful then nearly everything that was. Instead of capitalising on it - you carefully avoid it. You ignore the bicycle training suggestion that this type of thing should be avoided.

I was a founder member of LCC back in the early seventies. It was a great idea to improve practical bicycling in the city. But it lost its way. It is not interested in serving my needs (and it never asks). Yet it too has the arrogance to speak in my name. Its wasted millions of our money in schemes most of us avoid. Its become a brand with its own rather than cyclist's agendas.

You are part of the problem, not the solution.


----------



## martint235 (29 Oct 2013)

2737860 said:


> 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
> 
> ...


 I've always had this feeling that LCC represents those London residents that don't cycle but would like to rather than the existing cyclists who have actual experience of what is required to make cycling a better experience within London. I believe that if you make cycling a better experience, more people will cycle without the need for ill-thought out solutions to a problem that isn't even on two wheels yet.


----------



## mcshroom (29 Oct 2013)

> 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



I suppose he would like to tell that to numerous countries in South and South East Asia with massive numbers of cyclists on the roads, or he would like to explain why there was mass cycling in the UK until the roads were surrendered to the motoring bullies.


----------



## subaqua (29 Oct 2013)

2737872 said:


> I cycled about the place when I was a child. I cycled about six miles° to school as a teenager. There was no segregated facillty at all it is just that this was seen as a normal at that time. All we need to do is find out what has gone wrong and put it right.


 the LCC coordinator in Newham is a joke too.


----------



## StuartG (29 Oct 2013)

2737860 said:


> "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


Thanks Ade for posting that. I didn't realise Mike has such form. And ignorance.

I came to London from a town (a very industrialised town in the west midlands) that had mass cycling with zero facilities. Albeit with fewer anti-cycling facilities such as the modern gyratory. I am unclear why de-industrialisation leads to greater fear. Perhaps Mike could source this?

The bottom line is us cyclists are a diverse lot and dosh is in short supply. Yet we can surely all agree on some really good things the dosh could be spent on that would benefit us all and make cycling more attractive. Like sorting those gyratories, filling in holes making any cycling provision wide enough and maintained.

Mike clearly has a problem with his fantasy of my bulging lycra clad muscles. But people like me is all he has got to re-build cycling for the masses. Evidence is the best way to get cyclists is to have cyclists. The more the safer everyone feels. Yet he casts us aside and thinks that this fancy tarmac will do the job.

You would think a LCC Communications Manager would want to communicate rather than harange. Maybe that's the modern way. Hey-ho.


----------



## Linford (29 Oct 2013)

Kings St, Hammersmith was done 5 years ago HERE


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2013)

2737860 said:


> 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
> 
> ...


that's all kinds of bonkers. Rush hour cyclists outnumber cars on the A24/A3 down to Tooting.

I remember attending some kind of TfL Greenways planning meeting. I was the only person at the meeting not being paid to be there. I suggested that, before throwing £1.3M at the Wandle Path they survey the area, including Garratt Lane, which, at that time, was beginning to take off. This suggestion was treated like some kind of heresy - cyclists who took to the road had placed themselves beyond the pale. And so........£1.3M was spent on installing mesh deck bridges and the like on the Wandle Path. I took Her Nibs down to Beddington - at that time it would have been a long ride for her. I got a telling off, and we rode home on the road. But - here's the crucial thing - spending the money was the whole point of the thing. The money was the measure of its worth.

Spool forward to this month's written questions to the Mayor on cycling. Darren Johnson is absolutely on-message. 'What's the budget. what's the budget, what's the budget?' To which we ask 'who's paying?'


----------



## Aniello (29 Oct 2013)

Unused also because, when coming from west, and you see it, it invites you on this contra-flow cycle track which, you would think, would cut through the center and help you go, also, quicker towards Kensington.

Instead it just drops you at the hearth of Hammersmith and stops half way here with a weird turn right: http://goo.gl/maps/mnYxC

Totally useless (the majority to me) for people who would like to continue past Hammersmith toward the City centre.


----------



## Gerhard (29 Oct 2013)

subaqua said:


> the LCC coordinator in Newham is a joke too.



I don't think there is any need for that. You are free to stand for that voluntary role and be less of a joke any time.


----------



## Frood42 (29 Oct 2013)

The problem here is that little is being done to remove the motoring bullies from the road, and little will be done while such a large number still use their motor car.

The fact that the roads here were three lanes wide was a joke in the first place, and they would not have the back bone to take it down from three lanes to one, I should imagine it was quite a significant victory to take the road down to two lanes.

While not a perfect solution, I am quite looking forward to being seperated from the fast moving idiots that use this road with no thought for others around them.
I would rather have this than the silly blue painted guideways that were put in along the rest of the route...

Due to the size of the road and the huge shopping centre at one end, the area in between will continue to go down hill and will continue to be used as a dual carriageway/motorway.

I for one am looking forward to using this, as at least it is wide enough for passing other cyclists if needed (as it takes out a traffic lane).
What is now being turned into a segregated cycle way would not be best suited as a Bus Lane as you would still get idiots wanting to take shortcuts around queueing traffic.

In terms of making this road ready for Boris bike users, I think this is a good compromise, as I cannot see people wanting to use a three lane road.

It is a compromise and frankly much better than the rest of the CS2...

I would rather that we were able to share the road, but until the police and government are seen to be doing things, there are not many who would use a three lane road like this one... especially where we have very fast moving traffic that treat it like a dual carriageway rather than an urban road...


----------



## Gerhard (29 Oct 2013)

mcshroom said:


> ...Hackney - the borough which has mostly rejected segregation...



I think they reject a certain kind of segregation (or even paint jobs, i.e. gutter lanes), which is kerb seperated tracks alongside the carriageway. However in my view they have used a different kind of segregation. By getting most of the motor trafic out of 'filtered' areas segregation is not 100% but maybe 80 or 90%. So it is segregated 'enough' for safe and comfortable walking and cycling.

I would argue that by counting these streets that are segregated 'enough' plus the green routes such as London Fields (also segregated from motor traffic), Hackney is perhaps the borough with the most segregated facilities per ha in London. It's just that the facilities are not exclusively for cyclists.


----------



## angus h (29 Oct 2013)

Linford, that infra on King Street has been there at least 20 years. Used to use it when I was a kid. It's a contraflow against the one way system & as such isn't really comparable to the Stratford thing - it's about 1/4 the width, for one thing. (Never mind that it stops before it gets to the town centre & sends you off round the houses). But last time I was there (admittedly a while ago) it was fairly well used by short-trip cyclists - school kids, people on cheap ""mountain"" bikes - yes, pedestrians can & sometimes do step in to it without looking (the pavements aren't wide & it's a busy shopping area - far too much space given over to cars, as usual), but cyclist-pedestrian interactions are much more manageable than cyclist-car or pedestrian-car - you just have so much more awareness than someone behind a windscreen.

The idea of cyclist / driver parity is all very well.. in London speeds, that's something that, on a personal level, I'm OK with.. but _*only*_ because I have the same training & competence as any other qualified driver.

I don't see how you can put the same blanket expectation on cyclists or would-be-cyclists who can't, won't or don't drive, for whatever reason. Expecting a ten-year-old to be as competent in road skill as a fully qualified driver is plainly nonsensical. So you have a choice:- either deny that ten-year-old the freedom of travelling by bike (sticking bikes on the back of Mummy's Range Rover and driving to the park doesn't count), or engineer the roads so as to require less competence of cyclists. I for one am glad that LCC are campaigning for the latter - whether that be through Stratford-style segregation or Hackney-style filtered permeability. There's plainly no way of doing the latter East-West around Bow/Stratford with all the canals, rivers, railways, industrial estates, the A12 etc., so the LCC/TfL solution gets my vote.

Frood, I don't think most motorists are bullies.. it's more that perception of what's bullying or not is very different from one side of the windscreen to the other, and people who drive almost everywhere don't get to reset those prejudices. A manoeuvre that "feels" fine from inside a car can be pretty unpleasant to those on the outside. Numerous times I've taken people to task for close passes & they seem genuinely surprised.

Dell, isn't the Wandle Path supposed to be a leisure route? Seems like that would serve a different purpose for cycling than the A217 (& hopefully come out of a different budget).


----------



## Frood42 (29 Oct 2013)

angus h said:


> Frood, I don't think most motorists are bullies..


 
I never said all motorists are bullies, but there a minority out there that have a "I own the road" or a "you don't pay road tax" mentality, and they have this mentality with other vehicles to a greater or lesser degree (depending on their ego or how much of a threat they determine the other person to be).

There are also those who seem to still be in the dark ages and whos brains seem to melt or overload when a cyclist is in primary for their own safety rather (car door zone) than "hugging the gutter where they should be".

These people need removing from the road, they are ignorant and dangerous to all road users.

Ignorance should not be an excuse (but that seems to be the argument you are putting forward in defence).

Mandatory re-testing every 5-10 years and improved teaching on vunerable road users would be one avenue.

When I learnt to drive there was next to nothing about vunerable road users and there is no incentive for people to continue learning once they have passed their test.


----------



## subaqua (29 Oct 2013)

Gerhard said:


> I don't think there is any need for that. You are free to stand for that voluntary role and be less of a joke any time.


 well I think that encouraging people to cycle where there are clear cycling prohibited signs on a feeder ride to a demonstration is pretty poor . but hey lets not let legalities get in the way of making a point. especially when the point was raised at the time and again later as to why it was OK for us to do that yet we are saying we want good facilities.

that was the clincher in me not joining LCC.


----------



## angus h (29 Oct 2013)

Frood42 said:


> I never said all motorists are bullies, but there a minority out there that have a "I own the road" or a "you don't pay road tax" mentality, and they have this mentality with other vehicles to a greater or lesser degree (depending on their ego or how much of a threat they determine the other person to be).
> 
> There are also those who seem to still be in the dark ages and whos brains seem to melt or overload when a cyclist is in primary for their own safety rather (car door zone) than "hugging the gutter where they should be".
> 
> ...



Not defending. Just putting forward the idea that it may be easier to build lanes, and block through traffic out of roads where it doesn't need to be, than to bring about the level of cultural change and re-education necessary to fix the problem.

Another aspect to this.. some drivers are bullies most of the time, but most drivers are probably bullies some of the time. It's what happens when you routinely put flawed, emotional, stressed human beings in metal boxes with big, powerful engines. In a car-dependent society, education on its own isn't going to make drivers adopt the cool-headed professionalism you'd expect of a pilot or surgeon.

Which is another argument in favour of filtered permeability. Few people will speed on their own road.. it's crapping on your own doorstep. But you can't, by definition, do filtered permeability on a 6-lane "A" road.



Frood42 said:


> Mandatory re-testing every 5-10 years and improved teaching on vunerable road users would be one avenue.
> 
> When I learnt to drive there was next to nothing about vunerable road users and there is no incentive for people to continue learning once they have passed their test.



I'd wholeheartedly support both of those, but the former seems very unlikely to happen. More teaching about vulnerable road users - certainly worth lobbying for, the powers-that-be don't mind making the test harder - but as you've already identified, people forget half of what they learned the moment the "L" plates come off.

The problem with mandatory re-testing is people would fail - probably 20%. And that would mean waking up to the fact that, right now, there's no alternative to driving for a lot of people in rural & outer-suburban areas -- taking people off the roads entirely in the middle of their working life is considered an extreme sanction, a punishment largely reserved for alcoholics and criminals. If they did bring it in, it would have to be in some diluted form.. if you fail, you've 3 months in which you can keep driving but have to get up-to-scratch for a re-test.


----------



## booze and cake (29 Oct 2013)

What % of London cyclists are in the LCC? I've no idea but I'd bet its less than 10%. From a campaigning perspective thats hardly a resounding mandate from the cycling community for baziollions of £ of investment is it, so claiming to be speaking for the non cycling millions sounds much more impressive I suppose.

And as for the letter from the LCC Comms Manager, just wow, if a comms manager from any organisation had such a beligerent 'my way or the highway' approach (whoops thats a wrong choice of words), they'd be sacked quick sharp. Again another example of LCC action just leaving a bad aftertaste


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Oct 2013)

booze and cake said:


> *What % of London cyclists are in the LCC? I've no idea but I'd bet its less than 10%*. From a campaigning perspective thats hardly a resounding mandate from the cycling community for baziollions of £ of investment is it, so claiming to be speaking for the non cycling millions sounds much more impressive I suppose.
> 
> And as for the letter from the LCC Comms Manager, just wow, if a comms manager from any organisation had such a beligerent 'my way or the highway' approach (whoops thats a wrong choice of words), they'd be sacked quick sharp. Again another example of LCC action just leaving a bad aftertaste


about one and a half per cent


----------



## subaqua (30 Oct 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> about one and a half per cent


 that much ?


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Oct 2013)

angus h said:


> Dell, isn't the Wandle Path supposed to be a leisure route? Seems like that would serve a different purpose for cycling than the A217 (& hopefully come out of a different budget).


yes and no. The clear ambition, set out by Carl Pittam of Sustrans that it would become a commuting route. The assumption was that Garratt Lane would never be acceptable to the majority of cyclists. Six years on the commuting cycle traffic on Garratt Lane is probably fifty times the cycle traffic on the Wandle Path. The difference is that Garratt Lane didn't have £1.3 million spent on it.

One thing bears examination. LCC policy
_3. If cyclists will share space with motor traffic, volumes must be low. On the core cycle route network this should not exceed the Dutch maximum for main cycle routes, 2,000 Passenger Car Units per day_

well, the simple truth is that cyclists choose to travel on routes that have over 10,000 vehicles a day. That's because those routes go where the cyclists want to go. Where the LCC has posted alternatives these alternatives have been ignored.


----------



## theclaud (30 Oct 2013)

StuartG said:


> Mike clearly has a problem with his fantasy of my bulging lycra clad muscles.



Well, to be fair, who doesn't?


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Oct 2013)

2737860 said:


> 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
> 
> ...



That's pretty damn depressing reading ....


----------



## mcshroom (30 Oct 2013)

2740913 said:


> Is there a yellow face thing holding its hand up?


What, like this one?


----------



## The Jogger (30 Oct 2013)

I crossed the westbound lane last week on my way to a meeting in Stratford depot and I was thinking it was a good day idea , I would like one in High St Ken.


----------



## The Jogger (30 Oct 2013)

Or are you just talking about the bus stop diversion lane?


----------



## Frood42 (31 Oct 2013)

Well I tried a small section out today, the one part that wasn't full of cones that is, it was nice being able to ride down that part of the road without being tailgated by some twonk in a white van...

However @mike-LCC, those advanced stop lights at Bow roundabout going to East to West are a real danger, I can see these bringing cyclists into conflict with other vehicles, they need to be looked at again and re-designed, they are a real danger   

I shall reserve further comment until I can try out the rest of the route and see if there is room to overtake other cyclists properly...

One thing I cannot get my head around is why the ASL's only goes over two lanes and not across the whole road..   

I see plenty of people at the lights just before the bus station going across the pedestrian/cycle crossing, I need to look again as to how these people are catered for, as I have doubts over what real research on current road use habits was done before this was put in...


----------



## angus h (31 Oct 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> yes and no. The clear ambition, set out by Carl Pittam of Sustrans that it would become a commuting route. The assumption was that Garratt Lane would never be acceptable to the majority of cyclists. Six years on the commuting cycle traffic on Garratt Lane is probably fifty times the cycle traffic on the Wandle Path. The difference is that Garratt Lane didn't have £1.3 million spent on it.



I wouldn't commute on the Wandle Path for sure, nevertheless I don't see the £1.3m on it as a waste. I wouldn't go for a sunday ramble with the family on Garratt Lane either 

But.. I supsect that even the numbers of sunday-pootler cyclists on the Wandle & routes like it is somewhat suppressed by the relatively poor state of the routes leading to it (poor in terms of whether an 8 year old, or an unfit 50 year old who never learned to drive, could access it safely & comfortably). Case in point.. as things currently stand, getting to the start of the Lea Valley trail from Whitechapel with the family is far more difficult than it needs to be. Four stops on the tube, a short walk, and then up the Greenway. Should they ever rebuild the western bit of CS2 to the standard of the Stratford Extension, it's a trip I'd be much more inclined to make.



> One thing bears examination. LCC policy
> _3. If cyclists will share space with motor traffic, volumes must be low. On the core cycle route network this should not exceed the Dutch maximum for main cycle routes, 2,000 Passenger Car Units per day_
> well, the simple truth is that cyclists choose to travel on routes that have over 10,000 vehicles a day. That's because those routes go where the cyclists want to go. Where the LCC has posted alternatives these alternatives have been ignored.



Or.. the people who are going places on a bike _now_ are people like you, me and, in fact, most of the LCC people I've met, who are prepared & able to deal with 10K PCU roads. LCC have an ambition to enable cycling for all ages/abilities. The sane response to anyone who suggests an 8 year old should cycle on an unsegregated 10K PCU road is: "no thank you, we'll take the bus instead.". People who can't or don't want to deal with the big roads, which is the majority of people, don't cycle.

The way I see it, the only barriers to making a trip by bike should be that it's too far, or too much effort. Right now that's a long way from true for anyone other than a reasonably fit, skilled, knowledgeable adult. Dumbing down cycling? If it gives kids more freedom & gets a bunch of those cars on sub-5-mile trips off the road, hell yes - the dumber the better.


----------



## StuartG (31 Oct 2013)

angus h said:


> Or.. the people who are going places on a bike _now_ are people like you, me and, in fact, most of the LCC people I've met, who are prepared & able to deal with 10K PCU roads. LCC have an ambition to enable cycling for all ages/abilities. The sane response to anyone who suggests an 8 year old should cycle on an unsegregated 10K PCU road is: "no thank you, we'll take the bus instead.". People who can't or don't want to deal with the big roads, which is the majority of people, don't cycle.


It is not that simple as you showed earlier in your post. One reason the Wandle Path doesn't work is because of the entry points. People will be prone to judge the safety of a route by the most dangerous part. If the danger is above their threshold they simply will not cycle. The safe bits don't count because they are - err, safe.

In London if you cycle more than a mile or two that is going to include a gyratory. These are a real challenge to the most experienced cyclist. A complete blocker for the novice.

Hence I do get irritated when LCC, Sustrans and my local council spend all their time and our money fiddling about with 'segregated' stuff in places where it is easy to do and merely convey the novices to the real danger points which are ignored just because they are difficult (and expensive) to sort.

If LCC named and shamed the worst ten gyratories in London and vowed to stretch their council across them until they were fixed - I would be very happy, Novices would be happy and many more would take to the road. We can the argue about whether we should join up the 'smoothed' gyratories with segregated paths later. But that's a very second order consideration in changing modal rates.


----------



## Frood42 (31 Oct 2013)

Does anyone know how you get from the front of Westfield Stratford City shopping centre onto the CS2 extension towards Central London on a Boris bike?
Currently by road there is a three/five lane gyratory to negotiate to do so, unless you walk your bike...

Then when you do get the other end of the segregation you still have to negotiate the Bow roundabout, and with that first left turn onto the A12 it is not the most pleasent, then if you do make it across the roundabout the lane disappears and becomes a crappy guideway... Not to mention that it doesn't go all the way into Central London and when you do get towards London you have the rather terrible Aldgate to get through...

Hmmm, how is this going to increase numbers again? 

I would like to see them link the CS2 and CS3 up along Burdett Road with a proper cycle lane, although the junction with A13 leading straight onto the A1261 could be tricky... do you carry on along the A1261 or do you take the A1206 with the cycle lane... and if they were to do this I really hope it will be without door zone shenanigans...


----------



## angus h (31 Oct 2013)

StuartG said:


> It is not that simple as you showed earlier in your post. One reason the Wandle Path doesn't work is because of the entry points. People will be prone to judge the safety of a route by the most dangerous part. If the danger is above their threshold they simply will not cycle. The safe bits don't count because they are - err, safe.
> 
> In London if you cycle more than a mile or two that is going to include a gyratory. These are a real challenge to the most experienced cyclist. A complete blocker for the novice.
> 
> ...


That's something TfL & LCC have been looking at as part of the junction review process - and some of them are indeed being fixed. Vauxhall, Elephant, Old Street, Aldgate all likely to get somewhat better over the next few years (jury still very much out as to how much, mind you), and I've heard they're looking at some or all of the Wandsworth system as well. Bricklayers already much improved (well, the on-road layout is still as shite as ever, but they've created huge, wide shared pavements on all sides & Toucans on the crossing arms - so less-confident cyclists don't have to tackle it at all). Elephant has the cycle bypasses a couple of hundred metres down the road.. they're far from perfect, but much better than the roundabout itself.

Those big systems cost massive money to fix & don't tend to be tackled in isolation, so, as best I can tell, LCC have to wait until the council / TfL / property developers etc. decide the time has come for major change, and then lobby hard to make those changes as cycle friendly as possible..

From personal experience though, LCC put across a very professional front, and indeed have some very competent people working there, but that gives the impression of a much more deep-pocketed organisation than they really are. It's a difficult spot for them in some ways - £40 is a fair bit for most people to spend on a membership that brings rather little in direct benefit, but equally with only 10,000 members it's not a massive budget to work with.

The local groups are for the most part small, often between 5 and 10 active volunteers, so when any one junction gets put under the microscope, it falls very much to individuals in those groups to make positive changes happen. Very often on a given street or junction improvement, there will be just one or two people driving the agenda to make it better. They'll rally others round, but still.. it's rather a case of, if you don't like what they're doing, get involved & make something better happen instead.

And while yes, there are major hazards every few miles, you don't need to fix every last one to make things much easier for novices & knock a lot of those <3-mile car trips on the head. Novices by definition are unlikely to be cycling from one end of town to the other. The "Hackney solution" of getting through traffic on the back streets works well for that in a lot of cases, but on the CS2 route there just aren't any minor-road alternatives - that in itself is a strong argument for segregation.

In the case of, say, CS8, the argument is weaker - if you want a family ride along that way, the river path works just as well (if and when they finish the Battersea Power Station redevelopment, at least).


----------



## Frood42 (31 Oct 2013)

angus h said:


> And while yes, there are major hazards every few miles, you don't need to fix every last one to make things much easier for novices & knock a lot of those <3-mile car trips on the head. Novices by definition are unlikely to be cycling from one end of town to the other. The "Hackney solution" of getting through traffic on the back streets works well for that in a lot of cases, but on the CS2 route there just aren't any minor-road alternatives - that in itself is a strong argument for segregation.


 
But how does this segregated extension of the CS2 actually help "novices"?
It starts nowhere and goes nowhere, not to mention it has made it a little more hazardous for me to go around the roundabout to get to the Lee Valley Way... (coming from Stratford and going towards Bow roundabout) as drivers will be expecting me to "get in the cycle lane", there is no provision for me to go around to the right...

As I said in an earlier post, currently I see no easy way to get onto and leave the CS2 segregated extension by bike from the only attraction either end, the Westfield Stratford City shopping centre, and when you do get to the shopping centre the facilities are almost non-existent, otherwise I would cycle there rather than take the Underground when I go to the cinema...

Not to mention the three/five lane gyratory around the old shopping centre, morrisions and some other shops that seem to be on an island...

That gyratory is not pleasent to go around, especially if you need to cross 4 or 5 lanes of traffic to head to Ilford...

I want to like this, I do, and I am sure it will make things just that little less stressful for a few minutes for me, but I just don't see how this will increase commuting or leisure numbers that much (especially where I come from out in Redbridge)...

It starts no where and goes no where, and it will probably be a long time before the real problem of that horrible gyratory will be sorted, and don't even get me started on the horrible cycle lanes around the shopping centre itself, what a missed opportunity... I went on the lanes and roads once to see what the cycle parking was like, it was a joke and until there is a drastic improvement I won't be using that infrastructure again...


----------



## angus h (31 Oct 2013)

It's the first bit to be done to this standard, so right now it's fair to say it's not a network.

TBH that whole area of town is such a building-site at the moment, hard to say what'll be there in a few years.

Why would you go around the roundabout to get to the Lee Valley Way from the East? As things currently stand I'd get on to the pavement at the SE corner of the roundabout & go south along the side of the sliproad for about 50m to the access gate. (Don't think you're allowed to cycle on the slip roads anyway? Damned if you do & damned if you don't).

The consultations they did at the beginning of this year suggested some sort of contraflow at the Stratford gyratory for cyclists headed W<=>E (not much use for getting in and out of Westfield, admittedly), has that gone in yet?


----------



## Flying Dodo (31 Oct 2013)

Frood42 said:


> The problem here is that little is being done to remove the motoring bullies from the road, and little will be done while such a large number still use their motor car.



In everything, that seems to be the key thing. And that's been totally overlooked/ignored/not considered by the planners. Spend umpteen millions of pounds forcing cyclists off the roads rather than address the real problem of driver education, and roads fit for all.


----------



## Frood42 (31 Oct 2013)

angus h said:


> It's the first bit to be done to this standard, so right now it's fair to say it's not a network.
> 
> TBH that whole area of town is such a building-site at the moment, hard to say what'll be there in a few years.
> 
> ...



https://www.google.co.uk/maps/preview?hl=en#!q=bow flyover&data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-0.013437!3d51.529804!2m2!1f227.2!2f71.66!4f75!2m7!1e1!2m2!1szsvOUKrxigtBH-ab1PjfHQ!2e0!5m2!1szsvOUKrxigtBH-ab1PjfHQ!2e0!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x48761d4461a4130b:0x9e6c744e033a23ec!3m8!1m3!1d399559!2d-0.0881897!3d51.4893095!3m2!1i1920!2i965!4f13.1!4m2!3d51.529686!4d-0.014828&fid=5

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/preview?hl=en#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-0.013906!3d51.529483!2m2!1f309.19!2f75.85!4f75!2m7!1e1!2m2!1sFO7a5Dpw8yRT3TjxeQKdwg!2e0!5m2!1sFO7a5Dpw8yRT3TjxeQKdwg!2e0!4m41!3m23!1m7!1sHome!3m2!3d51.5940064!4d0.0302048!4sHome!5e1!6e3!1m5!1sMcDonald's 4 Payne Rd!2s0x48761d4461a4130b:0x9e6c744e033a23ec!3m2!3d51.529686!4d-0.014828!3m8!1m3!1d390!2d-0.013698!3d51.529554!3m2!1i1920!2i965!4f13.1!5m16!2m15!1m14!1s0x48761d4461a4130b:0x9e6c744e033a23ec!2sbow flyover!3m8!1m3!1d399559!2d-0.0881897!3d51.4893095!3m2!1i1920!2i965!4f13.1!4m2!3d51.529686!4d-0.014828&fid=0i5

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/preview?hl=en#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-0.014428!3d51.529697!2m2!1f2.9!2f77.25!4f75!2m7!1e1!2m2!1sfHYwXarYn8jYTJilkCo3Yg!2e0!5m2!1sfHYwXarYn8jYTJilkCo3Yg!2e0!4m41!3m23!1m7!1sHome!3m2!3d51.5940064!4d0.0302048!4sHome!5e1!6e3!1m5!1sMcDonald's 4 Payne Rd!2s0x48761d4461a4130b:0x9e6c744e033a23ec!3m2!3d51.529686!4d-0.014828!3m8!1m3!1d390!2d-0.013698!3d51.529554!3m2!1i1920!2i965!4f13.1!5m16!2m15!1m14!1s0x48761d4461a4130b:0x9e6c744e033a23ec!2sbow flyover!3m8!1m3!1d399559!2d-0.0881897!3d51.4893095!3m2!1i1920!2i965!4f13.1!4m2!3d51.529686!4d-0.014828&fid=0i5

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/preview?hl=en#!q=bow flyover&data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-0.014382!3d51.530002!2m2!1f25.82!2f75.16!4f75!2m7!1e1!2m2!1ss7pq2kLRG1zDP4XrxIzWRg!2e0!5m2!1ss7pq2kLRG1zDP4XrxIzWRg!2e0!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x48761d4461a4130b:0x9e6c744e033a23ec!3m8!1m3!1d399559!2d-0.0881897!3d51.4893095!3m2!1i1920!2i965!4f13.1!4m2!3d51.529686!4d-0.014828&fid=5

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/preview?hl=en#!q=bow flyover&data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-0.013775!3d51.529969!2m2!1f275.63!2f85.06!4f15!2m7!1e1!2m2!1s8zGrQcQ4qAHzGBdf8vElfQ!2e0!5m2!1s8zGrQcQ4qAHzGBdf8vElfQ!2e0!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x48761d4461a4130b:0x9e6c744e033a23ec!3m8!1m3!1d399559!2d-0.0881897!3d51.4893095!3m2!1i1920!2i965!4f13.1!4m2!3d51.529686!4d-0.014828&fid=5


That is the way I know, and no issues before now, but now I have concerns, hopefully unfounded, and as far as I know it is all shared space...


----------



## Frood42 (31 Oct 2013)

not aware of any contraflow, as you say, still a mess around there...


----------



## Flying Dodo (31 Oct 2013)

And here's some video, courtesy of the LCC. So now, thanks to them, you can't cycle in a straight line any more, you're expected to slow down, swerve left, avoid people steeping across to get to the bus, and then swerve right again. And hope someone else isn't trying to overtake you. On the plus side, it should hone your skills for any budding skiers amongst us.

The most telling bit about the video is right at the start, when he's dropping off the flyover. In the past you could go straight on, confident that the traffic merging from the left would (normally) give way, as you had right of way. Now, you have to halt on the edge, waiting for a gap, so that you can scoot across into the access point for the blue lane, which is then covered by a kerb for quite a long stretch until another gap.

Marvellous.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Oct 2013)

blimey, that's dangerous.


----------



## stowie (31 Oct 2013)

Flying Dodo said:


> And here's some video, courtesy of the LCC. So now, thanks to them, you can't cycle in a straight line any more, you're expected to slow down, swerve left, avoid people steeping across to get to the bus, and then swerve right again. And hope someone else isn't trying to overtake you. On the plus side, it should hone your skills for any budding skiers amongst us.
> 
> The most telling bit about the video is right at the start, when he's dropping off the flyover. In the past you could go straight on, confident that the traffic merging from the left would (normally) give way, as you had right of way. Now, you have to halt on the edge, waiting for a gap, so that you can scoot across into the access point for the blue lane, which is then covered by a kerb for quite a long stretch until another gap.
> 
> Marvellous.



I cycled this today. I must admit I used the bow roundabout so was on the CS2 already. I actual fact I had some problems because the Bow roundabout was so stacked with traffic that the entrance eastbound was blocked by queuing cars and I had to go around the outside for the raised section.

I am probably going to get annoyed posts for this, but I thought the new lane is not bad at all. There are some interesting difference between the video posted above and my experience in that the traffic was queuing all the way back to the slip road and so cyclists coming over the flyover could easily move left onto the CS2 withotu having to wait for fast moving slip road traffic. What the cyclist did in the video seems a bit stupid frankly. The last place I would want to wait is there, better to carry on down the road and there is a very large gap at the first junction. But I do think a enlarging the gap just past the slip road would be a better idea.

I cycled all the way down the A11, and because of the queuing traffic it was far faster than filtering on the road. The path was wide enough to easily overtake (and in my case, be overtaken) which was surprising as initially I thought it was too narrow. The bus lane bypass does narrow and jink sideways but actually cycling it, it felt fine to me. The narrowing is, I suspect to slow down cyclists to single file, and it worked. The cyclist in front of me had a pedestrian who crossed without looking and the speeds were slow enough for the cyclist to stop in plenty of time. We filter through traffic where pedestrians are crossing and our sight lines are compromised all the time and this isn't as difficult.

Bad points was that there was a pedestrian crossing which was confusing enough for me to accidently jump the light (cycle lights at head height are used in Europe, but why not here?) and the facility has done nothing to slow down traffic once it got free of the queue. Also the right turn into Rick Roberts way looks a bit of a dogs dinner - however it seems from the signs that general traffic cannot turn right here now so it might be an advantage to have the odd left then left again system.

I can see that left turning conflict could be an issue. When I rode the old road I kept a strong primary but got cut up on occasion anyway and saw many cyclists who didn't take such a strong line get cut up horribly regularly. I hope that the separation will make drivers think about cycles before turning left.

All this said, I understand Dell's points about the system. In an ideal world this road would be a proper high street with high pedestrian connectivity either side, 20mph car speeds with single lanes each way and nice bus lanes which would facilitate buses and cyclists. But this seems a vision too far for anyone in charge of these things, and from a selfish cyclist point of view I like the segregation from the A11 if they are going to insist on keeping it a miserable urban motorway.

Now we need to have Bow junction changed to a proper cross roads with pedestrian and cycle priority on all legs....


----------



## Dan B (31 Oct 2013)

Nice to see they've thought about surface drainage, though


----------



## mustang1 (1 Nov 2013)

martint235 said:


> There was a thread about this a while ago. Despite the stupidity I was quite cynical at the time and believed that people were daft enough to actually build it. How long till the first li'l ol' lady with her shopping steps off bus straight into the path of a cyclist moving at fair speed.





martint235 said:


> There was a thread about this a while ago. Despite the stupidity I was quite cynical at the time and believed that people were daft enough to actually build it. How long till the first li'l ol' lady with her shopping steps off bus straight into the path of a cyclist *moving at fair speed*.



We may agree or disagree with the bypass but it looks like it's here to stay. So on that point, better to slow down around the bypass area. I ride daily on a bike path/footpath and whenever I see a bus about to pull up, or already pulled up, I slow right down. There are also works-entrances where, again, I slow down. Not at crawling pace, but I ease off the pedals and dab the brakes.

Having this bypass has the advantage that you can either ride slowish on the bike path, or faster on the road. I think this bike path is aimed somewhat at Boris Bikes (the slowest thing I've ever ridden).


----------



## martint235 (1 Nov 2013)

mustang1 said:


> We may agree or disagree with the bypass but it looks like it's here to stay. So on that point, better to slow down around the bypass area. I ride daily on a bike path/footpath and whenever I see a bus about to pull up, or already pulled up, I slow right down. There are also works-entrances where, again, I slow down. Not at crawling pace, but I ease off the pedals and dab the brakes.
> 
> Having this bypass has the advantage that you can either ride slowish on the bike path, or faster on the road. I think this bike path is aimed somewhat at Boris Bikes (the slowest thing I've ever ridden).


 I'd like to think I'm fairly experienced at this cycling lark and if I was forced to use the bypass I'd be at crawling pace as there are few things more unpredictable than a pedestrian. However given the choice I'll still be out in the traffic at speed.

My worry still stands and particularly as you mention it, around Boris bikes. Usually ridden, albeit not particularly quickly, by someone trying to get somewhere (meeting perhaps, mind elsewhere preparing comments or speech). Plus they weigh a fair bit. Pedestrian stepping in front of one isn't going to end well.


----------



## Frood42 (1 Nov 2013)

I rode this the other night west to east.
While it was nice to have a bit of road to myself, yet again I am having to battle pedestrians (guy with a suitcase walking in it, and not even on a shared path bit), and am being slowed down by the bus bypasses. Let alone trying to get into the damn thing from the flyover.

Did they do any research, at all?
Do they not know that alot of cyclists go over the Flyover?
I go over the flyover as it is alot easier than trying to ride through a car park, which is all the CS2 is around that area (as shown by the Addison Lee numpty).

Looking at the video it is also harder to go over the Flyover East to West, and they have not even shown the terrible head start traffic lights on the roundabout.

The bus bypasses aren't bad, but yet again we are having to go around obstacles and we are not being given the direct route.

Another attempt to get people on bikes off the road... it seems motor vehicles have priority...

Sorry, but I really don't see how this one small section will really increase numbers all that much... and where I can I will be avoiding the bus bypasses...

I really hope people prove me wrong and we do see an increase, but as far as I can see, it starts nowhere and goes nowhere of interest to those who are local, and the infrastructure for cycles at the only destination, Westfield Stratford City shopping centre, is frankly crap.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Nov 2013)

angus h said:


> I wouldn't commute on the Wandle Path for sure, nevertheless I don't see the £1.3m on it as a waste. I wouldn't go for a sunday ramble with the family on Garratt Lane either .


well, let's just think this thing through

1. prior to 2008 the Wandle Path is semi-overgrown in places and has poor signage. The bridges are ok. My friend Graham commutes on it (outward in the morning and inward in the evening and doesn't see anybody coming the other way. Some leisure use on the weekends
2. The TfL Greenways Committee supports a £1.3M revamp. The path is widened and totally silly (as in treacherous when wet) metal mesh bridges are put in to encourage pondweed growth under the bridges.
3. No change in traffic.

Now I call that a complete and total waste of money. Next!


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Nov 2013)

angus h said:


> That's something TfL & LCC have been looking at as part of the junction review process - and some of them are indeed being fixed. Vauxhall, Elephant, Old Street, Aldgate all likely to get somewhat better over the next few years (jury still very much out as to how much, mind you), .


one can admire the intention - but the LCC campaigned for the cycle paths around and through the Vauxhall Gyratory that nobody uses. 

The basic problem is this. These are busy junctions in or near the city centre. If one were to eliminate all cars from them tomorrow they'd still be busy junctions. Indeed, it's impossible to conceive of a city without busy junctions. So, yes, they need work, but that work should be about pacifying traffic and rescuing some kind of sense of place. That's not impossible - Shoreditch would be a decent model, and that, if you recall, is about simplification rather than complication.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Nov 2013)

Stowie - I'm sure that the lane is comfortable for the occasional cyclist wandering along in splendid isolation, but consider this....

If the intention is 'mass cycling' then the lane is even more dumbass than I took it for. It will never, ever carry the same number of bicycles as CS7. Cyclists swan down the A3 (one of the principal roads leaving London for the south) in such numbers that we have, unbelievably, congestion across a wide bus lane. Put the same number of bikes in the Stratford High Street 'drain' and they'd all come to a complete stop.

Worse - if, by some miracle, the LCC devised a lane that carried CS7 stylee volumes of cyclists, then any bus stop on the road side of the lane would be, well, horrible. Imagine a bus stop in the middle of Clapham High Road, with pedestrians dashing across the bike lane to avoid falling under the wheels of the two-wheeled hordes. Imagine the mash-up that would attend every bus disgorging twenty passengers at a stop. Imagine the pushchair pile-ups. Put yourself in the position of a wheelchair user.

This lane is not a serious attempt to provide for 'mass cycling'. It's a symbol, a rhetorical advice, a means of saying 'we're spending a fortune on cycling, aren't we the bees knees?' It is, to repeat, a little rus in urbe fantasy, for the perfect LCC member to wander lonely as a cloud, unworried by the material considerations that attend and enliven city life.

We're always being told to 'go to the Continent and see how wonderful it is'. Assorted FNRttCers took themselves off to Belgium this year and rode along the cycle path that runs between parked cars, bus stops and the footpath along the A9. It was pants. Ten miles of this nonsense made your head hurt. And that was at two in the morning.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Nov 2013)

2745360 said:


> My DD is cancelled.


from whom will you be purchasing your 3rd party insurance in future?


----------



## SW19cam (2 Nov 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> If the intention is 'mass cycling' then the lane is even more dumbass than I took it for. It will never, ever carry the same number of bicycles as CS7. Cyclists swan down the A3 (one of the principal roads leaving London for the south) in such numbers that we have, unbelievably, congestion across a wide bus lane. Put the same number of bikes in the Stratford High Street 'drain' and they'd all come to a complete stop.



< This. 

Except, let’s not pretend it’s a future problem. There are already a good number of us travelling down Stratford Highstreet twice a day. 6 months ago we had a large lane, which we shared with the occasional bus. We could overtake each other safely.

Now we have a constrained segregated path, which I’ve seen people boast is 2.3m wide. Even at 2.3m you’re pushing a safe overtake (Unless it’s your mate in front), and it gets much less wide – 2m? (And then of course c.1m at the bus bypasses).

Segregation is only good when it improves the quality of the cycle, and so far it’s bringing about as many downsides as it does upsides. I dread to think how it’s going to be to cycle it next summer – i.e. when the fair weather cyclists return. As for the future....

...Let’s wait and see (after all, we have no choice now it has been built).


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Nov 2013)

2745537 said:


> My associate membership of the CTC via the Fridays will cover that, won't it?


Hope so, given I'm going down the same 'my DD is cancelled route' as you.


----------



## ianrauk (2 Nov 2013)

2745537 said:


> My associate membership of the CTC via the Fridays will cover that, won't it?



*CTC Affiliated Membership for Individuals*
Once your group has affiliated, you will be given a unique code your individual members can use to join online. It costs just *£16 *for individual members to take out club affiliation which will cover them should they cause any damage or injury to anybody else while cycling to a Third Party.

Note only *full* CTC members have automatic access to legal claims advice.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Nov 2013)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Hope so, given I'm going down the same 'my DD is cancelled route' as you.


From what the emails that I get as an associate CTC member say, I'm entitled to 3rd party coverage and it doesn't appear to be limited to rides with the associated ''club'' (FNRttC).


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Nov 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> We're always being told to 'go to the Continent and see how wonderful it is'. Assorted FNRttCers took themselves off to Belgium this year and rode along the cycle path that runs between parked cars, bus stops and the footpath along the A9. It was pants. Ten miles of this nonsense made your head hurt. And that was at two in the morning.


That was my experience of commuting across a small town in Holland for a couple of years, (Ede). A perfectly pleasant ride on nice roads until they put in a cycling farcility. A 1m wide raised red track where the road once was which meant no overtaking another bicycle without dropping off the kerb back into the flow of traffic and then renegotiating the kerb back onto the red raised track. Insane. Then there was the circumferential track around the edge of the small roundabout with various bits of concrete to contain and guide various traffic flows around it. Bloody dangerous. There was no need for any of it and it benefited no-one, not even the cars (of which there were few).


----------



## glenn forger (4 Nov 2013)

> I have two things to show you here. Firstly that's Brian Dorling's ghost bike, or the remains of it, reminding us of his fatal accident a few yards ahead at the Bow Roundabout two years ago. And secondly there's a car parked in the Cycle Superhighway, perfectly legally, blocking passage. This is an official parking bay, operational for loading and unloading outside peak hours, and freely available for parking on Sundays. As a local resident I'm very pleased to have such facilities available. As a cyclist, however, the idea of a parking space on a Superhighway is entirely bonkers. Not so super.










> This is the entrance to the segregated cycle lane added at the Bow Roundabout following Brian Dorling's death. Previously CS2 had been nothing more thanhalf a lane painted blue, which was ludicrous this close to the roundabout because it was usually obstructed by queueing traffic. The separate lane seems much more sensible, except it starts only a few metres after a bus stop so (as seen here) can be equally impossible to access. From what I've seen there's a similar schoolboy error on the opposite side of the roundabout, on the new westbound extension, where access to the Bow Flyover bus stop bypass can be blocked by a queue of vehicles. They never learn. Not so super.



http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Nov 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> That was my experience of commuting across a small town in Holland for a couple of years, (Ede). A perfectly pleasant ride on nice roads until they put in a cycling farcility. A 1m wide raised red track where the road once was which meant no overtaking another bicycle without dropping off the kerb back into the flow of traffic and then renegotiating the kerb back onto the red raised track. Insane. Then there was the circumferential track around the edge of the small roundabout with various bits of concrete to contain and guide various traffic flows around it. Bloody dangerous. There was no need for any of it and it benefited no-one, not even the cars (of which there were few).


Criticisming Dutch Infrastructure? You're asking for a stoning.


----------



## Dan B (5 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> Nice to see they've thought about surface drainage, though


http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYTMgkMCIAAy6T7.jpg


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Nov 2013)

Dan B said:


> http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYTMgkMCIAAy6T7.jpg


heckamighty! 

There might be a drain that's been blocked by mortar droppings and the like, though. At least I hope so, because as @Archie_tect will know (but not from personal experience), that's not a mistake you want to make.


----------



## Archie_tect (5 Nov 2013)

Makes it much more fun to cycle along a clear blue stream though... imagine yourselves on a boat, on a river, with tangerine trees and marmalade skies.


----------



## glenn forger (5 Nov 2013)

Although in that picture the urban waterway looks faster than the road.


----------



## Flying Dodo (5 Nov 2013)

So they're good for skiers to practice slamons on, and they're nice for anyone in a boat when it rains.

In fact I've realised why LCC have their "Go Dutch" campaign. They think of Amsterdam with its canals and with all the rain we've been having, they want to replicate that here! 

Shame it's no use at all for large groups of cyclists as Dellzeqq has pointed out.


----------



## ozzage (6 Nov 2013)

I'm curious.

What would have to happen for you guys to admit that you're wrong? If numbers increased and feedback was overwhelmingly positive, would that do it? If not, what would?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Nov 2013)

Flying Dodo said:


> So they're good for skiers to practice slamons on, and they're nice for anyone in a boat when it rains.


I read that as practising salmons.


----------



## subaqua (6 Nov 2013)

ozzage said:


> I'm curious.
> 
> What would have to happen for you guys to admit that you're wrong? If numbers increased and feedback was overwhelmingly positive, would that do it? If not, what would?


 I have a feeling that numbers may increase but feedback from all groups will be in the negative. 

the money could have been better spent on more worthwhile projects for cycling


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Nov 2013)

ozzage said:


> I'm curious.
> 
> What would have to happen for you guys to admit that you're wrong? If numbers increased and feedback was overwhelmingly positive, would that do it? If not, what would?


You certainly are curious. I, on the other hand, have a question. How are you going to get CS7 stylee bike numbers down that lane?

And, sorry, but you don't have the smarts or the breadth of understanding, or even the interest in the wider world to decide by what measures this thing is a success or a failure. It is inherently a bad thing - that it will fail by the simplest metric than you can devise is merely the maraschino cherry on the icing of the cake that is a greater wisdom you're never going to be accross.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Nov 2013)

User3094 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24841596
> 
> Is the blue stuff slippy?


it is when it's new, but it 'goes off' quite quickly. I've seen someone come off on one of the raised white lines, but, again, those gain grip quite quickly

the link is very telling. A tipper truck. The LCC have been avoiding the obvious conclusion for 7 years, and it's about time they gave in and recognised that it's not the 'where' but the 'who'.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Nov 2013)

I see Brizzle is going Dutch.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (7 Nov 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> it is when it's new, but it 'goes off' quite quickly. I've seen someone come off on one of the raised white lines, but, again, those gain grip quite quickly
> 
> the link is very telling. A tipper truck. The LCC have been avoiding the obvious conclusion for 7 years, and it's about time they gave in and recognised that it's not the 'where' but the 'who'.


A counterpoint - not the who but the what: http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-chal...er-urban-lorry-to-reduce-lorry-cyclist-deaths


----------



## Bromptonaut (7 Nov 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> heckamighty!
> 
> There might be a drain that's been blocked by mortar droppings and the like, though. At least I hope so, because as @Archie_tect will know (but not from personal experience), that's not a mistake you want to make.



I've seen that sort of flood before on a cycle lane; the now removed contraflow in the SW corner of Russell Sq. Badly laid to start with but only outlet for water was a gap in kerb (often blocked with leaves/dirt etc) so it half drained into main carriageway.


----------



## subaqua (7 Nov 2013)

User3094 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24841596
> 
> Is the blue stuff slippy?


 

it isin the winter when the road it self has been cleared but the blue paint hsn't .


----------



## mcshroom (7 Nov 2013)

ozzage said:


> I'm curious.
> 
> What would have to happen for you guys to admit that you're wrong? If numbers increased and feedback was overwhelmingly positive, would that do it? If not, what would?


What would make you accept that you are?

So far we have a facility that causes conflict and can't even shed rain water in a safe sensible manner.


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Nov 2013)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Criticisming Dutch Infrastructure? You're asking for a stoning.


No probs, have been stoned in Holland before ....


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (7 Nov 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> No probs, have been stoned in Holland before ....


I used to get lapidated. These days I'm just dilapidated.


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I used to get lapidated. These days I'm just dilapidated.


Or debilitated .....


----------



## Flying Dodo (7 Nov 2013)

What budget have the local council set aside for cleaning this 2 mile long facility? Will it in fact get cleaned at all, and if so how often? Do they have a little machine which they'll drive up and down clearing out the debris that builds up in these enclosed areas?


----------



## Wobblers (8 Nov 2013)

ozzage said:


> I'm curious.
> 
> What would have to happen for you guys to admit that you're wrong? If numbers increased and feedback was overwhelmingly positive, would that do it? If not, what would?



That would be a start. But there are other more important measures. How many injuries along that path? If the injury rate - to both cyclists and pedestrians - on a per cyclist/pedestrian basis is increased, then this facility has measurably increased risk. That is an instant fail, no matter how positive the feedback.

Do you expect pedestrians to be "overwhelmingly positive" about this? As someone who is more often a pedestrian than cyclist, I have to say that I am very, very grateful there is no such abomination in Birmingham.

Oh... "admit that you're wrong" suggests you consider the naysayers to be wrong. It is a convenient insinuation which suggests that you are right - but without any of that inconvenient hassle of actually having to come up with anything to support that insinuation. So how about I give you the opportunity to state why do you think that you are right and "you guys" are wrong?


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Nov 2013)

Why dont they put the people who organise these things on a plane with some bikes and send them to Denmark to see how it should be done. It would save a fortune in meetings and planning.

Steve


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Why dont they put the people who organise these things on a plane with some bikes and send them to Denmark to see how it should be done. It would save a fortune in meetings and planning.
> 
> Steve


Steve - London is a city of nine million people. Copenhagen is half the size of Birmingham. London's CBD stretches from Paddington Basin to Westfield.- getting on for nine miles. Copenhagen is endless suburb. (And, frankly I'd rather live in Beirut than Copenhagen.)


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Nov 2013)

McWobble said:


> That would be a start. But there are other more important measures. How many injuries along that path? If the injury rate - to both cyclists and pedestrians - on a per cyclist/pedestrian basis is increased, then this facility has measurably increased risk. That is an instant fail, no matter how positive the feedback.
> 
> Do you expect pedestrians to be "overwhelmingly positive" about this? As someone who is more often a pedestrian than cyclist, I have to say that I am very, very grateful there is no such abomination in Birmingham.
> 
> Oh... "admit that you're wrong" suggests you consider the naysayers to be wrong. It is a convenient insinuation which suggests that you are right - but without any of that inconvenient hassle of actually having to come up with anything to support that insinuation. So how about I give you the opportunity to state why do you think that you are right and "you guys" are wrong?


the other consideration is the money. Two and a half million quid would get you twenty flats for social housing.


----------



## Hitchington (8 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2733450, member: 259"]It looks like a trap to me - how deep is that pit?
View attachment 31539
[/quote]


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Nov 2013)

Dell,

They dont seem to be able to get the basics right. When any new building projects are started in Denmark, the cycle paths are put in first. We didnt always have cycle paths in Denmark and neither did the Dutch but you have to start putting them in otherwise you are always trying to squeeze them in later. 

As for living in Beirut as opposed to Copenhagen.... Off you go mate. Rather you than me.

Steve


----------



## srw (8 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Dell,
> 
> They dont seem to be able to get the basics right. When any new building projects are started in Denmark, the cycle paths are put in first. We didnt always have cycle paths in Denmark and neither did the Dutch but you have to start putting them in otherwise you are always trying to squeeze them in later.


Do you want to invent the time machine or should I?

The City of London's street layout is mediaeval. Literally. Westminster's street layout is Georgian. The street layout in central London outside the CIty and Westminster is Victorian. London's current extent - 60 miles from side to side in each direction - was fully built up by about 1960.

There are no new building projects involving new roads. There is no room for them.


----------



## subaqua (8 Nov 2013)

srw said:


> Do you want to invent the time machine or should I?
> 
> The City of London's street layout is mediaeval. Literally. Westminster's street layout is Georgian. The street layout in central London outside the CIty and Westminster is Victorian. London's current extent - 60 miles from side to side in each direction - was fully built up by about 1960.
> 
> *There are no new building projects involving new roads. There is no room for them*.


 
they did manage to build a few in the late 90s and early 00s though. A12/M11 link road and Orient way . 1 of which has a cycling prohibition and the other i wouldn't really want to cycle along on the road.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Nov 2013)

I appreciate what the Streets of London are like, I used to live there. I was talking about future planning, not just in London but all over the UK.

As for the present situation in London. It is a big problem, but do they have any cyclists in their group who are trying to solve it?

Steve


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Nov 2013)

Not much of a choice then Adrian.


----------



## srw (8 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> I appreciate what the Streets of London are like, I used to live there. I was talking about future planning, not just in London but all over the UK.
> 
> As for the present situation in London. It is a big problem, but do they have any cyclists in their group who are trying to solve it?
> 
> Steve


There aren't all that many roads being built anywhere - and where there are cycle safety is often considered. A lot of the roads that +are+ being built are relief roads making town centres safer and removing the need for segregation. There's also the beginnings of a move to fully segregated long-distance paths where the property rights exist. But British property law being what it is and the cost of British land being what it is there's a limit on what's feasible. 

As for cycle safety on-road - there's been more movement in the last 10 years than in the prceding 50. Larrgely because so many people ride - there's safety in numbers, which is the real lesson of Copenhagen.


----------



## Wobblers (9 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Not much of a choice then Adrian.



You have to consider two very real practical issues.

The first is the traffic engineers and planners. These are the people responsible for the ludicrous monstrosities in "Farcility of the Month". You know, the cycle lanes that are narrower than your handlebars, the cycle paths that disappear at those busy junctions where you most need them, those routes that take you many miles out of your way and then vanish. There is an insidious assumption that throwing money at cycle facilities will somehow improve their design. But with the same set of bozos in charge, all that will happen is that you'll get more of the same: more inadequate, useless, or downright dangerous "facilities". To really change things, you've got to change the mindset that the Car Comes First At All Costs. That is not something I see happening.

The other issue, as Dellzeqq has said, is money - where's it coming from? To put it bluntly, spending the money remodelling the dangerous junctions and fixing the potholes would be far better - not merely is that of benefit to all road users, it also materially increases safety from the cyclist's point of view.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2013)

The flawed "separate infrastructure for bicycles" argument has such similarities to the "exclusive infrastructure for motor vehicles (that pay road tax)" arguments that I wonder if they spring from the same motor-centric point of view. Are those on bikes who advance "separateness is all" so stridently, in the face of the obvious implementation obstacles it has to overcome, simply private car drivers on bikes, dricyclists if you like, who have not yet shed their pro-motor subliminal preferences or overcome their conditioning? Meaning they still retain what is, essentially, the 'hard-pressed' drivers "I must have exclusive use of this shared space" perspective when on two wheels that they had/have when on four?

Possibly this is all a side-effect of our society’s petrol addiction or the lead they used to put in petrol so we mustn't rush to judge the poor, afflicted, misguided souls.


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Nov 2013)

Mcwobble, changing the mindset that the car comes first was the big battle that the Dutch and Danes had back in the 60s and 70s. In Denmark the cyclist has as much right to be there as the motorised transport. But that is helped by the fact that most Danes also ride a bike. In reality, cyclists are top of the chain when it comes transport on the roads in Denmark ( no pun intended).

I found this clip on Youtube about Dutch cycle paths. It may seem a bit quaint but they had to start somewhere and it worked for them. Just as aside note, look how many wear helmets and see how many different styles of bikes there are.


View: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o


Steve


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2013)

How big is Copenhagen? 88.25 km²
How big is Amsterdam? 219 km²
How big is London? 1,572 km²

Population of Copenhagen? 559,440 (2013)
Population of Amsterdam? 779,808 (2011)
Population of London? 8.174 million (2011)

(Source: Typing "how big is nnnn?" and "Population of nnnn?" into Google)

Instead of just trotting out clichéd responses about the wonders of the Netherlands and Denmark can we have a UK solution for UK requirements please. A 21st C response to a 21st C challenge? It may be me but it looks like the challenge for London in 2013 may be an order of magnitude, or two, larger than faced by our continental cousins in the last quarter of the 20th C.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Not much of a choice then Adrian.


enough of a choice. More bikes than cars on major radial routes tells the story.

The thing is, Steve, without wanting to come across as completely patronising, it falls to me to tell you that you're coming across as completely patronising.


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Nov 2013)

Dell,

It was not intentional and I am pretty sure Adrian did not see it that way.

Steve


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Nov 2013)

I thought you may do


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2013)

2758864 said:


> We would need a Baron Haussmann and laws to back him or her up. I am not sure which political party to lobby for this one.


serious question. did Hausmann do anything on Ile de la cité, and the other parts of the old medieval city of Paris within the old walls broadly equivalent to the City of London?

EDIT: answered here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann's_renovation_of_Paris#Modernisation_of_a_medieval_city




fascinating what you can do under a dictatorship.


----------



## StuartG (9 Nov 2013)

GrumpyGregry said:


> How big is Copenhagen? 88.25 km²
> How big is Amsterdam? 219 km²
> How big is London? 1,572 km²
> 
> ...


You make the point that London lies between Amsterdam and Copenhagen in population density (with Copenhagen being the densest). Hence what point are you trying to make in London being different when it comes to squeezing a quart into a pint pot?

Or are you making some other argument?


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Nov 2013)

it's a question of definition. Copenhagen including the immediate suburbs has a population of about a million. The economic zone has a population of about two million. So........the historic core is dense, and there's a healthy limit on cars - hence lots of bikes. The suburbs are far less dense and, as Steve says, planned with cycle paths, but, environmentally they're every bit as disastrous as Ruislip or Orpington.

The key to a sane transport policy is dense cities and towns, good public transport and restrictions on car usage and parking. Cycling is nice to know, but follows on from the first three.

I went to Milton Keynes last week. More cycleways than you can shake a stick at. Huge car parks everywhere. Naff-all bikes, and cars, cars, cars, because development is designed around the car. 

By contrast the centre of London is dense, and a lot of journeys to, from and within are reasonably short - so the potential for cycling is limited only by capacity. And here's the rub - on some routes we're nearing capacity for cycles.


----------



## Wobblers (10 Nov 2013)

2758963 said:


> Don't worry, I get patronized by full time professionals.



Are you calling me professional?


----------



## Wobblers (10 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Mcwobble, changing the mindset that the car comes first was the big battle that the Dutch and Danes had back in the 60s and 70s. In Denmark the cyclist has as much right to be there as the motorised transport. But that is helped by the fact that most Danes also ride a bike. In reality, cyclists are top of the chain when it comes transport on the roads in Denmark ( no pun intended).
> 
> I found this clip on Youtube about Dutch cycle paths. It may seem a bit quaint but they had to start somewhere and it worked for them. Just as aside note, look how many wear helmets and see how many different styles of bikes there are.
> 
> ...




Absolutely we desperately need to get away from the idea that transport begins with and ends with the car. There's no point even considering cycling or pedestrian facilities until you do so, as they'll be designed and built by the same bunch who've been responsible for all the car promoting - excuse me, I meant highway designing so far. The problem is that simply is not happening. The junction close to my house was remodelled a couple of years ago - ostensibly to put in pedestrian lights to improve things for those on foot. The reality was stupid staggered crossings that took pedestrians far out of their way and a convenient filter lane so that motorists wishing to join the Hagley Road didn't have so long to wait - but meant three sets of lights for pedestrians to navigate. Oh... and you'd find one set of pedestrian lights turned off as it delayed the traffic too much! So all these "improvements" benefited motorists only. This has to end - but how are we going to go about it?


----------



## Wobblers (10 Nov 2013)

2760033 said:


> You patronize me?



Well, I do try...


----------



## stowie (10 Nov 2013)

McWobble said:


> Absolutely we desperately need to get away from the idea that transport begins with and ends with the car. There's no point even considering cycling or pedestrian facilities until you do so, as they'll be designed and built by the same bunch who've been responsible for all the car promoting - excuse me, I meant highway designing so far. The problem is that simply is not happening. The junction close to my house was remodelled a couple of years ago - ostensibly to put in pedestrian lights to improve things for those on foot. The reality was stupid staggered crossings that took pedestrians far out of their way and a convenient filter lane so that motorists wishing to join the Hagley Road didn't have so long to wait - but meant three sets of lights for pedestrians to navigate. Oh... and you'd find one set of pedestrian lights turned off as it delayed the traffic too much! So all these "improvements" benefited motorists only. This has to end - but how are we going to go about it?



It does seem true that transport planners seem utterly at sea when it comes to anything other than modelling roads around private cars. I had clients who designed electronic road sign equipment. It was incredibly complex and even the various hues of the LED signs were incredibly tightly controlled. It struck me that, whilst millions were being poured into these types of systems, the very same transport planners specifying them were also drawing up plans with cycles lanes narrower than a cyclist and running next to car doors, or the other various abominations that we see on a regular basis.

I get the impression that transport planners are in thrall to transport models which have been finely honed for private transport over many years and they simply don't know what to do with cycling. Pedestrians have been easy - keep them penned in away from the important people in cars, but cycling? They can no longer ignore it but they have no idea what they need to do.

My borough (the peoples' republic of Waltham Forest) has, in the past, announced itself to be working towards being "like Holland" - whatever that means. The major rework of a road and junction that has seen multiple accidents and deaths - including 2 cyclists- is then detailed and it involves getting rid of a narrow cycle lane for car parking and then putting a narrow cycle lane in the door zone. There is absolutely no leadership in terms of changing road use from local or national government. They are reacting to changes on the ground instead of promoting change.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Nov 2013)

StuartG said:


> You make the point that London lies between Amsterdam and Copenhagen in population density (with Copenhagen being the densest). Hence what point are you trying to make in London being different when it comes to squeezing a quart into a pint pot?
> 
> Or are you making some other argument?


I make no point but leave it to others to draw their own conclusions as to what lessons from Copenhagen and Amsterdam might be or might not be applicable to a mahoosive, huge, ginormous world city like London.

Scale. It's all about scale. 70 million people use Victoria Undergound Station every year. The current Southern Railway, and the other TOCs operating over pre-nationalisation Southern Railway routes deposit more folk in central London every day than landed on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. 

London is epic in almost every way. Copenhagen and Amsterdam are mere provincial centres by comparison.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (10 Nov 2013)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I make no point but leave it to others to draw their own conclusions as to what lessons from Copenhagen and Amsterdam might be or might not be applicable to a mahoosive, huge, ginormous world city like London.
> 
> Scale. It's all about scale. 70 million people use Victoria Undergound Station every year. The current Southern Railway, and the other TOCs operating over pre-nationalisation Southern Railway routes deposit more folk in central London every day than landed on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day.
> 
> London is epic in almost every way. Copenhagen and Amsterdam are mere provincial centres by comparison.


I know that London's on an epic scale but what solution does London Underground suggest when their trains can't cope?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24888358


----------



## Richard Mann (10 Nov 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> The key to a sane transport policy is dense cities and towns, good public transport and restrictions on car usage and parking. Cycling is nice to know, but follows on from the first three.


 
Basel is one of my favourites: dense, excellent public transport. Car modal split is an incredibly low 18%. Bikes definitely secondary.


----------



## buggi (10 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2733450, member: 259"]It looks like a trap to me - how deep is that pit?
View attachment 31539
[/quote]
that's exactly what i thought LOL i had to enlarge the picture before my brain figured it out. How about i step off the bus into the path of one of you... And we split the compo?


----------



## StuartG (11 Nov 2013)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Scale. It's all about scale. 70 million people use Victoria Undergound Station every year. The current Southern Railway, and the other TOCs operating over pre-nationalisation Southern Railway routes deposit more folk in central London every day than landed on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. London is epic in almost every way. Copenhagen and Amsterdam are mere provincial centres by comparison.


My memories of Copenhagen Railway Station was it being guarded tighter than the Normandy Beaches by battalion after battalion of parked bikes. A misplaced addition would cause a Mexican wave of collapsing steeds that would have made Wembley proud. When it comes to scale packing in the density of bikes makes Copenhagen really mega by global standards - and if 90% of those bikes were replaced by cars or buses I think it would be tighter than Trafalgar Square on New Years Eve.

Remember London is a city of many villages. The villages are smaller than Copenhagen or Amsterdam and vary considerably. The comparisons are there if you want to look for them.


----------



## srw (11 Nov 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> Basel is one of my favourites: dense, excellent public transport. Car modal split is an incredibly low 18%. Bikes definitely secondary.


And yet there are more bikes in Basel city centre than in London. Despite an extensive network of trams. And all of them - trams, buses, bikes, cars - share the space very nicely.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Nov 2013)

StuartG said:


> My memories of Copenhagen Railway Station was it being guarded tighter than the Normandy Beaches by battalion after battalion of parked bikes. A misplaced addition would cause a Mexican wave of collapsing steeds that would have made Wembley proud. When it comes to scale packing in the density of bikes makes Copenhagen really mega by global standards - and if 90% of those bikes were replaced by cars or buses I think it would be tighter than Trafalgar Square on New Years Eve.
> 
> Remember London is a city of many villages. The villages are smaller than Copenhagen or Amsterdam and vary considerably. The comparisons are there if you want to look for them.


----------



## ozzage (29 Nov 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> You certainly are curious. I, on the other hand, have a question. How are you going to get CS7 stylee bike numbers down that lane?
> 
> And, sorry, but you don't have the smarts or the breadth of understanding, or even the interest in the wider world to decide by what measures this thing is a success or a failure. It is inherently a bad thing - that it will fail by the simplest metric than you can devise is merely the maraschino cherry on the icing of the cake that is a greater wisdom you're never going to be accross.



You've always been patronising and stubborn on this forum but this is great  You have already decided that "this" is a bad thing, and seem willing to freely admit that any evidence that indicates otherwise will not be sufficient. Excellent science-based approach I must say. Anyhoo lots of fancy words but in the end you've said absolutely nothing.

Yes I do indeed (to answer a later post) think that I'm right that Dutch-style infrastructure is the answer. But I'm sure you guys also expect that YOU'RE right that it's not, so I can't imagine that that's a problem in itself. That's why I'm curious as to what would have to happen for people to think that Dutch-style segregation on main roads (not necessarily CS2X, which isn't amazingly well done) actually works and improves the experience for most people?


----------



## Domestique (30 Nov 2013)

Something has to change if you really want people out of cars and into the saddle, and I guess its going to be a mixture of everything rather than one thing. Just expecting people to look out for each other has failed miserably in the UK. 
One good thing about the recent deaths its now getting the cycle debate into the main new programmes as opposed to local ones. Its going to take a brave PM to take the step and take on the car. I doubt its going to happen in my life.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Nov 2013)

ozzage said:


> You've always been patronising and stubborn on this forum but this is great  You have already decided that "this" is a bad thing, and seem willing to freely admit that any evidence that indicates otherwise will not be sufficient. Excellent science-based approach I must say. Anyhoo lots of fancy words but in the end you've said absolutely nothing.
> 
> Yes I do indeed (to answer a later post) think that I'm right that Dutch-style infrastructure is the answer. But I'm sure you guys also expect that YOU'RE right that it's not, so I can't imagine that that's a problem in itself. That's why I'm curious as to what would have to happen for people to think that Dutch-style segregation on main roads (not necessarily CS2X, which isn't amazingly well done) actually works and improves the experience for most people?


1. The lane would be a bad thing even if it drew the numbers that use CS7. See pedestrians, bus stops, public space and so on.........
2. It won't, because it's too small
Next!


----------



## Domestique (30 Nov 2013)

2796824 said:


> I never expected to read that.


A poor choice of words I accept, but I can assure you certainly not meant in an offensive way.
Thats what I love about these places, everything is took apart word by word.


----------



## Flying Dodo (30 Nov 2013)

ozzage said:


> You've always been patronising and stubborn on this forum but this is great  You have already decided that "this" is a bad thing, and seem willing to freely admit that any evidence that indicates otherwise will not be sufficient. Excellent science-based approach I must say. Anyhoo lots of fancy words but in the end you've said absolutely nothing.
> 
> Yes I do indeed (to answer a later post) think that I'm right that Dutch-style infrastructure is the answer. But I'm sure you guys also expect that YOU'RE right that it's not, so I can't imagine that that's a problem in itself. That's why I'm curious as to what would have to happen for people to think that Dutch-style segregation on main roads (not necessarily CS2X, which isn't amazingly well done) actually works and improves the experience for most people?



The answer is for all road users to respect each other. The Dutch style solution does have segregation in some places, but not in others. The important part, which is what's missing here, is that generally motorised users in the Netherlands don't harass cyclists or pedestrians. Have a look at this film of Amsterdam - do you think CS2 comes even close in concept? Look at the streams of cyclists flowing along the streets. As Dellzeqq pointed out, how would what's been done creating the cycle lane at Stratford cope with even a fraction of the volume of traffic in Amsterdam?

Stratford and all the gallons of blue paint used elsewhere are a mere sop to cyclists - they are not the long term answer. Sadly, politicians like Boris just aren't prepared to look long term and stop pandering to the motorist.


----------



## Domestique (30 Nov 2013)

2797318 said:


> Sorry, I was being over-sensitive.



Accepted and returned. Its a difficult time when these things are happening.


----------



## Wobblers (1 Dec 2013)

Flying Dodo said:


> The answer is for all road users to respect each other. The Dutch style solution does have segregation in some places, but not in others. The important part, which is what's missing here, is that generally motorised users in the Netherlands don't harass cyclists or pedestrians. Have a look at this film of Amsterdam - do you think CS2 comes even close in concept? Look at the streams of cyclists flowing along the streets. As Dellzeqq pointed out, how would what's been done creating the cycle lane at Stratford cope with even a fraction of the volume of traffic in Amsterdam?
> 
> Stratford and all the gallons of blue paint used elsewhere are a mere sop to cyclists - they are not the long term answer. Sadly, politicians like Boris just aren't prepared to look long term and stop pandering to the motorist.



I wish I could "like" this a dozen times. FD has hit the nail on the head. It's not something that a mere bike lane will solve, or a dash of paint. It's attitude - from the politicians who just use the latest tragedies as a convenient political football for some truly repulsive victim blaming (no prizes for guessing who I'm thinking of here) to traffic engineers who regard the goal of prioritising the needs of motorists - or rather the fast _speeds _of motorists as the be all and end all, with cyclists and pedestrians mere inconveniences to be entirely discounted.

It most certainly is not something that segregation can address - rather segregation serves to reinforce the attitude that cyclists and pedestrians are something to be excluded from the roads.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Dec 2013)

I'd agree with both McW and FD on this, but I'd go further. I'd say that cyclists in London have seen a huge shift in driver behaviour on those roads where cyclists are the most numerous. It isn't just safety in numbers - it's respect for numbers. Whether this says something basic about humanity I've no idea, and I'm not sufficiently concerned about the process to look a gift horse in the mouth. This segregated path will do nothing in terms of building respect.

And, if you doubt this, take a ride on the roads of Milton Keynes.


----------



## melgund (12 Jan 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> I'd agree with both McW and FD on this, but I'd go further. I'd say that cyclists in London have seen a huge shift in driver behaviour on those roads where cyclists are the most numerous. It isn't just safety in numbers - it's respect for numbers. Whether this says something basic about humanity I've no idea, and I'm not sufficiently concerned about the process to look a gift horse in the mouth. This segregated path will do nothing in terms of building respect.
> 
> And, if you doubt this, take a ride on the roads of Milton Keynes.





2798611 said:


> Or, I am told, try riding on a road in Holland where there is a cycle path.





dellzeqq said:


> 1. The lane would be a bad thing even if it drew the numbers that use CS7. See pedestrians, bus stops, public space and so on.........
> 2. It won't, because it's too small
> Next!


But it could save lives. Please consider that. 
Astonishing to read some of the comments here. Please study the similar infrastructure in place in Denmark, Holland, Germany etc, consider the KSIs in those countries and then comment.
Next.


----------



## theclaud (12 Jan 2014)

melgund said:


> *But it could save lives.* Please consider that.
> Astonishing to read some of the comments here. Please study the similar infrastructure in place in Denmark, Holland, Germany etc, consider the KSIs in those countries and then comment.
> Next.



How, exactly?


----------



## martint235 (12 Jan 2014)

Why do people keep wittering on about the infrastructure in the Netherlands, Germany et al. The big difference over there isn't the infrastructure, it's the fact that cyclists are respected and treated like normal road users rather than just a hindrance that can be bullied out of the way like in the UK


----------



## Wobblers (12 Jan 2014)

melgund said:


> *But it could save lives. Please consider that.*
> Astonishing to read some of the comments here. Please study the similar infrastructure in place in Denmark, Holland, Germany etc, consider the KSIs in those countries and then comment.
> Next.



There's surprisingly little evidence to support that, unfortunately.

On the other hand, there are innumerable examples of appallingly designed and constructed infrastructure in this country which _increases _the risks experienced by cyclists, through such things as poor road surfaces, removing cyclists' from motorists' sight lines, adding extra and unnecessary points of conflicts at junctions, dangerous obstacles....

Cycling infrastructure is to a very large extent merely a placebo - it doesn't actually do what it claims to. Unfortunately, it doesn't come with a beneficial placebo effect...


----------



## srw (12 Jan 2014)

melgund said:


> But it could save lives. Please consider that.
> Astonishing to read some of the comments here. Please study the similar infrastructure in place in Denmark, Holland, Germany etc, consider the KSIs in those countries and then comment.
> Next.


"Could", is, I think, the appropriate word.

And if you do a little bit of reading around the forum you'll discover that many of us have done exactly what you suggest - looked at the KSI rates in other parts of Europe - and discovered that some of the claims made for them are a little overcooked.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (12 Jan 2014)

Can anyone enlighten me as to why the pictured route around the inside of the bus-stop is a worse solution to that on Royal College Street, where the cycle-lane runs between the bus and the waiting passengers? Isn't that likely to lead to much more serious pedestrian/bike conflict? If you reject both ways of handling segregated bike-path / bus stop interactions, it looks a bit like you are rejecting segregation anywhere near a bus, ie, pretty much everywhere in London. Is that your view? But don't lots of continental cities manage infrastructure just like that pictured without any kind of problem?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (12 Jan 2014)

This link below describes in some detail the solution adopted in the netherlands (but not denmark). If you know of stats showing that these designs result in higher casualties/ conflicts than our current approach to road layout and cycling provision, I would be most interested to hear. Ditto, stats suggesting that the pedestrians are worse off as a result. http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/riding-around-the-bus-stop/


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (12 Jan 2014)

David Hembrow has updated is account of bus/cycle interaction to point out problems with the flawed implementation of the 'dutch' Bus-bypass in London. http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2013/08/ten-bus-stop-bypasses-for-bicycles.html

From that account I *stand corrected* about the facility at the top of this thread. It would appear not to be done to current Dutch standards. But in that case the conclusions that have been drawn from the failure of this facility *about the LCC idea of going dutch* are substantially misplaced.

It might even be said: introducing substandard mockeries of continental provision has been, for years, the planners most effective way of obstructing any prospect of our getting mass-cycling - or even wanting it. It's like serving up spagetti in tepid gravy and then saying, look - see, can't abide foreign muck.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> This link below describes in some detail the solution adopted in the netherlands (but not denmark). If you know of stats showing that these designs result in higher casualties/ conflicts than our current approach to road layout and cycling provision, I would be most interested to hear. Ditto, stats suggesting that the pedestrians are worse off as a result. http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/riding-around-the-bus-stop/


the rubble doesn't so much bounce as stir listlessly.......


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (13 Jan 2014)

2868955 said:


> It is more a case that you need to demonstrate both that they work and that it is possible to carve up the existing space to fit everyone in.


On the whole I'm in favour of evidence and knowledge rather than blundering about (listlessly or otherwise). On the other hand a) science without experiment isn't science (what would the Netherlands be like if they had waited for stats *first* rather than doing the obvious?) & b) lucky johnny-come-latelys like us have in the Netherlands a considerable body of evidence on the question whether "it is possible to carve up the existing space to fit everyone in" - so why are people on this thread firing off speculative answers to the question along the lines of "no, of course not!" without looking to that experience?

I am *not* defending that CS2 facility, which from the angular kerbs on seems to have been designed for the minimum bike capacity within space allocated. But I am asking questions about the extent to which this normal-service british cock-up damns the dutch approach.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> On the whole I'm in favour of evidence and knowledge rather than blundering about (listlessly or otherwise). On the other hand a) science without experiment isn't science (what would the Netherlands be like if they had waited for stats *first* rather than doing the obvious?) & b) lucky johnny-come-latelys like us have in the Netherlands a considerable body of evidence on the question whether "it is possible to carve up the existing space to fit everyone in" - so why are people on this thread firing off speculative answers to the question along the lines of "no, of course not!" without looking to that experience?
> 
> I am *not* defending that CS2 facility, which from the angular kerbs on seems to have been designed for the minimum bike capacity within space allocated. But I am asking questions about the extent to which this normal-service british cock-up damns the dutch approach.


here's my suggestion. Read the thread.


----------



## Fab Foodie (13 Jan 2014)

Can I just add that here in Boxmeer and surrounding area today I've seen some miles and miles of very lovely segregated cycle lanes with smooth tarmac and no debris?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (13 Jan 2014)

2869123 said:


> Do we have the room for it in our cities?


Yes. It's bizarre that fewer people are getting to work by car/van/motorbike in Hackney than by bike, and yet *still* the presumption is that bike infrastructure is only allowed to eat into room allocated to pedestrians. Bikes aren't a minority road vehicle pleading for special treatment in Inner London - if anything it's Taxis and private motor vehicles that are the pandered minority. Have a look at these figures: http://www.racfoundation.org/assets...es/car-and-the-commute-data-tables-london.pdf


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (13 Jan 2014)

martint235 said:


> I've always had this feeling that LCC represents those London residents that don't cycle but would like to rather than the existing cyclists .



Yes, that's kind of the point.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (13 Jan 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> We're always being told to 'go to the Continent and see how wonderful it is'. Assorted FNRttCers took themselves off to Belgium this year and rode along the cycle path that runs between parked cars, bus stops and the footpath along the A9. It was pants. Ten miles of this nonsense made your head hurt. And that was at two in the morning.


To be fair the Netherlands is quite a different proposition from Belgium.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (13 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> How big is Copenhagen? 88.25 km²
> How big is Amsterdam? 219 km²
> How big is London? 1,572 km²



Really it isn\t the size of the city but the median distances travelled that makes the relevant comparison. And there London doesn't appear an outlier in the direction of vastness - on the contrary, the low average speeds mean that the actual distances covered are as small as or smaller than Dutch cities. For journeys on the road, I mean.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (13 Jan 2014)

2869880 said:


> You are making two assumptions there, firstly that I believe that space can only be taken from pedestrians and secondly that I didn't hitherto understand that motor vehicles are pandered to. Leaving those two misconceptions to one side, pick any city you like and draw me a plan showing how you intend to fit total segregation in.


I don't think that I assume either of those things. 

To conciiliate somewhat having done my duty to Talc and read through the thread *carefully* beyond my initial skim reading, I do think that serious and fair points have been made in critique of the LCC. In particular, failure to capitalise on and push further the distinctive approach of Hackney around permeability. This is filtered permeability approach is actually related to the Go Dutch agenda - it was first used in this way in the De Pijp area of Amsterdam. But I think that LCC have allowed themselves to become somewhat focused on CycleSuperhighways. And you are right, part of that focus is to do with the odd measure of value: cost. On the other hand a significant element of that focus is: News. CycleSuperhighways are where News is, which means that they are where the debate is, which means that they are where campaigning organisations have chance to make impact. And yes, that can skew attention from equally or more worthwhile approaches like that variant of segregation and permeability that's doing so well in Hackney. But it's not as if LCC aren't pushing for local routes and one-way motor streets with cycle contraflows, is it?


----------



## srw (13 Jan 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Really it isn\t the size of the city but the median distances travelled that makes the relevant comparison. And there London doesn't appear an outlier in the direction of vastness - on the contrary, the low average speeds mean that the actual distances covered are as small as or smaller than Dutch cities. For journeys on the road, I mean.


You what? You do know London? A typical central London journey - let's say from Marylebone to the City - would take you from Amsterdam city centre right the way to open country. The average commute for London residents is 7.5 miles. A 7.5 mile commute is almost impossible for an Amsterdam resident. (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nd_business_travel_factsheet___April_2011.pdf)


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (13 Jan 2014)

srw said:


> You what? You do know London?


Well, as afar as doing the knowledge is concerned I can offer stats just as well as you:
http://aseasyasridingabike.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/bsrwkk8ciae52r0-l...
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/does-size-matter/
"67% of all car journeys by Londoners are under 5km (3 miles). Despite London’s size, car trips remain, for the most part, very short. Again, these are trips of a length that can – and undoubtedly should – be cycled, or walked, if conditions are attractive." - that' a Londoner speaking. And me myself I? I attempted to live in london in the 90's, and couldn't afford it. I used to walk fairly large distances, from Camberwell to Bloomsbury, just to save on Bus Fare. I attempted to cycle it, but even as a fairly experienced vehicular cyclist in the CTC mold I was scared shitless and gave up. More recently, I've found that conditions have vastly improved, whether due to segregated provision in some parts of Camden or just the sheer weight of numbers altering driver behaviour. So now my regular long distance trip involves transiting london on a bike between the railway stations, and I have also done the journey through london loaded up without train assistance. To be fair, faults though they may have, I don't think this would be possible without the various borough branches of the LCC. Camden in particular is much improved, and lots of Westminster is, in the technical vernacular, s***e. Just my experience - hence my interest and questions. Pleased to meet you all. --


— 'Questions are like the knocks of beggarmen, and should not be minded.' --Flann O'Brien


----------



## srw (13 Jan 2014)

3 miles is most of the way from the centre of Amsterdam to the countryside. And that's the _typical_ London car journey. It would get you roughly across a single outer London borough.

Al Qaeda, Transport for London, Ken Livingstone, the Inland Revenue and Boris Johnson have all individually done much more for cycling in London than the collective might of the LCC or the councils. The segregated bits in Camden are severely under-built for the volumes they carry, and extremely ill designed (speaking as someone who daily negotiates with lorries crossing the cycle path).

Central London has always been a haven for cycling - traffic lights and wide roads make for clear sightlines and slow traffic. Add the congestion charge and bomb-dodgers and you've got fertility.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (13 Jan 2014)

I agree that the segregated bits of camden are significantly under-built for the volumes that they carry. Is this perhaps because they are victims of their success in attracting cyclists, like me, who might not otherwise be on the the streets at all? I understand that on several routes, LCC Camden has been able to successfully use the obvious fact that the segregated provision is full and the road besides more empty as bargaining tool to get wider lanes agreed at the cost of motor-vehicle provision.

Oh, and as you are still interested in the distance question, here are some dutch stats that further support Mark Treasure's case, but which he didn't include in the post I linked: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/12/are-your-travel-distances-and-times-too.html


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (13 Jan 2014)

I


srw said:


> Add the congestion charge and bomb-dodgers and you've got fertility.



I don't think I disagree here. I mean, the CC is a *major* factor, though I'm not sure I agree that Central London has always been a haven for cycling, having attempted it in my youth, as I said. The bomb-dodging too is probably a factor - but then it doesn't look much like a further growth strategy unless you are planning on supporting a few terrorism cells from your flat.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2014)

you know, it pays to read the thread. 

Cycling in London is increasing by 10% a year. Nobody knows where it will end, but CS7 tells us that cyclists can outnumber car drivers on major radial routes without much more than a bus lane as incentive (the blue paint came later). Still and all, cycling across the TfL area accounts for only about 2.4% of all journeys, albeit that 2.4% is greatly skewed toward zones 1 and 2. Then again, CS7, which has a capacity vastly greater than the Dumbass Lane, is nearing capacity. And that's the rub.............

21% of all journeys in the TfL area are by bus. Ken's great legacy. If I were a transport planner, charged with making London a nicer, healthier city, I'd be knocking back the private car and freeing up road space for buses and commercial vehicles. Bicycles are now a considerable hindrance to bus travel on CS7, and, again, if I were a transport planner I'd be thinking 'you know what........10% growth on next to no money (we'll forget the two hundred million spunked on LCN+)......just let them be'.

Cycling is the one of the lights of my life, but I genuinely can't see the merit in tearing up London, spending billions on routes that nobody uses, for a result that affords no benefit whatsoever to the city, when you can have 10% growth pretty much for free.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Well, as afar as doing the knowledge is concerned I can offer stats just as well as you:
> http://aseasyasridingabike.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/bsrwkk8ciae52r0-l...
> http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/does-size-matter/
> "67% of all car journeys by Londoners are under 5km (3 miles). Despite London’s size, car trips remain, for the most part, very short. Again, these are trips of a length that can – and undoubtedly should – be cycled, or walked, if conditions are attractive." - that' a Londoner speaking. * And me myself I? I attempted to live in london in the 90's, and couldn't afford it. * I used to walk fairly large distances, from Camberwell to Bloomsbury, just to save on Bus Fare. I attempted to cycle it, but even as a fairly experienced vehicular cyclist in the CTC mold I was scared s***less and gave up. More recently, I've found that conditions have vastly improved, whether due to segregated provision in some parts of Camden or just the sheer weight of numbers altering driver behaviour. So now my regular long distance trip involves transiting london on a bike between the railway stations, and I have also done the journey through london loaded up without train assistance. To be fair, faults though they may have, I don't think this would be possible without the various borough branches of the LCC. Camden in particular is much improved, and lots of Westminster is, in the technical vernacular, s***e. Just my experience - hence my interest and questions. Pleased to meet you all. --


ah - the view from afar........or from the past. Was this when you were working for MI6andthreequarters?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (13 Jan 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> Cycling in London is increasing by 10% a year. Nobody knows where it will end, but CS7 tells us that cyclists can outnumber car drivers on major radial routes without much more than a bus lane as incentive (the blue paint came later). Still and all, cycling across the TfL area accounts for only about 2.4% of all journeys, albeit that 2.4% is greatly skewed toward zones 1 and 2. Then again, CS7, which has a capacity vastly greater than the Dumbass Lane, is nearing capacity. And that's the rub.............
> 
> 21% of all journeys in the TfL area are by bus. Ken's great legacy. If I were a transport planner, charged with making London a nicer, healthier city, I'd be knocking back the private car and freeing up road space for buses and commercial vehicles. Bicycles are now a considerable hindrance to bus travel on CS7, and, again, if I were a transport planner I'd be thinking 'you know what........10% growth on next to no money (we'll forget the two hundred million spunked on LCN+)......just let them be'.
> 
> Cycling is the one of the lights of my life, but I genuinely can't see the merit in tearing up London, spending billions on routes that nobody uses, for a result that affords no benefit whatsoever to the city, when you can have 10% growth pretty much for free.



It's a clear credo. And it looks like trade-goods, so I'll offer mine in bits for you to reassemble at will......
(The authority of MI6&3/4 doesn't stand behind any of what follows, except in the shadows, doing sums and flicking rolled up bits of paper on which coded insults are written).

I couldn't agree more about the knocking back the private car. In my view, this is as much an issue about junction design and light timings, as it is about parking, congestion charging and the like. Westminster is case in point. Running a car there has perhaps become more expensive with the CC and so forth, but this is not much of an issue for those that actually run cars in Westminster, and there's a widespread attitude that keeping the poor off the roads makes things more convenient for Bentleys. To tackle the car in Westminster they'd have to do something like Hackney with filtered access, or Camden with segregated provision. At the moment their idea about the new cycle network is to make the bike-routes go the long way and keep the direct routes for Range-Rovers.

You correctly identify that Busses and cycles massively hinder each other: stop-start accelerations of the G-forces modern busses are capable of are not what most people want to be doing when they imagine getting on a bike, even if lots of current London cyclists enjoy the game and do it on fixed gear bikes for the sheer fitness training of it. Having identified that there's a Bus/Bike problem obstructing both demographic growth in cycling and the schedules of buses, next question is what to do about it? *In my view*, there's a capacity gain for both buses and bikes to be got from managing and implementing the bus-bypass correctly. But, in oder to do this in the Dutch manner I think this will involve giving up *quite large* amounts of room currently given over to the car on such strategic routes - both in traffic and parking. (A more marginal gain: if the bus stop to be bypassed occurs on a single-lane bus-route, one could quite reasonably narrow that bus lane at the stop, freeing up another half-metre or so to pedestrians or bikes.)

Yes, I think some chin stroking is going on in TfL about whether they want to invest the kind of megabucks that is needed to solve the Bus/Bike problem to Dutch standards. Yes, I think they like the 10% growth 'for free' - but I'm pretty sure they are also aware that that growth is restricted to a demographic of people who with whatever justification feel they can master the style of vehicular cycling presently necessary to safe progress. The amount of growth you can get 'for free' is capped by the reach of that demographic, and they know that. For overall Modal share around the 5% mark, they know they will have to employ a more expensive kind of cycle provision - in the sense of redistributing *space and timings* from cars to bikes, and also paying serious money to put in, to a high standard rather than standard British cock-up, things like the Dutch Bus Bypasses. And there they are scratching their chins about whether they want to. And they aren't just looking at the rational case, but seeing the whole problem through the prism of a career spent on Busses or DoT/DfT Motor traffic nonsense.
Eventually, the case for spending serious cash on the bike will be forced upon them, in just the same way that the case for the tube was forced: it will be clear than under any continuation of the status quo, all other methods of transport are at capacity. The bike is such an inherently space-efficient way of transporting people from A to B that it will sell itself to the planners. But at the moment it is pretty clear the weight of opinion on the board is behind an entirely different strategy, which simply cannot last.Their current strategy is, as you indicate, mostly about the Bus. To make the Bus strategy work without confronting the people who like to get about London in cars *other* than with the congestion charge, they've done things like alter the timings on pedestrian crossings - making it steadily less convenient and safe to be a pedestrian once you step off the bus (not that they've bothered to collect data on the connection between pedestrian KSIs and the timings on the lights). The upshot is that people get into busses, in many instances, because it is better than being run down by one. London is becoming steadily less walkable, with all the current strategy about facilitating the Bus at junctions and light timings. In my view, more people would want to get to Oxford Street if, once you got there, you weren't so likely to be run down by a bus or jostled by crowds contained by a lethal red wall. ( http://saferoxfordstreet.blogspot.co.uk ) Now in order for the Bus strategy to keep pace with London's rising population and population density, *more* buses will be needed, and even *shorter* timings will be given to pedestrians at crossings. Part of that wheeze currently is that TfL don't monitor pedestrian congestion at junctions! That's going to be politically unsustainable. Within the constraint of pedestrian crossing times already reduced below safe minima, I suspect the Bus & Traffic Light strategy is doomed. It cannot manage the required throughput in a way that facilitates pedestrianism in central London.

Some of what you say suggests sympathy for the shared space approach, in preference segregation. To some extent I'd be with you there, because paradoxically removing traffic lights designed for Busses and private cars has been shown to increase overall capacity ( 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vzDDMzq7d0
). But the Dutch, let's not forget, do have *both* segregation *and* shared space, and the principle of their use of shared space is for that for cycles and other traffic to mix usefully low speeds must be assumed. Low speeds, paradoxically, can go with increased *average* speeds and capacity. Given that this would also go with increasing the attractiveness of the roads to cyclists, it would also have the effect of introducing the large jump in capacity that goes with modal shift to bikes.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (13 Jan 2014)

Fair's fair. I've only started and you have a big lead.


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Jan 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> How big is Copenhagen? 88.25 km²
> How big is Amsterdam? 219 km²
> How big is London? 1,572 km²
> 
> ...


 
My point was that you have to start somewhere. seeing as you are so good at statistics, maybe you can tell me how many regular cyclists London has compared to Copenhagen.

Steve


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Jan 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> You correctly identify that Busses and cycles massively hinder each other: .


so much time, so little to say......control 'I'


----------



## theclaud (14 Jan 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> so much time, so little to say......*control 'I'*


Putting him in italics? Ruthless!


----------



## Frood42 (14 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> Putting him in italics? Ruthless!



Ctrl+I in IE is favourites
.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (14 Jan 2014)

Just read the original post and I use this cycle lane obviously.I agree I don't think this layout is a good thing for peds.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (14 Jan 2014)

User said:


> No it's not really... I know as I have cycled extensively in both countries.


Thing is, I don't agree with you, and someone who actually lives there doesn't either.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (14 Jan 2014)

"You mention Belgium, and it makes an interesting comparison. Ride across the border from NL and the low quality of the cycling infrastructure is immediately apparent. You also stop seeing so many cyclists. This happens even just over the border in the rather flat bit just south of Eindhoven, which is less hilly than Limburg. I'd call that correlation." http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2009/10/effect-of-hills-on-cycling.html


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (14 Jan 2014)

User said:


> Ah - David Hembrow... someone who is known to have a somewhat tenuous link with reality at times and to have his own axes to grind. I suggest you find something a little more robust to support your assertion if you want to retain what little credibility you have left....



I can't make up my mind whether these ad-hominem remarks are robust support for a view, or what might colloquially be known as 'abuse'. Do you know?

I wouldn't venture an argument from authority and I conceed that what David hembrow says does not, of itself, settle a damn thing. But neither does your claim to have "cycled extensively in both countries" settle anything, or give you authority.

If you want to know why David Hembrow is influential in campaigns including the LCC, I suppose it is because his arguments are usually backed up by detailed citation of road layout examples, statistics, and first hand knowledge.So far, what you want to say to me constitutes name-calling. So Goodbye, and these knocksofbeggarmen promise not to darken your door no more.


----------



## Wobblers (14 Jan 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Fair's fair. I've only started and you have a big lead.



Well, to be fair, I'd tend to agree with @knocksofbeggarmen over the part about pedestrians.

I don't agree with the rest of the analysis though. If you ask a non-cyclist why they don't cycle, most often they'll say that it's due to the busy roads - fear of traffic, in other words. Those who do say they'd cycle if there were more facilities when questioned add that they perceive facilities will keep traffic away from them. _In other words, it's still fear of traffic_.

There are a number of ways of dealing with that fear. Segregation is perhaps the worst, as it is impossible to entirely seperate cyclists from motorised traffic. It encourages the customary concrete ghettos that are so symptomatic of cycling provision in this country. Ghettos that moreover are seldom of any use. I would argue that training is far more useful in dealing with that fear. Furthermore, to push segregation as The Solution does nothing to address the real problem - the high traffic densities on the roads... and that small but oh so significant fraction of appalling motorists. Cycling in central London is a joy - and that's without any cycling facilities to speak of. The fall in traffic density thanks to congestion charging has been a significant deterrent to driving but has immensely encouraging to more cycling.

To focus exclusively on segregation and facilities lets down everyone by ignoring the problem that our streets are simply overcrowded. There is little room for the facilities knocksofbeggarmen and others would like to see, nor the money for them. Neither is there the motivation (or for that matter, skills) to construct high quality and safe facilities - or any willingness to maintain them to a decent standard. You do not get cars off the road by building cycle paths, you do it by prioritising public transport and congestion charging.


----------



## Wobblers (14 Jan 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> "You mention Belgium, and it makes an interesting comparison. Ride across the border from NL and the low quality of the cycling infrastructure is immediately apparent. You also stop seeing so many cyclists. This happens even just over the border in the rather flat bit just south of Eindhoven, which is less hilly than Limburg. I'd call that correlation." http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2009/10/effect-of-hills-on-cycling.html



Correlation is *not *causation.


----------



## Frood42 (14 Jan 2014)

I cycle the CS2 extension every day (4 times, 2 east to west, 2 west to east), and while it is nice to have a little seperation from traffic, overall the design and implementation of it is very poor.

The bus bypasses are too narrow and too sharp, the pavements around these are high with a large step off.
It gives way at every junction and provides no protection from left turning vehicles.
Overtaking can also be a problem, as it narrows in places, meaning capacity is limited.
The recent rain has also shown up just how bad the drainage is, very poor, with large puddles building up in places (meaning people take to the pavement or road in attempt to get around).
Just like the blue paint of the Super Highways, it gives a false sense of safety, and they have not tackled the main problem, the junctions.
It also takes you to a very bad roundabout (Bow) where traffic tries to get onto the A12, the solution is a head start area that is light controlled, which is fine unless cars are all queued up in that advanced area or are queued up on the roundabout (which happened during the recent A12 closure).

Most cyclists also if heading for Central London tend to go over the Flyover, but that has now been made more difficult in both directions... did they take any notice or do any studies?

My main gripe though is that it starts nowhere and ends nowhere.
It sits in a concrete no mans land, with big, open fast roads, and leads to the rest of the CS2 which is again big, wide open very fast roads which offer no protection from idiots who treat those roads as a motorway.

Also, where's the link up with the bus station, train station or shopping centres?
Westfield Stratford City, or the bus/train station could have been a perfect place to have a sort of bike hub, especially in the summer, and even more so with the development going on next to the shopping centre (don't even get me started on the joke cycleways and even more laughable bike storage around the Shopping Centre...)

I would say however that it is better than the CS2 painted guideway from Bow Roundabout to Mile End station, fast moving impatient undertakers are a pain in the neck on that piece of road, and as it is not a proper cycle lane traffic generally ignores it...

I prefer the CS8 over the CS2 when I have opportunity to head over that way, the CS8 is far from perfect, but I believe it is a nicer ride.

Oh, and all the horse crap that has appeared on the CS2 extension recently, arrrrggghhhh!!!
.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Jan 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> My point was that you have to start somewhere. seeing as you are so good at statistics, maybe you can tell me how many regular cyclists London has compared to Copenhagen.
> 
> Steve



I'm sure you can use google.

If Copenhagen has more do you win a prize?


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Jan 2014)

McWobble said:


> Correlation is *not *causation.


quite. The rules governing cycling in Belgium seem to me to be designed to stop groups of people going out for a fun ride.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jan 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> "You mention Belgium, and it makes an interesting comparison. Ride across the border from NL and the low quality of the cycling infrastructure is immediately apparent. You also stop seeing so many cyclists. This happens even just over the border in the rather flat bit just south of Eindhoven, which is less hilly than Limburg. I'd call that correlation." http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2009/10/effect-of-hills-on-cycling.html


May I just mention that I've driven south of Eindhoven then driven across the border of both Belgium and France this evening and barely seen a cyclist since leaving Boxmeer?


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jan 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> quite. The rules governing cycling in Belgium seem to me to be designed to stop groups of people going out for a fun ride.


When the beer's that good, sod cycling ....


----------



## stowie (14 Jan 2014)

I use the CS2 from Aldgate to Stratford fairly regularly as well (East bound more often than West).I have no huge problems with the segregated path. It is a bit too narrow Eastbound (is it my imagination or is Westbound wider?) and using the flyover isn't as easy, although still possible. The worst bits are the fact that, as Frood says, it starts and ends in places that are horrible for cycling. The Bow junction is still a travesty. In fact if CS2 extension attracts more cyclists then Bow could become horrible as any more than two or three cyclists using the "early start" facility means the tail enders will come into direct conflict with turning traffic.

It might be interesting to note that Newham have bid for £25M of the "mini Holland" money to convert Stratford Gyratory back to 2 way. I am in two minds over this - removing the gyratory could make this area back into a nice high street, but, for God's sake Newham have recently had one of the biggest sporting events on the planet and had regeneration money poured into the area, yet it is the "cycling" funds that have to be used to make the area better?! And £25M sounds too little for such a project - Tottenham Hale reversal of the one way system cost £34M apparently, and that isn't a major bus, train, coach and underground hub.

I like the idea of "home zones", or basically removing rat-runs and turning streets back into streets and soft measures such as denoting cycling space with armadillos or planters which can be re-organised if the scheme doesn't work out as planned. I think quite a lot of the other proposals have these types of measures and I wonder if this might be better than one huge project like removing the Stratford Gyratory.


----------



## toontra (14 Jan 2014)

I shan't be renewing my LCC membership at the end of the month. They are putting all their eggs in one basket and the basket is fabricated from utter cack.


----------



## subaqua (14 Jan 2014)

stowie said:


> I use the CS2 from Aldgate to Stratford fairly regularly as well (East bound more often than West).I have no huge problems with the segregated path. It is a bit too narrow Eastbound (is it my imagination or is Westbound wider?) and using the flyover isn't as easy, although still possible. The worst bits are the fact that, as Frood says, it starts and ends in places that are horrible for cycling. The Bow junction is still a travesty. In fact if CS2 extension attracts more cyclists then Bow could become horrible as any more than two or three cyclists using the "early start" facility means the tail enders will come into direct conflict with turning traffic.
> 
> It might be interesting to note that Newham have bid for £25M of the "mini Holland" money to convert Stratford Gyratory back to 2 way. I am in two minds over this - removing the gyratory could make this area back into a nice high street, but, for God's sake Newham have recently had one of the biggest sporting events on the planet and had regeneration money poured into the area, yet it is the "cycling" funds that have to be used to make the area better?! And £25M sounds too little for such a project - Tottenham Hale reversal of the one way system cost £34M apparently, and that isn't a major bus, train, coach and underground hub.
> 
> I like the idea of "home zones", or basically removing rat-runs and turning streets back into streets and soft measures such as denoting cycling space with armadillos or planters which can be re-organised if the scheme doesn't work out as planned. I think quite a lot of the other proposals have these types of measures and I wonder if this might be better than one huge project like removing the Stratford Gyratory.


I stopped riding CS2 when they started the extension works , as I could see what was coming , especially at Bow. I used to ride the flyover as it was safer than the RAB. I rode the extension on the 29 Dec to give it a go when it was quiet. it was not a great experience. it was still flooded in parts, and I nearly got wiped out at Rick Roberts way. Have gone back to the longer route that I don't get too many eejits pointing and shouting to ride on der cycull paff


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Jan 2014)

So what's the London answer, or isn't there one.

Is this a post that is going to round in circles and keep resurfacing every few weeks like, helmets and vis vests?



Steve


----------



## stowie (14 Jan 2014)

subaqua said:


> I stopped riding CS2 when they started the extension works , as I could see what was coming , especially at Bow. I used to ride the flyover as it was safer than the RAB. I rode the extension on the 29 Dec to give it a go when it was quiet. it was not a great experience. it was still flooded in parts, and I nearly got wiped out at Rick Roberts way. Have gone back to the longer route that I don't get too many eejits pointing and shouting to ride on der cycull paff



The flooding is unfortunate. I am reliably informed that drains are very costly to move, so I am guessing a compromise was organised which had the run-off surface water all going to the drains in the cycle path and the camber simply wasn't done correctly. There is a perma-pool of water at the start of the CS2 segregation which is a shame as it is hardly an inviting sight.

Rick Roberts way was always horrible even without CS2. I remember on several occasions taking the lane only for the driver to go into the next lane in order to left hook. I think it needs clear instructions on signs to drivers to give way to cyclists. It should be obvious but clearly isn't. 

As I said, I don't mind the actual segregated section but I have a horrible feeling it was agreed to because the Olympic lanes proved taking away the space would affect "traffic flow". It seems fine to splash cash on projects as long as drivers aren't affected and as soon as tough decisions are needed, such as at Bow roundabout, then we get a terrible compromised mess.


----------



## toontra (14 Jan 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> So what's the London answer, or isn't there one.
> Is this a post that is going to round in circles and keep resurfacing every few weeks like, helmets and vis vests?
> Steve



Don't know what the answer is - there almost certainly isn't a single one. But I sure know what the answer isn't, that that's massively expensive and counter-productive infrastructure.


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Jan 2014)

Adrian, it is not going to happen and if it does I would prefer them to start at the top with perves and murderers first.

Steve


----------



## subaqua (14 Jan 2014)

stowie said:


> The flooding is unfortunate. I am reliably informed that drains are very costly to move, so I am guessing a compromise was organised which had the run-off surface water all going to the drains in the cycle path and the camber simply wasn't done correctly. There is a perma-pool of water at the start of the CS2 segregation which is a shame as it is hardly an inviting sight.
> 
> Rick Roberts way was always horrible even without CS2. I remember on several occasions taking the lane only for the driver to go into the next lane in order to left hook. I think it needs clear instructions on signs to drivers to give way to cyclists. It should be obvious but clearly isn't.
> 
> As I said, I don't mind the actual segregated section but I have a horrible feeling it was agreed to because the Olympic lanes proved taking away the space would affect "traffic flow". It seems fine to splash cash on projects as long as drivers aren't affected and as soon as tough decisions are needed, such as at Bow roundabout, then we get a terrible compromised mess.



Drains may be costly to move , but proper civil engineering planning and construction really isn't. I work for a firm that has a rather large civil engineering department that has succesfully built lots of carriageways that don't flood.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jan 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> So what's the London answer, or isn't there one.
> 
> Is this a post that is going to round in circles and keep resurfacing every few weeks like, helmets and vis vests?
> 
> ...


I'll bite. My guess would be to strangle motoring ... for starters....

More CC
More expensive parking
Park and Ride
More Bus lanes
Re-engineering junctions/lights for cycle priority
Close suburban rat-runs for cars but leave open for cyclists
More pedestrianisation
More dual-use pavements at the expense of car space
More secure cycle parking
More joined-up train/bike, coach/bike, bus/bike thinking
Free cake and Espresso for cycle-commuters


----------



## srw (14 Jan 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> So what's the London answer, or isn't there one.


What's the question?

If the question is "how do you get lots of people to cycle in London?" then the answer is "heaven knows, but whatever you're doing, it's working."
If the question is "how do you stop so many cyclists getting killed in London?" then the answer is "11 in 2013, 11 in 2012 out of millions of journeys - considerably fewer cyclists are killed than pedestrians. Just sort out the HGVs and the number will halve overnight."
If the question is "how do you turn London into Copenhagen" the answer is "flatten all the buildings outside zone 1 and kill 93% of the population. But be prepared to be unpopular."


----------



## subaqua (14 Jan 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> I'll bite. My guess would be to strangle motoring ... for starters....
> 
> More CC
> More expensive parking
> ...



I will cross out what hackney haven't done. Because it isn't within their control.

Waltham forest would have all crossed out. 

the problem is that London is to segmented with no joined up cycle policy across boroughs , espite having a Greater London assembly run ( alledgedly) by a cycling mad person.or is that mad cycling person ?


----------



## theclaud (14 Jan 2014)

srw said:


> If the question is "how do you turn London into Copenhagen" the answer is "flatten all the buildings outside zone 1 and kill 93% of the population. But be prepared to be unpopular."



 You'll have to excuse me. I'm enjoying the yellow face thingies this evening for some reason.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jan 2014)

subaqua said:


> I will cross out what hackney haven't done. Because it isn't within their control.
> 
> Waltham forest would have all crossed out.
> 
> the problem is that London is to segmented with no joined up cycle policy across boroughs , espite having a Greater London assembly run ( alledgedly) by a cycling mad person.or is that mad cycling person ?


Then we need to add a 'coherent cross-borough cycling strategy' to the list!


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> You'll have to excuse me. I'm enjoying the yellow face thingies this evening for some reason.


drugs?


----------



## theclaud (14 Jan 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> drugs?


Thanks for the offer, but I'm planning to have an early night.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jan 2014)

srw said:


> If the question is "how do you turn London into Copenhagen" the answer is "flatten all the buildings outside zone 1 and kill 93% of the population. But be prepared to be unpopular."


Don't do that ... Copenhagen may be 'Wonderful' but it can't hold a candle to London ....


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> Thanks for the offer, but I'm planning to have an early night.


If only I had something more interesting than Prozac, Beta-blockers and Statins


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Jan 2014)

subaqua said:


> Drains may be costly to move , but proper civil engineering planning and construction really isn't. I work for a firm that has a rather large civil engineering department that has succesfully built lots of carriageways that don't flood.


you're smack on the money. This was bad planning.


----------



## stowie (16 Jan 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> you're smack on the money. This was bad planning.



The flooding isn't restricted to the extension - CS2 generally has large pools of water in places.

How much did CS2 cost?


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Jan 2014)

this little bit of CS2 cost £2.5M. The second tranche cost over £100M. You can put that in the same hole as the £200M for LCN+. Peanuts! Gilligan is red-hot keen to spend just under a billion on segregated routes that will avoid the bits everybody wants to go to.

And this from TravelWatch prior to TfL blowing two and a half big ones on a bike canal (the emboldening is mine)
_Cycle Superhighway 2 is to be extended from Bow Roundabout to Stratford. London’s most important service, *bus route 25 carries 23 million passengers per annum* and utilises, with five other services, a bus lane that is to be converted to a cycle lane. This bus lane will have been justified on the basis of journey-time savings and a business case. Taking out this bus lane will have a negative effect on both journey time and reliability for all of these services and their passengers wherever they use the bus along its entire route. On the other hand, extending the bus lanes along with some of the Superhighway proposals could have benefited both bus users and cyclists. The consultation with bus passengers only mentioned the cycling improvements; the deterioration in bus service performance was omitted. 
_
This is the thing. The LCC doesn't get cities. It only gets diagrams. And that's what makes it part of the problem.


----------



## stowie (17 Jan 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> this little bit of CS2 cost £2.5M. The second tranche cost over £100M. You can put that in the same hole as the £200M for LCN+. Peanuts! Gilligan is red-hot keen to spend just under a billion on segregated routes that will avoid the bits everybody wants to go to.
> 
> And this from TravelWatch prior to TfL blowing two and a half big ones on a bike canal (the emboldening is mine)
> _Cycle Superhighway 2 is to be extended from Bow Roundabout to Stratford. London’s most important service, *bus route 25 carries 23 million passengers per annum* and utilises, with five other services, a bus lane that is to be converted to a cycle lane. This bus lane will have been justified on the basis of journey-time savings and a business case. Taking out this bus lane will have a negative effect on both journey time and reliability for all of these services and their passengers wherever they use the bus along its entire route. On the other hand, extending the bus lanes along with some of the Superhighway proposals could have benefited both bus users and cyclists. The consultation with bus passengers only mentioned the cycling improvements; the deterioration in bus service performance was omitted.
> ...



In terms of the expenditure, I cannot think that £2.5M or £100M is much of a dent in the TfL budget. What does always amaze me is the cost versus result. Much of CS2 is a blue stripe in the inner lane which has no legal bearing on the road use. Working out how this costs so much is a bit of a challenge. I am a cynical old b*st*rd and suspect that much is spent on consulting and modelling road layout changes to see the affect on motorised traffic and this doesn't really strike me as money spent helping cyclists...

The comment from TravelWatch (not, I assume a breakaway group from MigrationWatch?!) is both partially correct and incorrect. Much of the extension had no bus lane along it at all, the lane removed was a general traffic one. The roadspace was taken away only after the Olympic lanes and restrictions showed no effect on traffic flow on the road. And the road - now that the temp lights have been removed - is as free flowing as it was before from what I can see. The bottlenecks on the 25 route isn't caused by cycle facilities after Bow but by the private car congestion before Bow. A bus lane all along the Mile End Road to Bow would be better for buses than anything afterwards. Now that the CS2 has been in for a little while has it actually caused a deterioration in the bus timetable? Where I think the group is right is that a bus lane - done correctly - could be an effective solution. My suspicion is that the three lanes were too narrow to accomodate a full bus lane and the idea of taking our two lanes to create a nice wide lane with ample room for everyone was deemed a problem for traffic flow.


----------



## Frood42 (17 Jan 2014)

stowie said:


> In terms of the expenditure, I cannot think that £2.5M or £100M is much of a dent in the TfL budget. What does always amaze me is the cost versus result. Much of CS2 is a blue stripe in the inner lane which has no legal bearing on the road use. Working out how this costs so much is a bit of a challenge. I am a cynical old b*st*rd and suspect that much is spent on consulting and modelling road layout changes to see the affect on motorised traffic and this doesn't really strike me as money spent helping cyclists...
> 
> The comment from TravelWatch (not, I assume a breakaway group from MigrationWatch?!) is both partially correct and incorrect. Much of the extension had no bus lane along it at all, the lane removed was a general traffic one. The roadspace was taken away only after the Olympic lanes and restrictions showed no effect on traffic flow on the road. And the road - now that the temp lights have been removed - is as free flowing as it was before from what I can see. The bottlenecks on the 25 route isn't caused by cycle facilities after Bow but by the private car congestion before Bow. A bus lane all along the Mile End Road to Bow would be better for buses than anything afterwards. Now that the CS2 has been in for a little while has it actually caused a deterioration in the bus timetable? Where I think the group is right is that a bus lane - done correctly - could be an effective solution. My suspicion is that the three lanes were too narrow to accomodate a full bus lane and the idea of taking our two lanes to create a nice wide lane with ample room for everyone was deemed a problem for traffic flow.



The only time I see buses held up is by private cars, when there has been a crash or when for example the A12 has been closed and people then head for the A13...
.


----------



## subaqua (17 Jan 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> you're smack on the money. This was bad planning.


purely out of self interest I emailed a colleague about reasons an alteration to a carriageway would flood when it didn't before the alteration. 

her responses were 

1 Bad planning 
2 poor construction of carriageway

with a caveat that bad planning generally leads to a poor construction


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2014)

stowie said:


> In terms of the expenditure, I cannot think that £2.5M or £100M is much of a dent in the TfL budget..


it would build ten dwellings for ten families. That's the calculation.

And....put simply, three lanes with one of them a bus lane would be do-able, but two lanes, one of them an extra wide bus lane would be splendid. And there's the rub. For all the denials and all the bleating at the beginning of the thread, this is an LCC-inspired piece of work in which bus passengers do not exist. And......if you doubt me, check out their design for Westminster Square.


----------



## SW19cam (24 Jan 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> So what's the London answer, or isn't there one.
> 
> Is this a post that is going to round in circles and keep resurfacing every few weeks like, helmets and vis vests?
> 
> ...


 
How about - when you have three lanes, one of them being a bus lane that cyclists share with buses, you leave the road design the way it is, but drop the speed limit to 20 and enforce it. Throw in some extra training for both cyclists and drivers and jobs a good one..!


----------



## Flying Dodo (25 Jan 2014)

SW19cam said:


> How about - when you have three lanes, one of them being a bus lane that cyclists share with buses, you leave the road design the way it is, but drop the speed limit to 20 and enforce it. Throw in some extra training for both cyclists and drivers and jobs a good one..!



Hang on - that's far too sensible a suggestion. It'll never happen (sadly).


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Jan 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Hang on - that's far too sensible a suggestion. It'll never happen (sadly).


and made more than once upthread! TMNs all round!

And - in all seriousness - the reason this entirely sensible plan wasn't followed is simply this - the LCC persuaded TfL that they had a better idea. So any nonsense about 'this isn't our bike lane' is just that - nonsense. They wanted the bike lane. They got the bike lane. It's rubbish.


----------



## martint235 (25 Jan 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> and made more than once upthread! TMNs all round!
> 
> And - in all seriousness - the reason this entirely sensible plan wasn't followed is simply this - the LCC persuaded TfL that they had a better idea. So any nonsense about 'this isn't our bike lane' is just that - nonsense. They wanted the bike lane. They got the bike lane. It's rubbish.


Any credibility the LCC had with me vanished last night after watching the guy on BBC London news whining on about the Olympic Park and the fact he had to wheel his bike up the side of some temporary (note that, the place is still part building site) steps. He then complained about a couple of cobbled stretches on a cycle path and, wait for it, the fact that 3 roads at a major junction didn't all stop at once to allow him to cross in one go. If I thought he was whiny, god knows what your average non-cyclist thought of him.


----------



## SW19cam (25 Jan 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Hang on - that's far too sensible a suggestion. It'll never happen (sadly).



You know, it might just return to its original state - but not through direct planning. After 3/4 months of being open the segregation has already been damaged. It can't be long before the whole of the segregation kerb has been obliterated.

pic.twitter.com/wmXMny4fZP


----------



## rogermerriman (27 Jan 2014)

martint235 said:


> Any credibility the LCC had with me vanished last night after watching the guy on BBC London news whining on about the Olympic Park and the fact he had to wheel his bike up the side of some temporary (note that, the place is still part building site) steps. He then complained about a couple of cobbled stretches on a cycle path and, wait for it, the fact that 3 roads at a major junction didn't all stop at once to allow him to cross in one go. If I thought he was whiny, god knows what your average non-cyclist thought of him.



He does have a unfortunate manner, the problem with the LCC and Sustrans is they are in politics, and for most part they are attempting to persuade others to do things so they whine....and indulge in party politics which is never attractive.


----------



## stowie (20 Feb 2014)

Anyone have views on the little cycle lights at Bow now? Does anyone think that the problem with Bow was due to a _lack _of traffic lights? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Anyway as I sailed past the stop-start traffic tonight I have come to realise I actually quite like the CS2 extension to cycle on. OK so it isn't going to drive a cycling revolution or turn the high street into a place people want to linger (frankly the town planners with their "regeneration" that has made street level a wasteland saw to that). But it was quicker and much less stressful than filtering through traffic. Compared with the rest of CS2 it is a breeze.


----------



## StuartG (21 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2941057, member: 1314"]More cyclists on the road = critical mass = cyclists win. It's already happened in Zones 1-4 [/quote]
Zone 3 speaking here. It hasn't.


----------



## StuartG (21 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2941867, member: 1314"]I admit SE London is a mystery to me,[/quote]
We like to keep it that way 

We had Andrew Gilligan to speak to us here in Lewisham borough a few months ago. A part from bring us news of the cancellation of our only planned SuperHighway, there was nothing for us. The dosh seems to be going to North of the river. Here in deepest Sydenham the recent TfL sponsored road improvement has made it more carcentric and dangerous than before. The only person I usually see cycling is me.

Zone 1 is great, Zone 2 is patchy, Zone 3 is very patchy. Our London successes are still localised with most of the work yet to be done.


----------



## StuartG (21 Feb 2014)

[QUOTE 2942094, member: 1314"]That's a pity, I thought there was a lot going on in SE London - Lewisham cyclists and all that?[/quote]
Karma. For all the enthusiasm of Lewisham Cyclists we have the dead weight of, arguably, the most car centric borough in London and, being solid Labour, completely off the radar of young Boris.
But we have proper 'ills if that interests you


----------



## SW19cam (23 Feb 2014)

stowie said:


> Anyone have views on the little cycle lights at Bow now? Does anyone think that the problem with Bow was due to a _lack _of traffic lights? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
> 
> Anyway as I sailed past the stop-start traffic tonight I have come to realise I actually quite like the CS2 extension to cycle on. OK so it isn't going to drive a cycling revolution or turn the high street into a place people want to linger (frankly the town planners with their "regeneration" that has made street level a wasteland saw to that). But it was quicker and much less stressful than filtering through traffic. Compared with the rest of CS2 it is a breeze.



Eastbound it is a small improvement, although it's all 'up, down, left, right'. I don't like the uneven surfaces or the tight corners (some of which, due to the bus stop structures, could result in a collision with a pedestrian i they were to step out blind). Westbound I dislike completely and wish we could have the bus lane back for.

On the cycle lights - I think these should be standard but yes, they do very little for the safety of that junction. People driving and cycling ignore red lights.


----------



## stowie (23 Feb 2014)

SW19cam said:


> Eastbound it is a small improvement, although it's all 'up, down, left, right'. I don't like the uneven surfaces or the tight corners (some of which, due to the bus stop structures, could result in a collision with a pedestrian i they were to step out blind). Westbound I dislike completely and wish we could have the bus lane back for.
> 
> On the cycle lights - I think these should be standard but yes, they do very little for the safety of that junction. People driving and cycling ignore red lights.



I tend to go Eastbound on this stretch more than Westbound so have less experience, but I actually preferred westbound as it seemed wider. Getting onto the flyover westbound looks horrible with the new lane, but I have never bothered trying either. Eastbound is a bit easier as long as you time the left jink onto the path correctly! The kerbs should have been rounded - I have scuffed my pedals on the narrow bit before now, but the interaction between cyclists and pedestrians seems OK.

Eastbound on Bow roundabout there seems to be more and more drivers completely jumping the lights, both on the slip road but also on the roundabout. I had a bus so late jumping that by the time I could move off, the main traffic behind me was on top of me.


----------



## zimzum42 (7 Sep 2014)

It seems that the idiocy highlighted in the OP continues unabated. Here's an image from the latest plans for a segregated East-West cycle highway:







When will they work out that this is truly retarded?

Consultation details:
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/eastwest/consult_view


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Sep 2014)

the worst thing about this is that it messes up a truly, truly wonderful bike ride


----------



## gazza_d (13 Sep 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> It seems that the idiocy highlighted in the OP continues unabated. Here's an image from the latest plans for a segregated East-West cycle highway:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are of course utterly joking right? These plans are about the best thing for british cycling for decade, possibly since the thirties when the CTC killed off cycle infra.

They WILL protect people on bikes, but more importantly they will enable lots and lots of people who would cycle but feel too scared to do so.

It's not about the brave souls now, but about the next 10 and 20% of the population that will ride if it's safe enough


----------



## theclaud (13 Sep 2014)

gazza_d said:


> You are of course utterly joking right? These plans are about the best thing for british cycling for decade, possibly since the thirties when the CTC killed off cycle infra.
> 
> They WILL protect people on bikes, but more importantly they will enable lots and lots of people who would cycle but feel too scared to do so.
> 
> It's not about the brave souls now, but *about the next 10 and 20% of the population that will ride if it's safe enough*



Will there be room for them all on that poxy cycle lane? The whole thing is narrower than a single lane of the road...


----------



## theclaud (13 Sep 2014)

User said:


> What are you suggesting, that they don't really have faith that the next 10-20% will appear?


Perish the thought!


----------



## zimzum42 (13 Sep 2014)

I was referring to the retardness of having the bus stops done in such a way that peds will always be having to cross the bike lane


----------



## theclaud (13 Sep 2014)

Got any pics, TMN?


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Sep 2014)

gazza_d said:


> You are of course utterly joking right? These plans are about the best thing for british cycling for decade, possibly since the thirties when the CTC killed off cycle infra.
> 
> They WILL protect people on bikes, but more importantly they will enable lots and lots of people who would cycle but feel too scared to do so.
> 
> It's not about the brave souls now, but about the next 10 and 20% of the population that will ride if it's safe enough


it's about slicing up public space. And missing a golden opportunity to turn the entire road in to a bus lane during rush hour and widen the footpath by the Thames.

One thing you've got to get your head around - cycling is, in strategic terms, no big deal. A bus can carry 120 people in the roadspace taken by a dozen cyclists. A bus can take the old, the infirm, the very young, mothers with pushchairs, people in wheelchairs. Buses are used by the unemployed and high court judges. Having ridden around this town for fifty years I'm as pleased as pleased can be that cyclists throng the streets, but creating a private space (albeit a crap private space) for cyclists is wrong in principle, and, as this horrible scheme so graphically demonstrates, rubbish in practice.

And it utterly screws up the beginning of the Whitstable FNRttC.


----------



## zimzum42 (13 Sep 2014)

User13710 said:


> I can't speak for London


I take your point entirely, but I think it being London does change things. We have an inordinate number of cyclists who race around and don't consider peds much, as well as, much more significantly, hordes of tourists and other folk who won't necessarily know a thing about the arrangement. 

I should also declare that I'm in a similar camp to Dell and don't believe in segregated facilities on principle. Plus what we already have in London is pretty terrible too


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Sep 2014)

the Zimmers and Dell camp! Where's Adrian when you need him?


----------



## theclaud (13 Sep 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> the Zimmers and Dell camp! Where's Adrian when you need him?


Adie Camp?


----------



## Pete Owens (14 Sep 2014)

gazza_d said:


> You are of course utterly joking right? These plans are about the best thing for british cycling for decade, possibly since the thirties when the CTC killed off cycle infra.



You seem to be under the impression that UK transport policy is dictated by the CTC when in fact just about every traffic engineer and planner over the past 80 years is fully signed up to the segregationist orthodoxy you advocate. Haven't you noticed the blue signs? Just in case you don't get out much take a look a selection:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month
That is the reality of segregation. Clearly you think that those of us who are sceptical of the merits of this kind of thing are mistaken - that is a matter of opinion. However, it is simply absurd to attempt to claim that the CTC killed it off when the evidence is out there for us all to see.

Of course back n the 30s, the planners didn't even try to pretend that the paths were for our benefit - they openly admitted that the purpose was to prevent us impeding the progress of motor vehicles. The motor lobby at that time was campaigning (fortuanely unsuccesfuly) for the use of paths to be made compulsory. However, the enthusiasm for the planners never dimmed and they have been doing it your way ever since. Look at any new settlement or road scheme - and see segregated infrastructure tagged on to increasingly cycle hostile road layouts.

This is most apparent in the new towns. Starting with Stevenage these were built around completely segregated cycleway networks (building on green fields without the constraints of space).



> They WILL protect people on bikes, but more importantly they will enable lots and lots of people who would cycle but feel too scared to do so.


Which is exactly what every traffic engineer spouts whenever we take issue with their latest scheme - and what they have been continuously spouting ever since Eric Claxton was designing Stevenage. OK, 60 years ago and without any evidence to go on it was a plausable hypothesis, but the folk of Stevenage did not take to 2 wheels - nor did they in Harlow or Livingston or Milton Keynes or Telford or Runcorn or Skelmersdale. Instead these became the most car dependent towns in the UK.


> It's not about the brave souls now, but about the next 10 and 20% of the population that will ride if it's safe enough



And of course one of the problems with cycle paths alongside roads is that they are much less safe than riding on the carriageway.


----------



## Drago (14 Sep 2014)

Actually, I lived in Milton Keynes briefly and their 'redway' cycle track system is pretty well used. The bulk of the roads are 70mph duel-carriageways, so by default if you want to get anywhere on a bicycle and arrive alive you've not got a great deal of choice. The design is OK-ish, but poor maintenance and lightling let it down.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Actually, *I lived in Milton Keynes briefly* .....



Lucky escape ....


----------



## Drago (14 Sep 2014)

It was ok. Better than a lot of nearby towns like Bedford, Luton, Northampton etc. Very car-O-centric though.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Actually, I lived in Milton Keynes briefly and their 'redway' cycle track system is pretty well used. The bulk of the roads are 70mph duel-carriageways, so by default if you want to get anywhere on a bicycle and arrive alive you've not got a great deal of choice. The design is OK-ish, but poor maintenance and lightling let it down.


Milton Keynes is, in fairness, a one-off. The design brief changed midway through, and roads that were supposed to be 30mph went NSL. Local shopping centres never materialised. The bus service is pants. And cycle usage is 3% of all trips, but way less than 1% of all miles. Add to that Derek Walker's obsession with Mies, the building of 120 metre wide boulevards, 20,000 car parking spaces in CMK .....It's life, Jim, but not as we know it







but I digress. London, no less than any other city in this country, is divided, but it's divided in different ways. The big gap is between those who own their houses and those who rent. There's a gap between the employment prospects of young afro-Caribbean men and young white men. But (and this is a huge but) people still live, work, walk, shop, and worship cheek by jowl - at least in the inner zones. That's the bit the LCC simply does not or will not get. They would have us in our little lanes, separate (but, as Zimmers points out, in conflict with) pedestrians and drivers. They want to recreate the horror that is suburban Utrecht. And they want to do that because, fundamentally, they lack the gift of adult conversation. It's the AspyCyclist view of the world.


----------



## subaqua (14 Sep 2014)

at least the stupid bollard things at the romford road end before the plaistow turning have been removed


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> It was ok. Better than a lot of nearby towns like Bedford, Luton, Northampton etc. Very car-O-centric though.


I lived in Wilden just outside Bedford for a while ... we don't speak about it much ....


----------



## Pete Owens (17 Sep 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> Milton Keynes is, in fairness, a one-off.



Unfortunately not. While it does have some distinctive features such as the grid layout it shares the same overall segregationist design philosophy of all new-towns since Stevenage. With limitless constraints on space it was possible to create a separate path network for cyclists. A hierarchy of distributor roads were then see as the exclusive domain of motor traffic, they are lanscaped, have no pavements or frontage development so give drivers the impression of a high quality rural A road - hence the national speed limits. You see these high speed distributor cutting though all modern UK settlements.

In order to get anywhere You drive off the major distributor road to a district distributor road, to a local distributor road and eventually to a cul-de-sac where there will be a zone of houses - or a school - or shops - or an employment site - never a mix. While each of thes little zones will be designed as a pleasant envionment in itself, with more landscaping and no through traffic it is cut off from all the island developments by all the auto-centric distributor roads. All that transport infrastructure takes up a huge amount of space so destinations are too far away to walk. Bus services cannot work as they require through routes to work efficiently - picking up and dropping off people along a linear route rather than taking long loopy detour along destination free roads to get from one bus stop to the next. And while the proponents of cycle paths never cease to claim that they are the only way to get large numbers of people cycling, it fails time after time after time to materialise, and the new-towns have ended up as the most car-dependent settlements in the UK.



> They want to recreate the horror that is suburban Utrecht. And they want to do that because, fundamentally, they lack the gift of adult conversation. It's the AspyCyclist view of the world.



Actually, when the Dutch were designing Houten and seeking to improve their road safety record, they looked to what was at that time the country with the best road safety record - the UK. So Stevenage is the model for suburban Utrecht - not vice-versa. While "Sustainable Safety" is often pushed by those demanding segregation as some uniquely Dutch cycle-friendly way of doing things it is indistiguishable from the principles we have been using to design new settlements for over half a centuary.


----------



## noodle (20 Sep 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> It seems that the idiocy highlighted in the OP continues unabated. Here's an image from the latest plans for a segregated East-West cycle highway:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




please ill take that up here if you lot dont want it. it is far better than the single shared path i have, especially when the shared path drosses the same road twice and swaps the cycle and pedestrian side once along its length of about 3/4 of a mile. oh and the bus stops actually half the width of th eshared path taking the whole pedestrian area up, except for where the sides swap and the bus stop is on the cycle path

seriously us out in the hicks would love just to be thought about in any way


----------



## noodle (20 Sep 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> You seem to be under the impression that UK transport policy is dictated by the CTC when in fact just about every traffic engineer and planner over the past 80 years is fully signed up to the segregationist orthodoxy you advocate. Haven't you noticed the blue signs? Just in case you don't get out much take a look a selection:
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month
> That is the reality of segregation. Clearly you think that those of us who are sceptical of the merits of this kind of thing are mistaken - that is a matter of opinion. However, it is simply absurd to attempt to claim that the CTC killed it off when the evidence is out there for us all to see.
> 
> ...




i think the figures are wrong for this one town at least
i work there and it is horrendous for drivers and bliss for pedestrians and cyclists this according to the locals all who cycle to work meanwhile people from out side the town drive in and have to double any distance they travel if you choose to use a car in the area 
said it elsewhere recently on here (asking you the question i think) but i think most wouldnt consider themselves commuters they jsut use a bike to get to work as its quicker and cheaper due to the layout of the town


----------



## Pete Owens (20 Sep 2014)

2011 census figures for cycling to work in Skelmesdale:
http://datashine.org.uk/#zoom=14&la...TTT&table=QS701EW&col=QS701EW0010&ramp=YlOrRd


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (22 Sep 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month
> That is the reality of segregation. Clearly you think that those of us who are sceptical of the merits of this kind of thing are mistaken - that is a matter of opinion.


You do realize that the title and the strapline are ironic, and the site is dedicated to showing how NOT to do it, don't you?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (22 Sep 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> London, no less than any other city in this country, is divided... But (and this is a huge but) people still live, work, walk, shop, and worship cheek by jowl - at least in the inner zones. That's the bit the LCC simply does not or will not get. They would have us in our little lanes, separate (but, as Zimmers points out, in conflict with) pedestrians and drivers. They want to recreate the horror that is suburban Utrecht. And they want to do that because, fundamentally, they lack the gift of adult conversation. It's the AspyCyclist view of the world.



Ha ha ha!

Sorry, -STRAIGHT FACE- and let me see if I've got you ruler-straight. You want to celebrate the joy and glory of sharing the roads with lethal vehicles, on the basis that...

...you might one day share a Greek Orthodox Church with a Heavy Goods Vehicle from Across Town, which HGV will politely stand with you throughout the service in enjoyment of London's rich cultural diversity?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (22 Sep 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> when the Dutch were designing Houten and seeking to improve their road safety record, they looked to what was at that time the country with the best road safety record - the UK. So Stevenage is the model for suburban Utrecht - not vice-versa.



You are arguing that IF S was looked at by the planners of H, THEN U is modelled on S.

An argument of the same hilarious logical form:

Father saw a film about Oz before he got married. THEREFORE my wife is modelled on Dorothy- not vice-versa.



Pete Owens said:


> While "Sustainable Safety" is often pushed by those demanding segregation as some uniquely Dutch cycle-friendly way of doing things it is indistiguishable from the principles we have been using to design new settlements for over half a centuary.



What ignorant tosh.


----------



## noodle (22 Sep 2014)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> You do realize that the title and the strapline are ironic, and the site is dedicated to showing how NOT to do it, don't you?


seeing as it is his photo id say he does


----------



## G3CWI (22 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> The bulk of the roads are 70mph duel-carriageways



...confrontation at its best.


----------



## Dan B (22 Sep 2014)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> You do realize that the title and the strapline are ironic, and the site is dedicated to showing how NOT to do it, don't you?


I think you may have misread his post, and possibly also failed to read the contact address on the site itself ...


----------



## noodle (22 Sep 2014)

Dan B said:


> I think you may have misread his post, and possibly also failed to read the contact address on the site itself ...


i had read the post and seen the photo, thought it was a wind up............


----------



## Fab Foodie (22 Sep 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> It seems that the idiocy highlighted in the OP continues unabated. Here's an image from the latest plans for a segregated East-West cycle highway:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Sep 2014)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> You do realize that the title and the strapline are ironic, and the site is dedicated to showing how NOT to do it, don't you?


yes he does. Next!


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Ha ha ha!
> 
> Sorry, -STRAIGHT FACE- and let me see if I've got you ruler-straight. You want to celebrate the joy and glory of sharing the roads with lethal vehicles, on the basis that...


I like cycling in London. As it is.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Sep 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> View attachment 57112


Brando?


----------



## zimzum42 (28 Sep 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> I like cycling in London. As it is.


Had my first go round Hanger lane Gyratory yesterday, was pretty good fun.

I accept that would not be everyone's cup of tea, and that's cool, but the second they install segregated lanes around the place, there will be pressure on me to use those (no doubt useless and full of glass and peds) and to be stopped from riding the roads I enjoy (which tend to be heavy traffic multi-lane main routes - the safest roads for cyclists IMO)


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Sep 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> Had my first go round Hanger lane Gyratory yesterday, was pretty good fun.
> 
> I accept that would not be everyone's cup of tea, and that's cool, but the second they install segregated lanes around the place, there will be pressure on me to use those (no doubt useless and full of glass and peds) and to be stopped from riding the roads I enjoy (which tend to be heavy traffic multi-lane main routes - the safest roads for cyclists IMO)


round the top or through the underpass?


----------



## zimzum42 (28 Sep 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> round the top or through the underpass?


The top, of course...


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Sep 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> The top, of course...


Zimmers, you've not lived. The underpass is special. East or westbound.


----------



## zimzum42 (28 Sep 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> Zimmers, you've not lived. The underpass is special. East or westbound.


Aha, I see what you mean. I was thinking you meant the crappy cycle path. 

I was coming from Wembley and was headed to Ealing, so had to go over the top


----------



## Fab Foodie (28 Sep 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> Brando?


Go to the top of the class!


----------



## Fab Foodie (28 Sep 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> I like cycling in London. As it is.


And he's not the only one ....


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> I like cycling in London. As it is.



Yep, we got that. But otherwise there are areas of unclarity. 
Like, apart from standing for the Orthodox Easter service alongside a multicultural Tipper Truck, what is it you most like?

The casualty rates?
The gender imbalance?
The cheap access to danger-sport without having to fly off to the Alps?
The sense of exclusivity that goes with mastering the fear?
The sheer dog-fight right-stuff of the survivor?

Or is it all of the above?


----------



## Learnincurve (29 Sep 2014)

People are mocking things people in non-major cities would dearly love to have 

All this talk of not wanting to use bike lanes and whatnot is extra  for me today. There is one beautifully well thought out and positioned bike lane on a well maintained bit of road in our town..Cars, cars parked along it, all day every day. I told the traffic warden just down to road a bit today and was told "not my patch". It's a A road with no pavement on one side btw, this is the side they park. Just next to the walls smack bang in the bike lane like it's a neatly marked out parking lane just for them. 

It's hard to get in the mind set of someone who parks in a bike lane. Especially when it would be a dangerous place to park without the bike lane there anyway, it really is a choice between double yellows and the lane. I would imagine that they parked there before the lane came in and they will be damned if they move their car to the ally 10 yards away or to the actual car park 50 yards away now.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Yep, we got that. But otherwise there are areas of unclarity.
> Like, apart from standing for the Orthodox Easter service alongside a multicultural Tipper Truck, what is it you most like?
> 
> The casualty rates?
> ...


The sheer number of cyclists of all abilities and none wandering up and down CS7, outnumbering private cars by three or four to one. Taking the Brompton to the supermarket and parking right outside the door. Knowing that my daughter can get home from work at two in the morning. And, (dare I mention), the delight of leading a ride of 100 cyclists on bikes that range from carbon fibre dream machines to 'ladies bikes' along the Embankment. The very Embankment this scheme will ruin - not just to the detriment of cyclists, but to the detriment of bus passengers and pedestrians.


----------



## srw (29 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Yep, we got that. But otherwise there are areas of unclarity.
> Like, apart from standing for the Orthodox Easter service alongside a multicultural Tipper Truck, what is it you most like?
> 
> The casualty rates?



The casualty rates are fantastic. I may have linked to this article once or twice before...
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...vcMt5iPN6U76_nguQ&sig2=JbwBuWiuLWV-7q4xBFeHuA

The gender balance isn't so bad, either, and if you avoid one or two obvious roads there's no conflict or adrenaline-junkie stuff


----------



## Pete Owens (29 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> what is it you most like?
> ...
> 
> The gender imbalance?


I'm quite happy with the balance of my gender thankyou - And I don't really appreciate facility enthusiast attemps to alter it:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/January2005.htm


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

All of this is marvellous, simply marvellous- fantastic information for my research into the London Cycling Community. It turns out that the three people on this thread who want things kept exactly as they are (three!! three of them!! count them!! three!! -did I say there were three?) ...that the three people on this thread who want things kept exactly as they are admit of the following reasons for their preferences.

1.


dellzeqq said:


> Embankment this scheme will ruin - not just to the detriment of cyclists, but to the detriment of bus passengers and pedestrians.


- I assume this is because of the new pedestrian crossings that the scheme will add... or it might be to do with the near total absence of bus routes along the embankment.

2.


srw said:


> The casualty rates are fantastic.


- Satire, I think... and meant to draw attention to the vast gap between UK death rates and Dutch... though these days you can't be too sure. For example... why it was Alf Garnet was NOT seen at a Tory Party Conference has never been satisfactorily explained.

3.


Pete Owens said:


> I'm quite happy with the balance of my gender thankyou


Women of the world Unite- you have nothing to lose but the duffer with the sex-change quip.


----------



## theclaud (29 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> All of this is marvellous, simply marvellous- fantastic information for my research into the London Cycling Community. It turns out that the three people on this thread who want things kept exactly as they are (three!! three of them!! count them!! three!! -did I say there were three?) ...that the three people on this thread who want things kept exactly as they are admit of the following reasons for their preferences.
> 
> 1.
> - I assume this is because of the new pedestrian crossings that the scheme will add... or it might be to do with the total absence of bus routes along the embankment.
> ...



I am a woman. I like cycling in London. So do lots of other women. Could you explain exactly why women need special crap infrastructure?

Oh, and people who oppose particular infrastructure schemes do not equal people who "want things kept exactly as they are". Lots of them spend their lives making things different - but in ways that actually work.


----------



## theclaud (29 Sep 2014)

User said:


> There are probably loads more but *the rest can't be arsed to engage with your heavy handed humour.*



Oops. It seems I'm a sucker for the leaden wit brigade.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> - Satire, I think... and meant to draw attention to the vast gap between UK death rates and Dutch...


you, truly, know nothing


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> people who oppose particular infrastructure schemes do not equal people who "want things kept exactly as they are". .



I did not myself make any such equation. But were you to read back into my exchanges with dellzeqq, you would find him saying:


dellzeqq said:


> I like cycling in London. As it is.



Perhaps I should have made it clearer I was addressing him -though the quote might have suggested this, up to a point.

As to your second point:


theclaud said:


> I am a woman. I like cycling in London. So do lots of other women. Could you explain exactly why women need special crap infrastructure?



I don't think I specifically insisted that the infrastructure be "crap" or indeed that it be "special" in the sense of specially for women. That facts (and god, they are unpopular) are that in places with more and better dedicated cycling infrastructure, more people cycle. This holds true for both genders. On the other hand, the empirically attested difference for women is particularly striking: with proper infra, women complete more cycling trips than men do: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/who-cycles-in-netherlands.html

As I was saying, I wouldn't want to claim that these facts are popular. The thing you might say in their defence is, they are the facts.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> you, truly, know nothing



If you must call black 'white', you could at least improve your wit.


----------



## theclaud (29 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> I did not myself make any such equation. But were you to read back into my exchanges with dellzeqq, you would find him saying:
> 
> 
> Perhaps I should have made it clearer I was addressing him -though the quote might have suggested this, up to a point.
> ...



I read what DZ wrote. It doesn't say what you claimed.

See the picture posted by Zimmers at #285 above. There is less room for cyclists going in both directions on the proposed Special Crap Path than there was, is, or will be on a single lane of the road. Not only that, but the Special Crap Path is both stealing space from pedestrians and lumbering them with another two lanes of traffic to cross. And that's before we get to junctions.

Oh, and your feminist cycling paradise consists of women doing the shopping and ferrying the kids about. Your mate Hembrow reckons that men "don't get the chance" to do this. Presumably they are too busy bombing up and down mono-functional roads, enjoying some of the longest commuting times in Europe.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> ]http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/who-cycles-in-netherlands.html


ka-ching! It was only a matter of time


----------



## Wobblers (29 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> If you must call black 'white', you could at least improve your wit.



That's a tad hypocritical coming from someone who resorts to _ad hominem _attacks on people who you don't agree with whilst claiming that it is "wit".


----------



## Wobblers (29 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Yep, we got that. But otherwise there are areas of unclarity.
> Like, apart from standing for the Orthodox Easter service alongside a multicultural Tipper Truck, what is it you most like?
> 
> The casualty rates?
> ...



Have you ever cycled in London? 

From experience, London is by far the best, most pleasant city in which to ride a bike. Try it - who knows, you may like it...

PS: One of the things that make it so wonderful is that there is almost none of the cycling ghettos that benight so may other towns and cities.


----------



## Learnincurve (29 Sep 2014)

To be fair knocks is completely correct about more people cycling if the cycling infrastructure is there. 

I am the only regular girl commuter I see on the roads in this town, strava does show that there are a few club members but we are a clear minority and it's not like there is a stream of male cyclists either, it's just that the rare other cyclist I see is always a man. On the trails its slightly different, there is a group of women who go cycling together and you will occasionally see the odd lady out with her husband but it's still 90% men. 

I have no doubt that this is down to our town not just being cyclist unfriendly but downright dangerous. It's huge roundabout after roundabout with major roads and duel carriageways feeding into them and drivers who would rather see you dead than add another 2 seconds to their journey no matter if you have right of way, they are bigger than you and can hurt you so they believe it's their god given right to go though. They are actually quite well behaved when it comes to the few cycle lanes we do have. It's amazing that they will happily obey the white lines and give you room but when they are not there they will deliberately drive 2 inches from your elbow to make a point. 

So yes, please give me your nice segregated bike lanes. No we don't have to ride in them if they are full of kiddies or people pottering along at 10mph but the _option_ would be nice. I think a fair few people here would benefit from doing a trip from Arkwright town near chesterfield to Baslow and see how the other half lives. If anyone is pedantic enough tot take this trip take the upper B road (ashgate) the lower A road will literally kill you, it's the only road in the area the huge HGVs are allowed on and they thunder around the blind bends at 60 mph and there ain't no verges to dive into.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Sep 2014)

........so, waiting for Her Nibs to meet me on Blackfriars Bridge (devoid of cycling infrastructure) I count *the number of bicycles per private car*. Two? Four? Ten? Twenty?. The answer, my dears, is *46*.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

McWobble said:


> Have you ever cycled in London?
> 
> From experience, London is by far the best, most pleasant city in which to ride a bike. Try it - who knows, you may like it....



Gordon Bennett. Of course I've cycled in London, and through it, and into and out of it, and around it. And I entirely understand what you mean by 'the best, most pleasant city in which to ride a bike' IF you mean, '...in comparison with most other UK cities'.

On the other hand, if you seriously maintain that 'London is by far the best, most pleasant city in which to ride a bike... compared to any city whatsoever', then my response is that I don't know how to argue with a madman. I've cycled in London. I've also cycled in Rotterdam, Delft, Amsterdam. The idea that London was the fun-packed adventure and the other places were horrid to ride in- simply barmy.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> I read what DZ wrote. It doesn't say what you claimed.
> 
> See the picture posted by Zimmers at #285 above. There is less room for cyclists going in both directions on the proposed Special Crap Path than there was, is, or will be on a single lane of the road. Not only that, but the Special Crap Path is both stealing space from pedestrians and lumbering them with another two lanes of traffic to cross. And that's before we get to junctions.
> 
> Oh, and your feminist cycling paradise consists of women doing the shopping and ferrying the kids about. Your mate Hembrow reckons that men "don't get the chance" to do this. Presumably they are too busy bombing up and down mono-functional roads, enjoying some of the longest commuting times in Europe.



I'm finding it hard to distinguish your substantial point from the rhetorical temperature. 

One or two textual clues ("crap" "lumbering") gives me to understand that not only will you not ride on these lanes, but don't want anyone else to ride on them either.

Well, I suspect that lots will. Maybe you do too.

One substantial claim was that the Dutch have long average commute times- which sounds an important point for British Traffic Jams and against all things Dutch in transport infrastructure, until you spot that they also have the longest commuting DISTANCES in Europe, made possible by excellent cycling and public transport infrastructure, seamlessly integrated. Indeed, this makes it silly to observe that proper infra couldn't work here because London in much bigger than Amsterdam- because the distances people are actually travelling are higher in the Dutch case.

And on the primary point of your last, no: DZ says IN TERMS exactly what I said he said, IE: that he wants cycling in London to remain as is.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

McWobble said:


> That's a tad hypocritical coming from someone who resorts to _ad hominem _attacks on people who you don't agree with whilst claiming that it is "wit".



Come again? Can you quote me actually doing what you've just accused me of? You know, mounting ad-hominem attacks whilst claiming it is "wit"?


----------



## Learnincurve (29 Sep 2014)

User said:


> How do you know?



I've been to York, Cambridge and Oxford.

A cycling infrastructure isn't just about cycle lanes it's a state of mind for both drivers and cyclist, potential and actual. Some roads in these three cities don't need cycle lanes because it's accepted that _the road_ _is also the cycle lane_. These are cities with a long standing tradition of cycling, places that don't need help in the form of cycle lanes. As I said just because a cycle lane is there does not mean you have to use it but it does mean more people will feel safer about going out on the road, it does not matter if the lanes are actually safer or not, what matters is getting people out there because the more people that cycle the more aware drivers are and power in numbers and all that jazz. 

If you don't want to use cycle lanes then fair enough, no on is forcing you to, give everybody else the choice as well.


----------



## stowie (29 Sep 2014)

Is this the right time to say I quite like CS2 into Stratford?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> ka-ching! It was only a matter of time



"I used to do the I-ching/
But I had to feed the meter/
Now I can't see into the future/
But at least I can use the heater"


----------



## Pete Owens (29 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> 3.
> Women of the world Unite- you have nothing to lose but the duffer with the sex-change quip.



OK then - you you want to take it seriously.
There are 163 examples of the sort of things you think might address some gender balance issue:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month

Ignore my coments - I have obviously got the wrong end of the stick - but the photos are all genuine examples of what you would subject us to. Now explain to us - month-by-month - why we should welcome this sort of thing. And also how in detail each specific example addresses the gender balance you are so concened about. 

Oh, and don't try to pretend that that is not what you are advocating at all - this is the reality of cycle facilities implemented by the cream of our highway engineering profession over the decades. All of them segregationists such as yourself - and all of them spouting the same arguments as you. You ask for it - they build it - and we have to live with the consequences.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> OK then - you you want to take it seriously.
> There are 163 examples of the sort of things you think might address some gender balance issue:
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month
> 
> ...



Er, since any attempt to speak on my behalf has been a-priori decreed to be "pretence" "spouting" "*********ist", I'm not sure how I can take this contribution seriously as an invitation to a conversation.

If you can think of a topic about which you will allow me to have thoughts of my own, we could discuss that. 

Ten-pin Bowling?


----------



## noodle (29 Sep 2014)

iphone auto messed it up cat be bothered redoing it


----------



## srw (29 Sep 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> These are cities with a long standing tradition of cycling.



So, now, s London.


----------



## srw (29 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> Oops. It seems I'm a sucker for the *leaden wit* brigade.


Rhyming slang?


----------



## srw (29 Sep 2014)

User said:


> Seeing as you have no posts on any other thread on this site, it is going to be a bit tricky for anyone to guess what else might interest you.


----------



## theclaud (29 Sep 2014)

User said:


> Dildo covers?


Should @srw now resign for posting pictures of his dildo covers on social media?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

User said:


> Dildo covers?


NO my dear fellow, he means that, since 

1. I claim to have opinions of my own
and
2. Those opinions are not his opinions
and
3. The only things I find amusing enough on cyclechat to draw me back to it are the contributions of DZ in the continuation of exactly the 1930's tradition in British Cycle Campaigning which has seen a total collapse in cycling mode share, 

THEN

4. I must be a "sockpuppet"- meaning, an online identity controlled by a party or parties with a financial interest in the realisation of some nefarious scheme/perversion of democracy, etc etc etc.

And all this, JUST when I was starting to feel enveloped by the love shown me on all sides- the openness to ideas and debate, the atmosphere of Plato's dialogues.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

You know what, I can't imagine why this site isn't more visited by these 'segregationists' you speak of. I suppose they just don't like the cut and thrust of debate, the enjoyable stating that black is white, the habitual attribution of all opposing points of view to enemy agents. What rotten sports.


----------



## Pete Owens (29 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> I dThat facts (and god, they are unpopular) are that in places with more and better dedicated cycling infrastructure, more people cycle.


Ah, the build it and they will come hypothesis: As related by every town planner and highway engineer in the UK over the last half century or so. Of course they were keen on segregation before that, but they didn't even attempt to claim it was for our benefit then - they hoped for legislation to force us to use it.

However, it is a testable hypothesis. We have built a lot of cycle infrastructure over the last 60 years. The post war new-towns, starting with Stevenage and continuing with Milton Keynes, Linvingston, Telford, Skelmesdale, Runcorn ... the list goes on. IF there was any merit whatsoever in your theory then these towns would see a lot of cycling. But they don't. Without excetion these are among the most car dependent settlements in the UK.

And don't try to brush this off by claiming that somehow these cycle neworks are incomplete or inadequate. Because the now towns were built on green fields there were not the constraints of space so they could build continuous comprehensive networks - and of reasonable quality - they don't tend to feature in Facility of the Month. People living in thes places could cycle to anywhere else in them without having to mix with traffic or any of the things you seem to think makes cycling scary - yet they don't.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

Ever heard the expression "groupthink"?


----------



## stowie (29 Sep 2014)

User said:


> So how do we get the every road is a cycle lane thing, without bothering with the segregated lanes?



Good question. Don't know. Wish I did. Any ideas?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

Flann O'Brien — 'Questions are like the knocks of beggarmen, and should not be minded, but attributed to sockpuppets.'


----------



## Learnincurve (29 Sep 2014)

User said:


> So how do we get the every road is a cycle lane thing, without bothering with the segregated lanes?



I don't think there is a solution for people who don't like cycle lanes it's a catch 22. Personally I have no problem with the cycle lanes/paths being the slow lane with the road being the fast lane. 

I don't understand the hatred for cycle lanes, you don't like them, don't use them, let the rest of us get on with it. I don't like being told if I should or should not wear a helmet and I don't like being told if I should or should not have the right to cycle in a cycle lane or not. I'm a grown woman, give me the options and I will make my own mind up. 

But right now, I don't appreciate being made to feel like a lesser cyclist by people who are not the only cyclist within a 3 mile radius on the roads and don't have to share said roads with massive HGVs, people coming off duel carriageways and motorists with a general attitude that I should be on the pavements because there are no pedestrians on and try to make that point by punting me onto them while I'm going 15 mph. You are damn right I want some sort of barrier betwixt me and these people, even if it's a white line, because most of these morons will respect the white line.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

Oh lordly, Stevenage Again, and it turns out I'm not allowed to have my own thoughts on that topic either. That's OK. And it's not like I'd be expecting you to read other people's thoughts either. http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpres...d-is-the-cycling-infrastructure-in-bracknell/


----------



## stowie (29 Sep 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> Ah, the build it and they will come hypothesis: As related by every town planner and highway engineer in the UK over the last half century or so. Of course they were keen on segregation before that, but they didn't even attempt to claim it was for our benefit then - they hoped for legislation to force us to use it.
> 
> However, it is a testable hypothesis. We have built a lot of cycle infrastructure over the last 60 years. The post war new-towns, starting with Stevenage and continuing with Milton Keynes, Linvingston, Telford, Skelmesdale, Runcorn ... the list goes on. IF there was any merit whatsoever in your theory then these towns would see a lot of cycling. But they don't. Without excetion these are among the most car dependent settlements in the UK.
> 
> And don't try to brush this off by claiming that somehow these cycle neworks are incomplete or inadequate. Because the now towns were built on green fields there were not the constraints of space so they could build continuous comprehensive networks - and of reasonable quality - they don't tend to feature in Facility of the Month. People living in thes places could cycle to anywhere else in them without having to mix with traffic or any of the things you seem to think makes cycling scary - yet they don't.



I don't know about the others, but the very structure of MK is very conducive to private car transport. In fact, if I was designing a town specifically to cater for private motorists, I doubt I would stray far from the MK model. Driving is simply the easiest way around town.


----------



## noodle (29 Sep 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> *Ah, the build it and they will come hypothesis*: As related by every town planner and highway engineer in the UK over the last half century or so. Of course they were keen on segregation before that, but they didn't even attempt to claim it was for our benefit then - they hoped for legislation to force us to use it.
> 
> However, it is a testable hypothesis. We have built a lot of cycle infrastructure over the last 60 years. The post war new-towns, starting with Stevenage and continuing with Milton Keynes, Linvingston, Telford, *Skelmesdale*, Runcorn ... the list goes on. IF there was any merit whatsoever in your theory then these towns would see a lot of cycling. But they don't. Without excetion these are among the most car dependent settlements in the UK.
> 
> And don't try to brush this off by claiming that somehow these cycle neworks are incomplete or inadequate. Because the now towns were built on green fields there were not the constraints of space so they could build continuous comprehensive networks - and of reasonable quality - they don't tend to feature in Facility of the Month. People living in thes places could cycle to anywhere else in them without having to mix with traffic or any of the things you seem to think makes cycling scary - yet they don't.




it seems to have worked pretty well for cars. just a thought

SKelmersdale, that is utter crap and dont quote statistics at me spend time there see how many use bikes it is far more than the few % listed
it may be of interest but we are moving site to another place in skelmersdale, my employer quite a large one in the grand scheme of things knowing how many people bike in have bought new lockers that are 25% bigger to accommodate a change of clothes helmet etc. motor cyclists (we have one get a bigger version still to take the protective gear they wear
so far we have 18 cycle lockers and 5 normal ones. i travel the furthest one could reasonably cycle (those who come from warrington and salford may be a bit pushed for time pedalling there) im getting a bike one as is everyone bar one person who lives in the godforsaken place he is getting the motorbike version


----------



## noodle (29 Sep 2014)

noodle said:


> it seems to have worked pretty well for cars. just a thought


edit ive seen eight cyclists today all pretty serious types drop bars matching lycra (caveat ive also seen four other people on bikes three had a can of lager/cider in hand whilst riding the fourth was about 7 years old so doesnt count as he was on the path)
all of them were on the cycle path


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (29 Sep 2014)

[Sigh]


Pete Owens said:


> And don't try to brush this off by...



Stevenage Again, and it turns out I'm not allowed to have my own thoughts on that topic either. Saves time typing. And it's not like I'd be expecting you to read other people's thoughts either. Well, be fair, you might want to read the first paragraph -then you could think up some really devastating way to summarise (traduce) what the guy was going to say in the rest of it, before he'd said it.

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpres...d-is-the-cycling-infrastructure-in-bracknell/


----------



## noodle (30 Sep 2014)

there is one problem with all this.
bikes are not sexy, really they are not ask any 17-18 year old what they want either a car or a push bike....
ask a similar question to young girls would you prefer a boy with a car or a pushbike....
and lets face it cars win the only way to get anywhere is to get people onto AND into bikes before they reach that age, Pedalling on stupid roads with idiots in a rush is never going to work
you need to start young and if any of you think thats a good idea (starting young on the road) may i suggest you take your children onto the a580 or some other road like it and have them peddle along happily in the wake of hgv after hgv trundling along at 60,there is a stretch of tarmac for shared use at the side but of course you wont be using that will you, if that is just a tad extreme for your sensibilities then try another local road the a570 where the speed limit is 40 again it offers some shared use paths for pedestrians and cyclists but you dont want that do you
the worst phrase which sadly is the most appropriate is 'i bet your kids' you wont like it and would love a nice segregated lane offering them some protection which thankfully in both cases there is
the "i bet your kids" is what you are saying to any parent who is thinking id get them a bike but the roads just are not safe for my little alistair/jemima


----------



## Pete Owens (30 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Oh lordly, Stevenage Again, and it turns out I'm not allowed to have my own thoughts on that topic either. That's OK. And it's not like I'd be expecting you to read other people's thoughts either. http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpres...d-is-the-cycling-infrastructure-in-bracknell/



Ah my own personal character assasination by Hembow's representative on Earth,

You are allowed to have thoughts of your own - but if those thoughts are counter-factual then expect them to be challenged - and expect to justify your arguments. It is also a bit rich to complain that others exhibiting "groupthink" when all you ever seem to do is quote Hembrow and his accolites.

Now, to take Mark Treasure's argument - which is exactly what I expected you to come with when I said "_And don't try to brush this off by claiming that somehow these cycle neworks are incomplete or inadequate_." Yes, maybe our new town cycle networks are not quite as good as the best Dutch examples (though there is plenty of rubbish in the NL too). But they do exist, they do go everywehere, and they do meet the key requirement, always made by the advocates of segregation, that they keep cyclists away from motor traffic. And what is more, being built from scatch on greenfield sites, those networks are far better and more comprehensive than anything that could possibly be retrofitted in a crowded city. If you live in Stevenage or Milton Keynes, or Livingstone or Telford or Skelmersdale and so on then you do not need to mix with traffic so if there were any merit whatsoever in the claim that cycle infrastructure caused an increase in cycling then you would see that in the figures - maybe not to Dutch levels but there would be some effect when there is none.

And since you seem to respect Treasure's opinions try reading his critiscism of the facility which is the subject of this very thread in the comments to this blog post:
http://departmentfortransport.wordp...never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-width-part-1/


----------



## Pete Owens (30 Sep 2014)

stowie said:


> I don't know about the others, but the very structure of MK is very conducive to private car transport. In fact, if I was designing a town specifically to cater for private motorists, I doubt I would stray far from the MK model. Driving is simply the easiest way around town.


But the hypothesis is that the existence of cycle paths leads to more cycling. That "normal" people are deterred from cycling because of the fear of riding on the roads. In MK there are A LOT of cycle paths, they go everywhere and people do not have to mix it with traffic - yet very few cyclists.

Whatever you think the reasons for the complete and utter failure of cycle paths to generate cycle traffic (and not just in MK, but all our post war new-towns - including Skelmesdale whatever noodle may claim) the fact reamains that these cycle paths do not lead to more cycle traffic. And it is not just in the new towns - you see no effect whatsoever on a smaller scal near to cycle paths where they have been installed in other places.

As you correctly point out the key factor in encouraging cycling is not cycle infrastructure, but restraint of motor traffic. While this is anathema to most of the highway engineering and planning profession, the very few places that have actively discouraged motor traffic, such as Oxford - which deliberately makes it difficult to drive though or London with the congestion charge - or those places where conservaton concerns restrain the traffic engineers to some extent - York, Cambridge, Shrewsbury and so on are those which see the greatest levels of cycling.

Within London the most succesful bourough - the one place in the country where more people travel to work by bike than by car - is Hackney. A borough where they actually listen to the local cyclists and thus have a reputation for opposition to segregated cycle facilities.


----------



## Pete Owens (30 Sep 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> You are damn right I want some sort of barrier betwixt me and these people, even if it's a white line, because most of these morons will respect the white line.



To see how much less space you get when you paint a white line take a look at:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/report/cycle-lanes.pdf


----------



## noodle (30 Sep 2014)

And that of course is indicative of every facility isn't it
Some roads are terribly planned. by that token should we share the other parts adjacent to said road as it makes everything easier?


Pete Owens said:


> To see how much less space you get when you paint a white line take a look at:
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/report/cycle-lanes.pdf


t


----------



## noodle (30 Sep 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> But the hypothesis is that the existence of cycle paths leads to more cycling. That "normal" people are deterred from cycling because of the fear of riding on the roads. In MK there are A LOT of cycle paths, they go everywhere and people do not have to mix it with traffic - yet very few cyclists.
> 
> Whatever you think the reasons for the complete and utter failure of cycle paths to generate cycle traffic (and not just in MK, but all our post war new-towns - including Skelmesdale whatever noodle may claim) the fact reamains that these cycle paths do not lead to more cycle traffic. And it is not just in the new towns - you see no effect whatsoever on a smaller scal near to cycle paths where they have been installed in other places.
> 
> ...


Go see for yourself. You won't though will you as it doesn't fit the statistics or you pre determined plan of how things are
I once was taught a useful thing about statistics well more than one tbh but the rather nice quote still makes me smile liars damn liars and staticticians
As for other towns/cities mentioned
Bedford wasn't that bad oxford was horrendous far to many idiots roaming aimlessly on bikes Cambridge is a tough one I can't recall ever being there sober so judging it is tricky
Milton Keynes and Runcorn are terrible Runcorn is dire even in a car and has no redeeming features whatsoever


----------



## noodle (30 Sep 2014)

Explain hackney please what have they done?
Do you have children?
One of the problems with youngsters is who do they look to? When was the last time you did anything towards getting them off the sofa and outside?
Sitting here crying you don't want this or that won't make one bit of difference poring over dubious statistical data or taking photos of how stupid councils are again will make no difference. So real world where I live work make money contribute to the economy so favoured by today's politicians
What do you do to make the difference and get kids riding or doing anything for that matter


----------



## Learnincurve (30 Sep 2014)

This all screams a bit of "I don't like cheese so cheese is pointless and shouldn't exist, look at all the statistics I have from other cheese haters to back me up. Everyone should eat ham sandwiches because ham is what works for _me_".


----------



## srw (30 Sep 2014)

No. It's "cheese is a good option sometimes, but if it's the cheapo plastic Edam stuff it's a bit lowest common denominator, and never as good as you think it's going to be, particularly sandwiched between white pappy pre-sliced. Sometimes cheese is good, but only if it's top-notch hand-crafted artisan unpasteurised stuff, and the bread is worth eating on its own. Sometimes ham is good, sometimes chicken, sometimes falafel. In this case what's being offered is a strange mixture of aged cheddar and low-fat cheese substitute."


----------



## srw (30 Sep 2014)

Oh, and some of us have been cycling in London since it was only hard-core roadies dicing it with HGVs. What happened was a mix of the carrot and the stick - bus lanes, congestion charge, anti-pollution zones, generally lower standards of living, as well as publicity and lots of wasted money. And Chris Hoy and Bradley Wiggins and a thousand and one individuals getting out there and riding and encouraging others to do so.


----------



## theclaud (30 Sep 2014)

User said:


> It is more that, tempting though the dream is, there is precious little evidence that the idea would work here. There is a lot of evidence to show that we just don't have the space, even to try halfheartedly. We can see other ways to achieve the objective.



Come on Ade - make some effort to run with the duff analogy. It's more like (vegetarians will need to make allowances) - wouldn't it be nice if everyone could have a ham sandwich when they wanted, but there are a whole bunch of aggressive, greedy people who don't want anyone else using the kitchen to make a sandwich of any kind, because they wish to store a giant Slush-Puppie machine in it and charge through it knocking things over on their way to get to the kettle. So instead of insisting that it's perfectly reasonable to make a ham sandwich, we give up the kitchen and fill the bits of the house that the greedy people don't use with bargain-basement cheese, and then get stroppy with the people who dare to complain that they'd quite like to go about their business without having to step over blocks of cheese left in unlikely places or worry about being surprised by blocks of cheese falling out of the airing cupboard onto their heads, and who suggest that it would be better for everyone if we just insisted on keeping the cheese and making the sandwiches in the kitchen.

Or something.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> And since you seem to respect Treasure's opinions try reading his critiscism of the facility which is the subject of this very thread in the comments to this blog post:
> http://departmentfortransport.wordp...never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-width-part-1/



It is interesting that you use 'Hembrow and his accolites' to dismiss viewpoints that don't aggree with yours, given that you cannot even tell the various bloggers apart. The long blog post you've just rather weirdly attributted to Mark Treasure is not by him.

If you wish to revert the subject back to the bus bypass originally commented on, I've offered my thoughts there on this tread previously.

PS- can you please point me to the "character assassination" I performed on you?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

"Pete Owens did nothing of the sort - he referred to the comments below the blog."

Right. Sorry about that folks -I apologise unreservedly.


Now when I go to Marks *comments* on the the blog post, the substantial contribution is that in response to Pete, Mark observes that there is a difference between the execution of bus bypass and the whole idea of bus bypasses per se.

I'm struggling to see how this observation helps Pete in his current line of argument.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

User13710 said:


> You need to calm down and read more carefully. Pete Owens did nothing of the sort - he referred to the comments below the blog.



Right. Sorry about that folks -I apologise unreservedly.

Now when I go to Marks *comments* on the the blog post, the substantial contribution is that in response to Pete, Mark observes that there is a difference between the execution of bus bypass and the whole idea of bus bypasses per se. I'm struggling to see how this observation helps Pete in his current line of argument.



User said:


> Evidence for this claim please.



I think the evidence for the claim that more people cycle where there is decent infra is, that more people cycle where there is decent infra. Compare the exchange

Mr A: 'Black is not white'
Mr B: 'Evidence for this claim please.'

Not only is this borne out by the mode share in the UK v. the Netherlands, it is also, tellingly, borne out *within* the Netherlands.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

User said:


> I thought knock's posts had the whiff of Hembrow about them.



"If all things were turned to smoke, the nostrils would distinguish them." -Heraclitus


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

User said:


> Ah - more bollocksy guff and no evidence then...



Not really, but every time I link to evidence I get dismissed as one of "Hembrow's accolites [sic]". It's like you think the facts have joined the party opposite, and are therefore to be resisted at all costs.

EG, earlier on we had some "bollocksy guff" about the dutch experience being irrelevant, on account of the commuting times being higher. Well, the commuting distances are much higher too, so logically, one would expect *less* cycling in the NL than here. Only there isn't less, but a whole order of magnitude more. Because infrastructure.

You've already called me all the rude names in your box about linking Hembrow- but hey: he links to other stuff, and there's nothing to stop you checking out his data: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/12/are-your-travel-distances-and-times-too.html


----------



## theclaud (30 Sep 2014)

User said:


> Was it not a proper question when I asked?


You need to work on the tone.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

Right chaps, so...

Consensus is we:

1. Label anyone who takes another view to ours an "accolite" [sic] of DH
2. Make sure to level special ad hominem sneers at DH in particular
3. Consider ourselves free to ignore any facts DH or others might try to bring to our attention.

Job's a goodun. 

4. Down the pub.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> [stevenage cycle paths] do go everywehere/



Not really, no. And where they do go, they work as substantial grade separation like London's Pedways, - a fair hypothesis is that they failed for similar reasons: social safety, the want of a cup of tea, etc. The situation is massively worse now than on original installation (further building, curtailment of network near destination shopping, traffic increases on feeder roads, failure of surfaces etc) but even as introduced the Stevenage network resembled pedways. This is the kind of thing you will see in the Netherlands *out of town*- but Stevenage has it as the default. There's no fietspad along a street lined with shops etc.


View: http://vimeo.com/80787092


Think about this. What is a footway? It is segregated provision for pedestrians *at street level*. IE, exactly what the Dutch have for bikes, and Stevenage does not.


----------



## mjr (30 Sep 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> But the hypothesis is that the existence of cycle paths leads to more cycling. That "normal" people are deterred from cycling because of the fear of riding on the roads. In MK there are A LOT of cycle paths, they go everywhere and people do not have to mix it with traffic - yet very few cyclists.


Another website, same old misrepresentations from the same author. If you ride in MK, you do have to mix it with traffic because the cycle paths do NOT go everywhere. I know because I spent much of my youth riding the redways while they were still being built and I still go back to visit family. You can now avoid 60mph roads everywhere if you want, but you'll still be on crowded streets in the medieval town and a few 40mph distributor roads that the cycle maps forgot.

There are "very few cyclists" but it's still well above the national average. The redways are often bonkers, they have some basic design flaws (tight/blind corners, bad basic junction layouts, generally squeezed in as a secondary network) but they are still far better than most towns and cities have because nearly all of them are a decent width, they're machine-laid and attempts are made to put consistent direction signs on them. 

I think what it shows is that infrastructure is not sufficient: if you make cycling easy but motoring easier, then you'll still see more motoring than cycling. I don't think most lessons to be learned from MK's mistakes will be useful in many places - even in other new towns - because we don't build things like MK any more.

One interesting quirk is that lorry-cyclist deaths in MK seem rather rare indeed. The way its shopping area keeps most delivery vehicles away from users should be replicated in other new-build centres whenever possible.


----------



## mjr (30 Sep 2014)

mjray said:


> but you'll still be on crowded streets in the medieval town


Sorry, that should say "old towns" (Stony Stratford, Wolverton, Bletchley, Bradwell, Fenny Stratford - you can spot them easily on OpenCycleMap by the lack of blue lines indicating cycle paths) not "medieval town".


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Sep 2014)

mjray said:


> Another website, same old misrepresentations from the same author. If you ride in MK, you do have to mix it with traffic because the cycle paths do NOT go everywhere. I know because I spent much of my youth riding the redways while they were still being built and I still go back to visit family. You can now avoid 60mph roads everywhere if you want, but you'll still be on crowded streets in the medieval town and a few 40mph distributor roads that the cycle maps forgot.
> 
> There are "very few cyclists" but it's still well above the national average. The redways are often bonkers, they have some basic design flaws (tight/blind corners, bad basic junction layouts, generally squeezed in as a secondary network) but they are still far better than most towns and cities have because nearly all of them are a decent width, they're machine-laid and attempts are made to put consistent direction signs on them.
> 
> ...


puts down turning circle diagram for 16 metre lorry in CMK and cries...

With respect I don't care about towns other than London. I don't have to go there (actually I do have to go to MK for family and work, but I put myself in suspended animation for the duration). And, sorry, but I don't give a monkeys what people who don't ride in London think about the dopey scheme on CS2 , the cretinous multi laned nightmare about to be unleashed on the Elephant and Castle and this horror that is slated for the Embankment. Incidentally, infrastructurists, CS2 has less than a fifth of the cyclists that ride down the LCC-derided CS7, so, as Zimmers might say, spin on that one.

What's happening is this. Section 106 money is being extorted from developers and turned in to vanity projects. I suspect that the S.106 funded Elephant and Castle scheme will be so disastrous that there'll be a collective intake of breath, but, while that breath is being taken, hundreds, if not thousands of bus passengers will be late for work and later home from work because some schmuck at the LCC couldn't leave the felt-tips alone. 

I also suspect that the Embankment scheme will never happen - and for two reasons. It's GLA precept funded, which means millions of people are going to have to stump up for it, and, believe me, that's not going to be popular. And, by the time they get the money together the Elephant and Castle will have buried the LCC for all time. Which, for those of us who actually like riding bikes rather than complaining about it, will be a blessed relief.


----------



## subaqua (30 Sep 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Not really, no. And where they do go, they work as substantial grade separation like London's Pedways, - a fair hypothesis is that they failed for similar reasons: social safety, the want of a cup of tea, etc. The situation is massively worse now than on original installation (further building, curtailment of network near destination shopping, traffic increases on feeder roads, failure of surfaces etc) but even as introduced the Stevenage network resembled pedways. This is the kind of thing you will see in the Netherlands *out of town*- but Stevenage has it as the default. There's no fietspad along a street lined with shops etc.
> 
> 
> View: http://vimeo.com/80787092
> ...



go and see how much of the pedway is there today . not a lot


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

User said:


> If you don't want any measure of ad hominem, don't do it yourself.



Hang on, do you actually know what the latin words 'ad hominem' refer to, in English usage? They indicate a to-the-person *argument*. Hence, observing that Donald Duck is a Duck would not be an 'ad-hominem', UNLESS I was saying that his views on nice weather are of no possible weight, because he's a Duck.

Now, the fact that you recognise yourselves in the comic picture I've shown you implies that I've successfully called a Duck a 'Duck'.

But since I AT NO STAGE argued that your claims could be ignored on account of your curious behaviour, I fail to see where I've committed an "ad hominem". (Unlike you.)

Now if YOUR definition of an 'ad hominem' were the standard one, pretty much all evidence in a criminal court would be an 'ad hominem'. But that's just not what the words mean.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

subaqua said:


> go and see how much of the pedway is there today . not a lot


Exactly. This is part of my point. (Which I don't say you haven't got).


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

User said:


> You are too clever for your own good which, mercifully, makes me redundant here.



It is possible you meat to say that *further comment* from yourself would be redundant/otiose/superfluous.

Only, for some odd reason you couldn't resist offering further comment.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Sep 2014)

ducks, Greek Orthodox churches, multicultural tipper trucks, Latin. IN CAPITAL LETTERS. And to think some of us get worked up over gear ratios!


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

User said:


> Yes, I expect that is exactly what I meant to write.


Yet you continue commenting, with no identifiable point, and even denying that you have one.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> ducks, Greek Orthodox churches, multicultural tipper trucks, Latin. IN CAPITAL LETTERS. And to think some of us get worked up over gear ratios!



I'm plenty worked up about gear ratios. But it was you who started it with greek orthodox churches and multicultural tipper trucks- by absurdly confusing lorry-bicycle interaction with the Notting Hill Carnival.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

User said:


> No, I have a point, not that I should need one, as I have no case for change to argue. We have roads that can work. We don't need a parallel network, if we make our roads work. We have no space for a parallel network either way.



OK, so you refuse to take on board information about the meaning of the expression "ad hominem". Forget that- though we might need to come back to it later, depending.

Now you say you don't have a point, before making several.

Point 1. Suggestion UK roads as is 'can' work to increase cycling relative to segregated provision, in the face of UK mode share collapse over the last sixty years and the 40% achieved with the competing policy suggestion. ---To be charitable, this is a non-standard use of the word 'can'.

Point 2. We don't need a parallel network, if we make our roads work. ---Well yes. We don't need a rocket to go to the Moon, if we walk there.

Point 3. We have no space for a parallel network either way. ---Complete tosh, as anyone with a tape measure and ferry ticket might verify.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

User said:


> Why would I need a ferry ticket to take a tape measure to London?



Oh dear lord.... So, in order to support your assertion about London not having the space to incorporate Dutch provision, you propose comparing London with.... London. Obviously. How could I have been so dumb as to expect anything else.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (30 Sep 2014)

User said:


> I don't need to measure anywhere else to measure London, it is a simple matter:, do we have room for segregated facilities throughout?


My Gob is well and trully smacked.

Gent makes a point comparing x and y.
Suggestion is made about how to compare x and y.
Response: NO NO NO! The best way of comparing x and y is to 'compare' x and x.

Charitably, a non-standard use of the word 'compare'.


----------



## Pete Owens (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Another website, same old misrepresentations from the same author. If you ride in MK, you do have to mix it with traffic because the cycle paths do NOT go everywhere. I know because I spent much of my youth riding the redways while they were still being built and I still go back to visit family.


Oh dear, yet another attempt to deny the existence of the redway network.
Just for reference - here is a map:
http://www.destinationmiltonkeynes.co.uk/upload/managerFile/Downloads/MK_Redway_Map_North.pdf
and if that is not extensive enough for you take a look at the other half:
http://www.destinationmiltonkeynes.co.uk/upload/managerFile/Downloads/MK_Redway_Map_South.pdf

Or perhaps try to use cycle streets to plan a route from the station to somehere else in the town:
http://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/42608802/
That was picked at random - I am sure if you take long enough you could eventually find an example that ventures onto a slightly busy road for a short stretch.

Now, whether this counts as comprehensive enough for you, it is certainly more extensive than anything that could possibly be retrofitted into a crowded city. And whatever the gaps or shortcomings you think the network has the fact remains that for the vast majority of the population pretty can reach much any destination within the town using cycle paths.



> You can now avoid 60mph roads everywhere if you want, but you'll still be on crowded streets in the medieval town and a few 40mph distributor roads that the cycle maps forgot.


Indeed so - the only way to find the space for a network as comprehensive as that is building from scratch on geenfield sites. So the towns that predate the new town development retained the traditional street layout. However, this is another good opportunity to test the cycle-pathes-generate-cycle-traffic hypothesis. If there was any merit in the theory then it would show up in the census results with much higher levels of cycling in the new town than in the older areas of Newport Pagnel or Bletchley:
http://datashine.org.uk/#zoom=12&la...TTT&table=QS701EW&col=QS701EW0010&ramp=YlOrRd



> There are "very few cyclists" but it's still well above the national average.


Not according to the 2011 census


> The redways are often bonkers, they have some basic design flaws (tight/blind corners, bad basic junction layouts, generally squeezed in as a secondary network)


You don't have to convince me that cycle paths are rubbish.
But as you rightly point out..


> but they are still far better than most towns and cities have because nearly all of them are a decent width, they're machine-laid and attempts are made to put consistent direction signs on them.


Indeed so - so even given ideal conditions - with no constraints on space - which allows the development a comprehensive, signed, well surfaced network there is no effect whatsoever on cycling levels.


> I think what it shows is that infrastructure is not sufficient:


Or rather cycle infrastructure has no effect whatsover


> if you make cycling easy but motoring easier, then you'll still see more motoring than cycling.


Spot on - as you quite correctly point out what is needed to get people cycling is constraints on motor vehicles - not cycle paths. Remember that the original rationalle for cycle paths - and the reason traffic engineers are such enthusiasic proponents of them - is to prevent us slowing the flow of motors.


> I don't think most lessons to be learned from MK's mistakes will be useful in many places - even in other new towns - because we don't build things like MK any more.


We most certainly do - just visit any modern settlement and see the segregated cycle paths that the planning requirements insist on..


----------



## Pete Owens (1 Oct 2014)

noodle said:


> And that of course is indicative of every facility isn't it
> Some roads are terribly planned. by that token should we share the other parts adjacent to said road as it makes everything easier?


Did you actually read the report?
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/report/cycle-lanes.pdf
or even just look look at the pictures?

The road is not terribly planned (or at least it wasn't until someone painted a cycle lane on it) . And as cycle lanes go it is of a reasonable standard. It meets the standard of 1.5m which makes it as good as or better than most examples you see in the UK or in NL and doesn't have any particularly nasty features such as pinch points. Learningcurve suggested that there was some protection offered by drivers respecting the white line - it is reasonable to point out how much worse that makes things for cyclists.


----------



## Pete Owens (1 Oct 2014)

noodle said:


> Explain hackney please what have they done?


Try reading these links to get the idea:
http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/how-hackney-became-london-s-most-liveable-borough
http://www.jmp.co.uk/forward-thinking/update/permeable-way-personal-view-cycling-infrastructure
http://cycleandwalkhackney.blogspot.co.uk/
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/london-cyclists-sharing-space-with-everyone-in-shoreditch
and it works:
http://datashine.org.uk/#zoom=13&la...TTT&table=QS701EW&col=QS701EW0010&ramp=YlOrRd


> Do you have children?


Ooooh, now this is starting to get personal.

Yes, two (indeed one of them features in that report on cycle lanes that you commented on)
The principle reason I got into cycle campaigning was from running a safe routes to school campaign. They needed to cross two A roads to reach the local primary school and the campaign was succesful in getting a pedestrian phase incorporated at the cross-roads. When I started cycle campaigning it soon became obvious that whenever we were asking to introduce measures to make the roads safer, the only things the council would countence were segregated facilities that made the roads more dangerous.


> One of the problems with youngsters is who do they look to? When was the last time you did anything towards getting them off the sofa and outside?


and this is starting to get a tad offensive.
But, since you asked:

From when they were very young I introduced them to the outdoors life: (I took the eldest on her first camping trip at the age of 2 weeks). We went walking, scrambling, caving, climbing, backpacking, cycling - first in kiddy seats, then trailer bikes, then a cycle tour of the Hebredies on tandems, then mountain biking and road cycling. I taught them to cycle on the local roads - starting with the quiet road to the local park, but gradually building up to tackle the traffic lights mentionned above so they could cycle to school. Then onto roundabouts (there are a lot in Warrington) - and also the need avoid or at least to take extra care when using cycle paths due to the additional hazards they involve, and eventally onto the busiest junctions such as:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/search/bridge+foot/@53.3858168,-2.5897247,291m/data=!3m1!1e3
which they needed to tackle to reach their music lessons in the town centre. I also became a cycle trainer at the primary school before we managed to persuade the council to fund Bikability. I didn't provide a taxi service for their activities - they were normally expected to make their own way to guides, music lessons, parties and so on - so cycling became the key to their independence. We started orienteering and I was regularly driving minibuses full of the local juniors to training sessions for the NW squad - the youger one became good enough to compete for England at international competitions. To see some photographic evidence of our exploits take a look at:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/
Of course this is a while ago now. The older one now works in Manchester and comutes by cycle to the city centre. The younger one is a university in Sheffield, where he still orienteers, runs and goes for long cycle rides in the Peak District. 

Is that good enough for you?



> Sitting here crying you don't want this or that won't make one bit of difference


Unfortunately, arguing against the dangerous infrastructure tends to be difficult as the council can find plenty of non-cycling idiots who think it is a good idea. This is why we shifted the campaign to focus mainly on 20s plenty - which is having some success.


> poring over dubious statistical data


Sorry, but the national census is not dubious - however much its results disagree with your pre-conceptions. Unless you are claiming that for some reason the cyclists of Skelmersdale systematically lied about their travel patterns.


> or taking photos of how stupid councils are again will make no difference.


Actually, the photos really do make a difference - and have succeded in quite a number of the stupid facilities you are so keen on getting removed, in a way that writing long letters, or making serious representations to council officers failed.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> If I want to fit new cupboards in my kitchen, I don't measure Blenheim Palace's kitchen and expect that to work.



For goodness sake it was YOU who asserted a comparison between the Netherlands and the UK!!!


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> what is needed to get people cycling is constraints on motor vehicles - not cycle paths



Will you please explain to me why, in that case, cities with the highest bike mode share in Europe have free parking in their city centres? Or why, if your attractive hypothesis had any basis in reality, it is cheaper to own and run a car in the Netherlands than it is here?


----------



## subaqua (1 Oct 2014)

rather than spunking money on segregation i would far rather it spent on education of road users ( including cyclists) and then if education fails punishment. I should be able to ride on most roads ( yes I know I can't on motorways or other roads with specific prohibitions) without the fear that I am going to be killed.


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Yes, I expect that is exactly what I meant to write.


You will Adrian, you will ....


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Oct 2014)

Is this the Beggar Knocker's twitter profile?

https://twitter.com/AsEasyAsRiding

Seems some of us are gaining fame on the twattersphere...


----------



## theclaud (1 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> Is this the Beggar Knocker's twitter profile?
> 
> https://twitter.com/AsEasyAsRiding
> 
> Seems some of us are gaining fame on the twattersphere...



And now you've got me following you. Mwhahahahahahaha!


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Oct 2014)

I asked him a question on Twitter but haven't received a reply - I guess I am being London-centric, but he would have us relegated to a glass filled green lane for the rest of our riding lives.

If his vision ever becomes a reality I fear for anyone who dares exercise their legal right to ride in main carriageway, it's highly likely we will be run off the road and be told that we should have been in the bike lane. 

fookin' 'tard...


----------



## ClichéGuevara (1 Oct 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> Did you actually read the report?
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/report/cycle-lanes.pdf
> or even just look look at the pictures?
> 
> The road is not terribly planned (or at least it wasn't until someone painted a cycle lane on it) . And as cycle lanes go it is of a reasonable standard. It meets the standard of 1.5m which makes it as good as or better than most examples you see in the UK or in NL and doesn't have any particularly nasty features such as pinch points. Learningcurve suggested that there was some protection offered by drivers respecting the white line - it is reasonable to point out how much worse that makes things for cyclists.




Pete, I found the report very interesting. Sorry if you've covered this already on this thread, but are you aware of any similar studies for rear lights that have 'laser lane' facility, where a red line shines either side of the bike?

Before reading the reports you linked, I considered them a good idea, now I'm not so sure.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> I'm plenty worked up about gear ratios. But it was you who started it with greek orthodox churches and multicultural tipper trucks- by absurdly confusing lorry-bicycle interaction with the Notting Hill Carnival.


where?


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Oh dear lord.... So, in order to support your assertion about London not having the space to incorporate Dutch provision, you propose comparing London with.... London. Obviously. How could I have been so dumb as to expect anything else.


we've issued a challenge before, and I'll issue it again. Show me a drawing. 1 to 1250 scale will do - as long as it is to scale. Last time we suggested the Angel Islington - but, whatever. Show me a drawing.

Oh, and Utrecht is horrible. But feel free to move there.


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> Oh dear, yet another attempt to deny the existence of the redway network.
> Just for reference - here is a map:


Not at all. It was just a reaction to yet another attempt to assert that the redway network is complete and built as an equal-status network with the roads. It never was. Its roots in the motor-supermacist culture of the 1960s-1990s are very visible, such as the fastest road remaining level and/or having precedence at any crossing of a redway (at least until the mid-1990s).


> Or perhaps try to use cycle streets to plan a route from the station to somehere else in the town:
> http://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/42608802/
> That was picked at random - I am sure if you take long enough you could eventually find an example that ventures onto a slightly busy road for a short stretch.


To somewhere avoiding all the old towns and even heading to the mainly-new-town east flank - yes, very random(!) Nothing to do with heading west from the station almost always routing you onto some small roads for part of the route through neighbouring partly-pre-MK Loughton? 



> Indeed so - the only way to find the space for a network as comprehensive as that is building from scratch on geenfield sites. So the towns that predate the new town development retained the traditional street layout. However, this is another good opportunity to test the cycle-pathes-generate-cycle-traffic hypothesis. If there was any merit in the theory then it would show up in the census results with much higher levels of cycling in the new town than in the older areas of Newport Pagnel or Bletchley:
> http://datashine.org.uk/#zoom=12&la...TTT&table=QS701EW&col=QS701EW0010&ramp=YlOrRd


Not "much higher" but it still looks higher to me - I think it's easier to see if you change the colour ramp to the blue/green one, but maybe you also need to know which of the parts labelled with the old town names are actually the old towns rather than the new-build infill. Is it possible to set the colour ramp to deemphasise the distortion from the bit of CMK? I don't remember much residential property there but it seems a high proportion ride - maybe downhill to the Elder Gate area which has Argos, Santander and so on.

Some parts of some of the old towns used to have famously high cycle-to-work levels, such as the railway and printing works in Wolverton and you can still see that legacy in its high-density town centre streets. I'm not sure whether Newport Pagnell had similar with the car works there - oh and Newport Pagnell isn't part of MK, although it's still under MK Council.

The other major confounding factor is walking to work. The redway network is also useful for walking, plus there's a greenway network, so what you find is above-average walking to work around major employment areas like CMK and Kingston and those are nearly all new town areas (NIMBYism of the old towns in the 1960s?)


> Not according to the 2011 census


That's only travel to work, but still puts MK council area (including the rural-ish bit north of the M1) at 2.8% against a national average of 1.8% and higher than all but one of its neighbours. Meanwhile, the Active People Survey puts MK at 18% cyclist against a national average of 15%. It's no Cambridge (29% and 49% IIRC), or even a West Norfolk (4.7% and 20%), but it is still above the average.



> Indeed so - so even given ideal conditions - with no constraints on space - which allows the development a comprehensive, signed, well surfaced network there is no effect whatsoever on cycling levels.


There were constraints on space because MK was a finite area of north Buckinghamshire designated for London overspill, constrained east and west by county boundaries, north by the M1 and south by politics. This led to the original redways being botched by compromises including giving priority to all-user roads and even houses over cycling, leading to mistakes like squeezing the grade separation through underpasses on tight corners - with the anti-social behaviour and fear of crime that eventually led to underpasses in other towns being filled in!

The original redways were woven in among grid, link and residential roads, giving way to all of them. What happened to the original redways was similar to what would happen if you tried to build a road network formed of only C and U roads. When the equivalents of B roads were added in the form of the 1990s grid redways, they either reused the bad underpasses (sometimes with remedial work to open them up) or more often, they crossed grid and estate link roads on the level.

I don't remember any A-road-equivalent redways in MK. Other than the lorry/people split in the city centre, I suspect there's no best practice showcase stuff in that city. There are elements of best practice, but more than an argument for constraining motoring, MK is really a great example of how shoddy compromises at junctions and so on can completely undermine a cycleway even if the bits in between are very good... so when a cycleway is built, it needs to be done properly throughout, else I'll join the anti-every-path crowd in saying it's worse than the road.

The London CS designers seem to acknowledge that junctions need provision, even if I don't think they've got them all right, but it's extremely unlikely that the new London CS routes will be as bad as MK. I know some people who have never lived in MK love to demonise it, but please be realistic. Personally, I sometimes wonder if designers and builders should be required to ride new cycle paths on a bike with impact-triggered explosives mounted around it so if they fall, clip a pole or barrier, or simply hit a lumpy section too hard, then, well, they won't make that mistake again!


----------



## StuAff (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> It is interesting that you use 'Hembrow and his accolites' to dismiss viewpoints that don't aggree with yours, given that you cannot even tell the various bloggers apart. The long blog post you've just rather weirdly attributted to Mark Treasure is not by him.
> 
> If you wish to revert the subject back to the bus bypass originally commented on, I've offered my thoughts there on this tread previously.
> 
> PS- can you please point me to the "character assassination" I performed on you?





zimzum42 said:


> I asked him a question on Twitter but haven't received a reply - I guess I am being London-centric, but he would have us relegated to a glass filled green lane for the rest of our riding lives.
> 
> If his vision ever becomes a reality I fear for anyone who dares exercise their legal right to ride in main carriageway, it's highly likely we will be run off the road and be told that we should have been in the bike lane.
> 
> fookin' 'tard...


Well, what do you expect from someone who refers to himself in the third person?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (1 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> I asked him a question on Twitter but haven't received a reply - I guess I am being London-centric, but he would have us relegated to a glass filled green lane for the rest of our riding lives.
> 
> If his vision ever becomes a reality I fear for anyone who dares exercise their legal right to ride in main carriageway, it's highly likely we will be run off the road and be told that we should have been in the bike lane.
> 
> fookin' 'tard...


If his vision becomes reality then compulsion will mean you won't have the right to ride on the road anyway. We'll all be doing 12mph in the cycle lanes where we belong.


----------



## StuAff (1 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> If his vision becomes reality then compulsion will mean you won't have the right to ride on the road anyway. We'll all be doing 12mph in the cycle lanes where we belong.


And getting doored. And colliding with suicidal peds. And dodging illegally parked cars.......


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Oct 2014)

People go on one holiday to Holland and think they know it all!

IMO cycling in Holland was crap anyway, kept riding into these idiots who were on the wrong side of the road. It's not like I wasn't stoned as fook or anything...


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

StuAff said:


> And getting doored. And colliding with suicidal peds. And dodging illegally parked cars.......


Wow, some people really love making stuff up to disagree with! David Hembrow's vision would surely be cycleways away from car doors and peds with enough policing to deal with illegal parking, no?

I don't agree with DH and especially not his communication style, but making stuff up about him seems rather unnecessary and rude.


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Wow, some people really love making stuff up to disagree with! David Hembrow's vision would surely be cycleways away from car doors and peds with enough policing to deal with illegal parking, no?
> 
> I don't agree with DH and especially not his communication style, but making stuff up about him seems rather unnecessary and rude.


So now these wonderful lanes require a special police force too? Brilliant!

Lanists = reality denialists...


----------



## StuAff (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Wow, some people really love making stuff up to disagree with! David Hembrow's vision would surely be cycleways away from car doors and peds with enough policing to deal with illegal parking, no?
> 
> I don't agree with DH and especially not his communication style, but making stuff up about him seems rather unnecessary and rude.


I wasn't talking about Hembrow. Neither was @w00hoo_kent as it happens.


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> So now these wonderful lanes require a special police force too? Brilliant!


Not a special police force. Just the current ones to do their jobs properly, which would benefit everyone, whether they ride on roads or cycle tracks, or drive or walk or... www.RoadJustice.org.uk is one campaign by some cycling groups, but there are others.

It's particularly annoying to have "Get In The Cycle Lane" abuse when the lane has been blocked by a bad motorist. I've even had it when the lane was closed by the police following a collision... and the onlooking police did nothing. :-/



StuAff said:


> I wasn't talking about Hembrow. Neither was @w00hoo_kent as it happens.


Sorry the quoting in post #446 confused me. I doubt whoever you were talking about holds the views you've made up, either.


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Not a special police force. Just the current ones to do their jobs properly, which would benefit everyone, whether they ride on roads or cycle tracks, or drive or walk or... www.RoadJustice.org.uk is one campaign by some cycling groups.
> 
> 
> Sorry the quoting in post #446 confused me. I doubt whoever you were talking about holds the views you've made up, either.


Fair enough, but overall, we are never going to agree. I loathe cycle lanes and strongly believe that taking it further and littering the roads with segregated cycleways will only make things worse for cyclists. Journey times will be increased, there will be more confrontation, and the numbers cycling will fall.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Sorry the quoting in post #446 confused me. I doubt whoever you were talking about holds the views you've made up, either.


That's fine.

My comment is based on my expectation of what will happen if loads of money is spent on these shiny new space taking cycle lanes. As has been mentioned a lot here, look to the Dutch experience. I've ridden in Amsterdam a bit, you don't ride on the roads and the cycle lane riding experience might be safer, but it is not better. Average speeds do drop and there is conflict with peds. Out of town they are quite nice, but then the roads are also pretty empty so they aren't really needed and they are still slower (and glass is a thing.)

I think that it is possible segregation will increase the number of bicycle users, but it'll be to the detriment of the number of cyclists (Feel free to interpret those terms to whatever degree you fancy, but I'm not intending either to be derogatory) and the riding that a lot of us do around town at the moment will suffer for it. Spending the equivalent money on policing the roads using the existing laws could have a better effect, it's where I'd prefer efforts were directed. Although unfortunately it's unlikely to gel with the agendas at work. There is a difference between a good campaign, and a campaign that is likely to be approved. I believe sometimes bodies campaigning for change lose sight of the best option because they are busy focusing on the option most likely to win and that is not always the right thing because they end up following the wrong persons agenda and refusing to admit it.


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> Fair enough, but overall, we are never going to agree. I loathe cycle lanes and strongly believe that taking it further and littering the roads with segregated cycleways will only make things worse for cyclists. Journey times will be increased, there will be more confrontation, and the numbers cycling will fall.


Well, you're probably right that we won't agree about cycle lanes completely. I think a few, done well (which is usually how they fail) and used sparingly on major roads will improve things. It's unlikely that rider numbers there will fall further because those few still riding on those roads will probably continue despite anything, including attempts at legal prohibition I suspect. Cycle lanes there should shorten journey times overall because of the riders who are currently taking indirect routes to avoid those roads... or joining the traffic jams in cars instead.

If someone doesn't want to use a cycle lane then I'll defend their right to ride in the mixed lane to the end. I've spoken out at a council meeting (technically heckling I think, but that council isn't great at enforcing procedure) against a councillor who asked the police "how can we force cyclists to use the cycle path?" (that one is unsuitable for an unladen hybrid above 10mph average speed, so the racers going to/from the local TT circuit would do themselves a mischief if they used it) and it sucks that police officers either don't know or aren't willing to explain the law to councillors, or explain that this is a problem basically caused by past councils cutting corners, building shoddy junk and ultimately wasting their money.

On most roads, it'll be far better to have more "no through motors" and 20mph zones than to build cycle lanes. Maybe we can agree on that, at least?


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> On most roads, it'll be far better to have more "no through motors" and 20mph zones than to build cycle lanes. Maybe we can agree on that, at least?


Yup!

Have been meaning to write a lengthy post about my experiences in the USA, might get round to it in light of this thread!


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Spending the equivalent money on policing the roads using the existing laws could have a better effect, it's where I'd prefer efforts were directed.


I'd agree with that. I'm trying to balance campaigning for better policing with for better infrastructure and I suspect many other groups are doing the same. At the moment, the money is going into infrastructure, but the basic design changes are lagging behind, so we're essentially spending a lot of effort trying to stop councils building good-looking badly-designed stuff for a while until the "cycle-proofing" idea helps to fix the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, and first do the cheaper but more useful infrastructure that is possible (20mph, "except cycles" and so on). Where they won't stop, we're trying to mitigate the worst dangers of either the new bits (Lynnsport Access roads) or what's currently there (the notorious "please wait here while an incoming bus runs you over" bike lane in the Lynn bus station entrance).

I don't know all campaign groups, but I don't think ours is good at predicting which campaigns will win (I didn't expect Norfolk County Council to start removing "motorcycle" barriers at last, for example), so the active campaigns are often determined by which ones cyclists are willing to work on, as long as they're on-message. Our current headline efforts are RoadJustice and space4cycling (which includes 20mph, "except cycles" and more, as well as cycle lanes on major routes) partly because we share them with sister groups like LCC and CTC, and so they take up less of our local resources.

space4cycling is taking up more resources than Road Justice, but that's because the highway authorities are doing more infrastructure stuff and we have to react, else what we will get will be even worse (we've seen this in the past - what Norfolk builds now isn't good but it's less awful) and the police don't seem to be doing so much traffic policing.

LCC is probably different because 1% or whatever of London is a lot more than 1% of any other group's area, and CTC is national, but elsewhere it's as much a do-ocracy as a democracy. If you want to shape cycle campaigns, get involved. You probably won't convince enough campaigners that cycle lanes are never a good option, but if you know the evidence then you can probably encourage restraint where something else would be better.


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Dildo covers?


Cock puppets ....


----------



## StuAff (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Sorry the quoting in post #446 confused me. I doubt whoever you were talking about holds the views you've made up, either.


Nothing made up there. Genuine risks I see and experience on segregated lanes.


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

StuAff said:


> Nothing made up there. Genuine risks I see and experience on segregated lanes.


Yes, they're risks, but they're not part of anyone's vision!

I realise it's a problem because I'm often trying to get things like http://pic.twitter.com/AhdxMmJHfw stopped but again we come back to more money spent on traffic policing being the thing we need most, whether we're riding on or off road.


----------



## zimzum42 (1 Oct 2014)

Gosh, this Twitter thing has been revealing! I never knew there were these zealots out there promoting the idea of segregation so strongly. We're buggered, the way these guys are campaigning they'll probably get their way and London will ruined with a network of crappy lanes and unnecessary kerbs... :-(


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

If London gets "crappy lanes" then they haven't got their way (as far as I can tell, their way is decent width and good surfacing and so on). "Unnecessary kerbs"... well they should be unnecessary but motors don't stay out of bike lanes... but they still don't stay out with kerbs, as I see all too often near me, so I think I'd say superfluous kerbs...


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User13710 said:


> Actually, the Netherlands had been mentioned before you arrived here, but people had moved on. Then you came along and mentioned it yourself in your second post on page 10.



Your talent for exasperating sense may be accidental, but let us for our amusement retell the history with some facts left in.

You tell me London cannot have Dutch Infra because the streets are narrower in London than Dutch cities eg Utrecht etc.

I tell you that's complete tosh, as anyone with a ferry ticket and a tape measure may verify.

You then tell me that there's no call to go measuring up abroad.


Now, for the love of God, Gear Ratios and the Wiggins Sideburns, will you please tell me how you are supposed to discover whether X is or is not narrower than Y, if you make a special point of ignoring Y?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> Is this the Beggar Knocker's twitter profile?
> 
> https://twitter.com/AsEasyAsRiding
> 
> Seems some of us are gaining fame on the twattersphere...



I can confirm my name is not and never has been Mark Treasure.

But I enjoyed your remarkable assumption that at most one person can have anything like Mark's views.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User13710 said:


> Again, whoever you are, calm down and read the words properly. I haven't had any of those exchanges with you. You just keep being rude and sarcastic. And you still haven't answered the simple question that people keep asking you.



Plural of 'you' is 'you'.



User said:


> You are not answering the question. Do we have space for a complete network of segregated facilities throughout?



We have just as much space as the Netherlands- which you, singular, asserted we do not. 

In saying this you, singular, stated a falsehood demonstrable as such by the use of any measuring device and ferry ticket.

Then you, singular, argued that ferry travel was entirely superflous, as you planned on comparing x and y mainly by looking at x -and carefully avoiding any examination of y.

This was the point at which I suspected you might be entirely potty (plural and singular).


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

User13710 said:


> Coloured tarmac, kerbs, bollards, nothing keeps motors out round here. And for the life of me I can't see what this 'cycle lane' is meant to achieve anyway.
> View attachment 57891


It's a slalom bypass, isn't it? That's a whole other world of pain, so-called "traffic calming" which actually throws cyclists into manufactured conflict with other traffic. Not likely to result in good cycleways. Even if the car wasn't parked blocking it, it would probably be full of debris thrown into it by the vehicles swerving through.


----------



## subaqua (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> I can confirm my name is not and never has been Mark Treasure.
> 
> But I enjoyed your remarkable assumption that at most one person can have anything like Mark's views.


lots of people have the same views. they call themselves the LCC. and they claim to represent london cyclists. well sorry , but they don't represent ALL. a lot of the \lcc ideas are half baked


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User13710 said:


> Really? I thought DZ was quoting you, when you said this: [...]
> Which was only just over a week ago.



Hello User13710. Here's the bit from DZ I was summarising when I mentioned various church denominations, and when I pointed out that he was implying a likeness between lorry-cycle interaction and the Notting Hill Carnival:



dellzeqq said:


> There's a gap between the employment prospects of young afro-Caribbean men and young white men. But (and this is a huge but) people still live, work, walk, shop, and worship cheek by jowl - at least in the inner zones. That's the bit the LCC simply does not or will not get. They would have us in our little lanes, separate...



We've heard this all before- over and over again: the theme that dedicated provision for bicycles is akin to the segregation of races. The claim is always silly, but it is never more ridiculous than when taken to DZ's extremes.


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> lots of people have the same views. they call themselves the LCC. and they claim to represent london cyclists. well sorry , but they don't represent ALL. a lot of the \lcc ideas are half baked


Where do they make that claim? I think LCC is usually pretty clear they're 12,000 members trying to be a voice for cyclists and those who want to cycle in London, like on http://lcc.org.uk/pages/who-we-are


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> where?





dellzeqq said:


> where?



Here:


dellzeqq said:


> There's a gap between the employment prospects of young afro-Caribbean men and young white men. But (and this is a huge but) people still live, work, walk, shop, and worship cheek by jowl - at least in the inner zones. That's the bit the LCC simply does not or will not get. They would have us in our little lanes, separate



As for your suggestion I move to Utrecht if I like it there, I too can think of silly ways of saying flock off without actually saying it.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

Dear God.

I'm currently conversing with people who don't like it that lots of people are going to use the EW &NS London cycle routes when they open. The consultation has gone 'live' as they say in the jargon, and there are plans published here there and everywhere. Do you God, have any part in my getting challenged along these lines:



dellzeqq said:


> Show me a drawing.





User said:


> you need to draw up the scale plans



If it isn't you, God, which of the Powers is it, do you think?


----------



## subaqua (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> *Where do they make that claim*? I think LCC is usually pretty clear they're *12,000 members trying to be a voice for cyclists and those who want to cycle in London*, like on http://lcc.org.uk/pages/who-we-are




sort of answers your own question.that is a claim they represent london cyclists. 

I got shouted at waaaay back on this thread by the Waltham forest LCC rep ( i think ) when I commented the Newham rep was a joke. especially when encouraging antisocial cycling on a feeder ride to an LCC organised demonstration. 

that certainly is NOT the voice i want to be heard for me


----------



## subaqua (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Dear God.
> 
> I'm currently conversing with people who don't like it that lots of people are going to use the EW &NS London cycle routes when they open. The consultation has gone 'live' as they say in the jargon, and there are plans published here there and everywhere. Do you God, have any part in my getting challenged along these lines:
> 
> ...




do you think it might be a better use of taxpayers money if they delay the one that will be ripped up within 12 months for the tideway tunnel construction


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> You are entitled to your opinion. You have missed the most compelling evidence though, that I am bothering to engage with a cyclist who has no interest in contributing anything to a cycling forum, other than this one issue.
> 
> For clarity though, no I do not need to go anywhere. If you wish to convince people though, you need to draw up the scale plans showing how you intend to carve up the space. Not the whole of London right now, that would be unreasonable. Perhaps just a one kilometer square. You choose


I must have missed the bit where knocksofbeggarmen admitted being an urban planner. London's streets are wide enough and because most of the city has been rebuilt repeatedly, there's surely space for cycling. It's a question of setting priorities and then letting the experts come up with the detailed plans, not producing our own detailed plans first, which will be out-of-date before they're ever built. There are loads of posts from people like favourite-of-this-parish David Hembrow documenting how changing priorities in the Netherlands changed the space distribution there over the years, like http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/10/transformation-of-city-centre-street.html or http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/09/transformation-in-centre-of-hoogeveen.html

Unlike our Dutch cousins, I suggest we're still in full-on motor-prioritisation in most of this country, even in urban centres, and that should change, whatever form it takes.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> do you think it might be a better use of taxpayers money if they delay the one that will be ripped up within 12 months for the tideway tunnel construction



No, because it won't be 'ripped up'. We are talking about less than a hundred yards, over which TfL have said there is going to be a replacement segregated bike provision during works, at the expense of motor vehicle space.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Nurse, he's out of bed again.


I love you too.


----------



## subaqua (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> No, because it won't be 'ripped up'. We are talking about less than a hundred yards, over which TfL have said there is going to be a replacement segregated bike provision during works, at the expense of motor vehicle space.


and you believe everything TfL says ?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> and you believe everything TfL says ?


In this case it forms part of the consultation undertakings. In other words they'd get sued.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Are they wide enough to provide segregated provision throughout? If you would like to convince me of this, please show some plans.


I don't understand why you think 'show me it can be done throughout' is a challenge to a plan that shows it can be done on specific routes


----------



## subaqua (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> In this case it forms part of the consultation undertakings. In other words they'd get sued.



consultation .... which one has the permissions and has the government backings. things change greatly between consultation and implementation. 

and even 100 yds is still wasting money isn't it


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> In this case it forms part of the consultation undertakings. In other words they'd get sued.



Indeed, much easier to provide a temporary cycle route countinuation over a sewer works area than to cater for existing motor traffic - think of the axle weight.


----------



## subaqua (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Indeed, much easier to provide a temporary cycle route countinuation over a sewer works area than to cater for existing motor traffic - think of the axle weight.


you don't have much civil engineering experience then


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> sort of answers your own question.that is a claim they represent london cyclists.


No, it's a claim that they represent 12,000 London cyclists and are trying to do what they consider best for everyone.


> I got shouted at waaaay back on this thread by the Waltham forest LCC rep ( i think ) when I commented the Newham rep was a joke. especially when encouraging antisocial cycling on a feeder ride to an LCC organised demonstration.


Where was that then? I can't see how to search this thread and about the only response I see you had was this:


Gerhard said:


> I don't think there is any need for that. You are free to stand for that voluntary role and be less of a joke any time.





subaqua said:


> that certainly is NOT the voice i want to be heard for me


Oh well, I hope you're either campaigning for yourself or have joined one/some of the other organisations then and aren't just whinging on CC ;-)


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> even 100 yds is still wasting money isn't it



It isn't 100 yards. And it sure as hell isn't wasting money if it saves lives, increases transport capacity and reduces pollution.



subaqua said:


> you don't have much civil engineering experience then



This is your response to my observation that cars and lorries weigh more than bicycles? If I had civil engineering experience ,I would be a wiser man and know that bicycles weigh more than Lorries?


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Are they wide enough to provide segregated provision throughout? If you would like to convince me of this, please show some plans.


As well as quoting "It's a question of setting priorities and then letting the experts come up with the detailed plans, not producing our own detailed plans first, which will be out-of-date before they're ever built" maybe try comprehending it? I'm not a highways designer either and even if I were, would I have time to work for free just to best you in an argument?

Pick whatever street you like. It may take some tough choices. It may involve redirecting other traffic or worse. Unless it's a narrow foot-only alley, there is space. The question is more whether space for cycling (whatever form it takes - not only kerb-protected lanes) is important enough that the politicians will reallocate it to us. As the old habits fail to address congestion, obesity, pollution and so on, it becomes more likely.


----------



## subaqua (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> It isn't 100 yards. And it sure as hell isn't wasting money if it saves lives, increases transport capacity and reduces pollution.
> 
> 
> 
> This is your response to my observation that cars and lorries weigh more than bicycles? If I had civil engineering experience ,I would be a wiser man and know that bicycles weigh more than Lorries?




no you would know that providing infrastructure is easy as it is going to be needed to construct the tideway tunnels . don't be obtuse.

the area is going to be heavily congested due to construction and i would like to use roads andnot be abused by taxi drivers etc for being in the road. you just know what abuse is going to happen . "use your special lane you exdel " etc


----------



## subaqua (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> No, it's a claim that they represent 12,000 London cyclists and are trying to do what they consider best for everyone.
> 
> Where was that then? I can't see how to search this thread and about the only response I see you had was this:
> 
> ...




well if lobbying local councillors and the MPs for my work and home constituencies counts as campaigning then yes i am. 

what is your opinion of LCC reps for boroughs encouraging antisocial cycling along riverfront routes where there are specific prohibitions and lots of more vulnerable people ( pedestrians) . Really sets a good example to potential members , although if thats your thing fill yer boots


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> As I may have said before, this is not a school debating society. This is a discussion about how to go about best promoting and protecting a personal freedom, to ride one's bicycle where and when one likes.


Ah, so you are angling to the 'right to ride' your bike on the Motorways... which the CTC were partly responsible for bringing about as segregated infrastructure in the first place. What were they thinking? They were thinking motorways would free up the rest of the road network for cycling and so avoid the dreaded segregated bicycle lane..... D'oh!


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> As I may have said before, this is not a school debating society. This is a discussion about how to go about best promoting and protecting a personal freedom, to ride one's bicycle where and when one likes.


Actually, it started by saying that LCC liked the Stratford floating bus stop design - which they don't quite, calling it "rather narrow and the kerbs are too high" in http://lcc.org.uk/articles/mayors-c...-step-towards-going-dutch-for-london-cyclists but as they say "the principle is sound" because they've been used for years in other cities like Cambridge without problems - and somehow early participants seem to think that LCC designed these specially for TfL.

Isn't the best way to protect your freedom to ride in the mixed lane a little education and more law enforcement? Why try to deny other types of rider their chosen space?

The nutter on your back wheel hurling abuse if you're in the mixed lane will be doing it whether or not there's a cycleway nearby. Surely many of you have had "get off the road" abuse when there wasn't a cycleway nearby, or is that just me? We even had one poor misguided local here write into the newspaper calling for cyclists to use a non-existant cycleway instead of riding on the road across a river bridge.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/07/vehicular-cyclists-secret-sect.html

'The first colleague, upon hearing this explanation, merely said, "Do these people hit their children, too?"
I couldn't confirm that they did, but I suggested that they made 'vroom vroom' sounds when cycling in traffic.'


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> what is your opinion of LCC reps for boroughs encouraging antisocial cycling along riverfront routes where there are specific prohibitions and lots of more vulnerable people ( pedestrians) . Really sets a good example to potential members , although if thats your thing fill yer boots


I think it's wrong. On one ride with another Cyclenation group (not LCC), we did use a footway which you're not meant to ride on, so I brought it up with the ride guide, he said it was a mistake (easily done that one I think, because neighbouring sections of footway are shared-use) and the next time through that area we went a different way. 

If you got no joy on the ride, did you try telling LCC HQ about this? I'd be surprised if it's encouraged.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Straw man argument.



Oh dear.

Earlier I had to explain the term 'Ad Hominem'.

Now I'm going to tell you what a 'Straw Man Argument' is.

A 'straw man argument' is when you present your opponent as having said something he never said, in order to make it appear that in refuting the misattributed claim, you have refuted that claim he actually made.

Now in this case, the claim **you actually made was**



User said:


> This is a discussion about how to go about best promoting and protecting a personal freedom, to ride one's bicycle where and when one likes.



See, it's part of the meaning of 'straw man argument' that if I treat you as having said something you actually have said, that's not a straw man argument.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

Some come on then- and I will accept answers from all comers -are you or are you not campaigning to create a right to cycle on motorways? If not, why not?


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Some come on then- and I will accept answers from all comers -are you or are you not campaigning to create a right to cycle on motorways? If not, why not?


I am not campaigning for this only because I've other things I'd rather see happen first. The hard shoulders of motorways are a damn sight better than the gutter lanes painted on some Highways Agency roads like the A5 (former A5D) through Milton Keynes. https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/idiots/


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

Several people evidently wish to cycle on Motorways- they get arrested just often enough for it to become a theme in certain newspapers. Do you think the law should be reformed to reflect Adrian's point that



User said:


> This is a discussion about how to go about best promoting and protecting a personal freedom, to ride one's bicycle where and when one likes.



YES/NO ?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I am not campaigning for this only because I've other things I'd rather see happen first. The hard shoulders of motorways are a damn sight better than the gutter lanes painted on some Highways Agency roads like the A5 (former A5D) through Milton Keynes.



The thing I'd like to see happen first is mass cycling.

What I can't get my head around is, why the cycling demographic that would be involved in any forseeable mass cycling could possibly want the right to cycle on the M4.

Of course you are right that 'The hard shoulders of motorways are a damn sight better than the gutter lanes painted on some Highways Agency roads' but you may be aware that you are not supposed to be cycling in either place - and that the Vehicular Cycling argument was actually decisive in the creation segregated motor-only routes.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> As the newt says, you are being silly. Of course I am not campaigning for a right to ride on motorways, in exactly the same way that I am not campaigning for a right to ride the corridors of Buckingham Palace or on the tracks of the East Coast line. We are talking about the road network, so let's try to keep it there eh?



And is the M4 not a road?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User13710 said:


> You're just being silly now.



How is that, my sensible friend? Is it because I've put my finger on a damn obvious hole in your argument?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Not in the sense we are discussing no.



Ha ha ha ha


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Not in the sense we are discussing no.



Right so, the M4 is not a Road in the sense we are discussing- which is the sense of, a Road we would like to Cycle on.

Well I Put It To You, Mr Adrian, that if each man is allowed to define 'Road' as just those things he wants to cycle on, then the Roads of London are not 'Roads', as far as the vast majority of the populace are concerned.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> You do understand that motorways are all built under specific acts of parliament and don't form part of the Queen's highway? As such they were all built without provision for several classes of road user, including cyclists.



Ha ha ha ha.

YES!!!!

Ha ha ha.

It was organised that way to satisfy people who where arguing against segregated paths for bicycles!!!!

The all clamoured to segregate THE CARS!


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> I will give you the credit that you posted this nonsense before reading my post above.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

For the information of those in doubt, the M4 is a road.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

Also the roads of london- they are roads. Which is to say: no one gets to change the definition of 'road' to get out of a hole they've stuck themselves in.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> the area is going to be heavily congested due to construction and i would like to use roads andnot be abused by taxi drivers etc for being in the road. you just know what abuse is going to happen . "use your special lane you exdel " etc



You are seriously saying that taxi drivers don't know any other swear words?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> All those roads in London I have a right to ride on. M4 motorway I do not, nor have I ever had. This distinction is what makes you initially silly, but now tedious diversion a straw man argument.



Look- WHY don't you have a right to ride on the M4? Please reflect.

There is a historical and a logical explanation.

Both explanations have the potential to cause enlightenment about dutch infra, if you were to focus. 

Think, why don't you have a right to ride on the M4?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Do not look to patronise me.



I'm inviting you to answer a question. Will you do so?


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> I used the term road myself. That aside yes those are what we need.


I used "mixed lane" because I thought you didn't want to use cycle lanes even if they're on- road.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> initially silly, but now tedious, diversion a straw man argument.



As earlier observed, you are only using the words 'straw man argument' in the sense of 'boo'. There is a fuller meaning to the expression that I tried to bring to your attention.

You said you wanted the freedom to ride where you like. Some like to ride on Motorways. Ergo...


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> No, I have explained that I view motorways as irrelevant here.



I think I now have to explain what the words 'explained' and 'explanation' mean.

You have *stated* that you view motorways as irrelevant to your argument.

For your *explanation* of why they are irrelevant, I fear we are still waiting.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

You (plural, singular) said you wanted the freedom to ride where you like. Some like to ride on Motorways. Ergo...


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> As I said, silly but now tedious.



Saying you don't like my questions is not a way of answering them.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> There is nothing of any value to answer.


“Questions are like the knocks of beggarmen, and should not be minded.”


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

“What you think is the point is not the point at all but only the beginning of the sharpness.”

“Descartes spent far too much time in bed subject to the persistent hallucination that he was thinking. You are not free from a similar disorder.”


----------



## theclaud (1 Oct 2014)

Crikey! This KnOB fellow doesn't half get excited.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I must have missed the bit where knocksofbeggarmen admitted being an urban planner. London's streets are wide enough and because most of the city has been rebuilt repeatedly, there's surely space for cycling. .


show us the drawwing


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> show us the drawwing


Dammit TfL have published a total of 18 drawings for the E-W route alone.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Yes but why only on this one subject? Why never on the truly vexatious issues?



You've already answered this question- the only possible explanation for my annoying you with questions you don't wish to answer is that I am a sick sockpuppet in the pay of a major international conglomerate involved in a conspiracy for Cyclepath World Domination.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> All those roads in London I have a right to ride on. M4 motorway I do not, nor have I ever had. This distinction is what makes you initially silly, but now tedious, diversion a straw man argument.


I've done it out to Junction 6

Knobbers, old son, you're winding yourself up something chronic.

I'll summarise

The evidence is (check this very forum) that segregation increases cycling deaths per million miles
There isn't space for the kind of segregation you propose
When space is found (CS2 - at the expense of a bus lane) it's nowhere near as successful as bus lanes (CS7)
Segregation is uncivil and makes walking and bus travel less pleasant
There's no strategic benefit in mass cycling - CS7 is at capacity, and yet the contribution it makes bears no comparison to the humble bus.
The scheme for the Embankment (were it to happen, which I doubt) will ruin a wonderful bike ride - and I take that personally


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Dammit TfL have published a total of 18 drawings for the E-W route alone.


yes, and they're all horrible. That's the point. Zimmers picked on the Embankment, because it's particularly horrible and messes up a perfectly lovely bike ride.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Actually I was just thinking, mudguards a useful addition to a road bike, yes or no?


now you've gone just that little bit too far. I'm betting Knobbers has three on his bike.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> yes, and they're all horrible. That's the point. Zimmers picked on the Embankment, because it's particularly horrible and messes up a perfectly lovely bike ride.



Newsflash. What you happen to consider a perfectly lovely bike ride, whether riding to the coast in company or otherwise, is not ipso-facto the *definition* of a perfectly lovely bike ride.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Actually I was just thinking, mudguards a useful addition to a road bike, yes or no?



Yes. Ditto Dynamo, and I'm saving up to get the best.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> The evidence is (check this very forum) that segregation increases cycling deaths per million miles



Blimey. You really have bitten the bullet. Black is not only white, but the sparkliest most reflective sort of white. I'm sure you wouldn't resent linking to this, er, "evidence" right here.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> There's no strategic benefit in mass cycling - CS7 is at capacity, and yet the contribution it makes bears no comparison to the humble bus.



It is extraordinary that you have CS7 confused with mass cycling- and I'm sure you have the figures to back up that "no contribution" claim. Surely.


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> show us the drawwing


Sure, right after you show us where LCC made or took ownership of the bike lane on Stratford High Street.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> I've done it [the M4] out to Junction 6



Fantastic. That's that argument settled. Anyone got Junction 7 up their leg warmers?


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cyclecraft-is-destroying-uk-cycling.76418/ 

it takes a bit of reading, but you'll get there...................


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> It is extraordinary that you have CS7 confused with mass cycling.


now we're dredging the depths of your delusions. I rode down CS7 this morning and this evening. I'd say cycles outnumbered all other vehicles by two to one and private cars by a lot more. Having said that, a far greater number of people were in buses than on bikes - a choice that is every bit, if not more commendable


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Sure, right after you show us where LCC made or took ownership of the bike lane on Stratford High Street.


http://lcc.org.uk/articles/bow-to-s...-adopt-dutch-principles-for-cycling-provision


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cyclecraft-is-destroying-uk-cycling.76418/
> 
> it takes a bit of reading, but you'll get there...................



Yep, that's you NOT linking to the evidence you claimed to have, you patronising gentleman, you.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> http://lcc.org.uk/articles/bow-to-s...-adopt-dutch-principles-for-cycling-provision


No, that's ownership of the Principle, NOT execution.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> now we're dredging the depths of your delusions. I rode down CS7 this morning and this evening. I'd say cycles outnumbered all other vehicles by two to one and private cars by a lot more. Having said that, a far greater number of people were in buses than on bikes - a choice that is every bit, if not more commendable



Please look up a sensible definition of 'mass cycling'.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Yep, that's you NOT linking to the evidence you claimed to have, you patronising gentleman, you.


you've read the entire thread? Including the bit where I telephone the DfT for the numbers?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> you've read the entire thread? Including the bit where I telephone the DfT for the numbers?


Perfect! Only by telephone is the truth divulged. No numbers are actually published otherwise. 

You can link to the VERY NUMBERS THEMSELVES -if they exist.


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

knockerofbeggarmen said:


> Blimey. You really have bitten the bullet. Black is not only white, but the sparkliest most reflective sort of white. I'm sure you wouldn't resent linking to this, er, "evidence" right here.



What about https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064866 ? ;-)


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> What about https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064866 ? ;-)



Yes, you can do that kind of study- or you can just compare injury rates in the Netherlands with those in the UK. Since bigger sample, more robust. Turns out it shows the same effect, but a hell of a lot more of it.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> It is extraordinary that you have CS7 confused with mass cycling- and I'm sure you have the figures to back up that "no contribution" claim. Surely.


yes I do. I sometimes take the bus, and it's not at all difficult to count the buses, estimate the passengers and count the cyclists between each bus. And there are always many more people on the buses than on bikes. Not that I'm complaining - fortyfive years ago it would have been just me riding up the Clapham Road and now it's a swirling crocodile of bikes of all sorts and sizes. That makes my heart sing, but it doesn't blind me to the facts.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> What about https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064866 ? ;-)


read the thread. The calculation is subtle (and tendencious) but the result is the result


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> http://lcc.org.uk/articles/bow-to-s...-adopt-dutch-principles-for-cycling-provision


That seems to be a link saying they liked the look of the consultation. I don't know whether things changed, but anyway it's hardly LCC designing or taking ownership.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

Wow. Now 'no contribution' means 


dellzeqq said:


> there are always many more people on the buses than on bikes



Insane.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> That seems to be a link saying they liked the look of the consultation. I don't know whether things changed, but anyway it's hardly LCC designing or taking ownership.



Quite. Some of the logic on this tread is hilarious.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> read the thread. The calculation is subtle (and tendencious) but the result is the result


Ha haha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

Oh dear, I fear I need to get subtle and tenacious about my dinner. So long folks.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Wow. Now 'no contribution' means.


show me where I wrote 'no contribution'....


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

I'm halfway to Sort...............


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> read the thread. The calculation is subtle (and tendencious) but the result is the result


I've read the first few pages (of 52!) and it's already contained the same sorry mistakes about MK as this thread, so why is its calculation going to be more accurate? Now this thread seems to suggest its using unpublished numbers. Can't we use published studies instead? I'll even cede that their conclusions are mixed and it's not conclusive.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I've read the first few pages (of 52!) and it's already contained the same sorry mistakes about MK as this thread, so why is its calculation going to be more accurate? Now this thread seems to suggest its using unpublished numbers. Can't we use published studies instead? I'll even cede that their conclusions are mixed and it's not conclusive.


the reason I had to call the DfT is that they didn't then (and may still not) publish numbers for miles cycled in London.............


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> the reason I had to call the DfT is that they didn't then (and may still not) publish numbers for miles cycled in London.............


Is that for the same reason that the number of cycling trips isn't published for local authority wards, that it's regarded as unsound by the Office for National Statistics?


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Is that for the same reason that the number of cycling trips isn't published for local authority wards, that it's regarded as unsound by the Office for National Statistics?


well, London is some 'ward', but they have the numbers. The sweet lady at the other end of the line was happy to look them up.They just didn't think anybody was interested. Which, by and large, they're not.

And I am now in Sort. Hooray!


----------



## StuAff (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Yes, they're risks, but they're not part of anyone's vision!
> 
> I realise it's a problem because I'm often trying to get things like http://pic.twitter.com/AhdxMmJHfw stopped but again we come back to more money spent on traffic policing being the thing we need most, whether we're riding on or off road.


That issue has absolutely nothing to do with infrastructure, however well-meaning that work might be. There are loads of 20 mph zones in Pompey. Change in drivers' attitude and improvements in cycling safety thereof? Naff all. Time and time again, pretty much once if not more every day, I have to duck next to parked cars on rat runs as drivers blantantly ignore the speed limit and my entirely legal presence on the road. I've been clipped and close-passed repeatedly. The very expensive cycle lane on Southsea seafront works, sort of, for bimblers and families. Apart from the repeated use of the eastern end as an illegal parking space, the risks of dooring and dopey peds stepping into it, the simple fact it's too narrow for faster riders in opposing directions, and for those faster riders doing the sensible thing and riding on the road instead, merely adds fuel to the moronic fire of those telling you that you should be in the cycle lane, even when you're doing 25+ mph... All the segregated lanes and all the 20 mph zones aren't worth anything without proper enforcement and, more importantly, a change in attitude, particularly the misguided and dangerous sense of superiority and entitlement that so many drivers have. If those were to change there would be no need to waste money on bits of blue/red paint and all the other **** certain campaigners want.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

Dictionary corner continues, but Susie Dent has the flu, and I'm not sure what Dictionary the Temp is consulting.



User13710 said:


> tedious trolling



Troll. Noun, 1. someone who finds your arguments laughable, and omits to keep his laughter to himself. 2. Anyone who suggests a Motorway might be a road.


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

I just bothered to look up cycling levels in Bracknell and Stevenage in the Cycling and Walking release from DfT, which are often claimed on this site to have the least cycling, alongside MK. I already posted that MK (18% cycling) is above the 15% average. Apparently Stevenage is below average at 11% and Bracknell Forest is higher at 21%. How does the claim they're all low keep getting repeated unchallenged? The actual places with least cycling are Luton, Barking and Dagenham, Hillingdon, and Blackburn, none of which are famous for their infrastructure.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I just bothered to look up cycling levels in Bracknell and Stevenage in the Cycling and Walking release from DfT, which are often claimed on this site to have the least cycling, alongside MK. I already posted that MK (20% cycling) is above the 15% average. Apparently Stevenage is below average at 11% and Bracknell Forest is higher at 21%. How does the claim they're all low keep getting repeated unchallenged? The actual places with least cycling are Luton, Barking and Dagenham, Hillingdon, and Blackburn, none of which are famous for their infrastructure.



What's that 15% an average of?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I just bothered to look up cycling levels in Bracknell and Stevenage in the Cycling and Walking release from DfT, which are often claimed on this site to have the least cycling, alongside MK. I already posted that MK (18% cycling) is above the 15% average. Apparently Stevenage is below average at 11% and Bracknell Forest is higher at 21%. How does the claim they're all low keep getting repeated unchallenged? The actual places with least cycling are Luton, Barking and Dagenham, Hillingdon, and Blackburn, none of which are famous for their infrastructure.



I'd not be surprised if a few fellows on Cyclechat were underestimating Stevenage mode share, but one can see from defects why it wouldn't have anything approaching NL rates.


----------



## Dan B (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> No, that's ownership of the Principle, NOT execution.


Oh, that sounds uncannily like the segregated E-W gutter along Torrington Place/Tavistock Place and roads adjacent. "It's great apart from being far too narrow but that wasn't our fault" - yes, but irrespective of who's fault it was, it's still so narrow that it's full, so cyclists would rather use/are force to use the road, and as a result drivers get aggressive with them for not being in the cycle lane.

So who _will_ own the execution? Because if nobody does then the principle alone is no more likely to deliver good results than the principle of "we can share the roads with cars we just need better enforcement against bad drivers" when nobody is prepared to execute on the enforcement (or to execute the bad drivers, even better ;-)

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/camden/campaigns/ssl-upgrade/index_html


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> What's that 15% an average of?


Percentage of population cycling regularly as in https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-area-walking-and-cycling-in-england-2010-11 - it's a generous measure but better than trying to use very small numbers to compare areas and includes all cycling and not only commuting.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Percentage of population cycling regularly as in https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-area-walking-and-cycling-in-england-2010-11 - it's a generous measure but better than trying to use very small numbers to compare areas and includes all cycling and not only commuting.



Right. Thanks. Percentage regularly cycling is a more impressive sounding number than the mode share, which is usually used for comparing UK &NL. And up to a point, percentage regularly cycling is a useful measure for distinguishing between UK locales , given they are at the low end of the mode share scale. . But I guess NL percentage regularly cycling must be in the 90's?? Genuine question- Does anyone even bother collecting the number?


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> So who _will_ own the execution?


The highway authority that built it. So in London that's TFL for major roads and borough councils otherwise. At worst, campaigners did enough to get them to build it, but not enough to build it right.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> Oh, that sounds uncannily like the segregated E-W gutter along Torrington Place/Tavistock Place and roads adjacent. "It's great apart from being far too narrow but that wasn't our fault" - yes, but irrespective of who's fault it was, it's still so narrow that it's full, so cyclists would rather use/are force to use the road, and as a result drivers get aggressive with them for not being in the cycle lane.
> 
> So who _will_ own the execution? Because if nobody does then the principle alone is no more likely to deliver good results than the principle of "we can share the roads with cars we just need better enforcement against bad drivers" when nobody is prepared to execute on the enforcement (or to execute the bad drivers, even better ;-)
> 
> http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/camden/campaigns/ssl-upgrade/index_html



There isn't any doubt at all who owns the execution. The council do, in this case.

The reason they put it in as narrow as that is that vehicular cyclists argued- as they have on this tread -that the lane would be unattractive to anyone wanting to get quickly from A-B, and only used by a small proportion of cyclists. But LOOK at it. It's a clear candidate for an upgrade displacing a lane of motor traffic- and campaigners are pressing this case now.

PS the same arguments from Vehicular Cycling fans that hampered Torrington are damaging Elephant & Castle now. What happens is you argue that lanes are only for 'slow cyclists', and presto, they build them too narrow for fast ones. It's a self defeating and circular argument: http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/dual-network-strikes-again/


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Right. Thanks. Percentage regularly cycling is a more impressive sounding number than the mode share, which is usually used for comparing UK &NL. And up to a point, percentage regularly cycling is a useful measure for distinguishing between UK locales , given they are at the low end of the mode share scale.


More importantly for this use, we don't have mode share figures for UK local areas, as far as I remember.

I don't know the NL stats on this - I've enough trouble keeping track of UK stats - but http://hedgehogcycling.co.uk/eurostat-cycling-attitudes-survey.html suggests it's 87%... but it puts UK at 31% so it's even more generous than the DfT one.


----------



## Dan B (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> There isn't any doubt at all who owns the execution. The council do, in this case.



Well, on the face of things at least that would seem to ensure the whole enterprise is screwed, because even supposing there wasn't a shadowy conspiracy of vehicular cyclists secretly running the country and thwarting plans at every turn, the council clearly aren't going to go up against the LTDA. Concepts are grand but it's always the execution that counts.


----------



## Dan B (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> At worst, campaigners did enough to get them to build it, but not enough to build it right.


Could you possibly explain what you mean by the first two words in that sentence? 

I can see one argument that substandard infrastructure (and anything you can't get two cargo bikes down in opposite directions without slowing to walking pace is, I venture to suggest, not _that_ great if you want to encourage utility cycling) is better than none because people will be persuaded into using it anyway and then we can demonstrate the need for better? It's certainly a point of view. It's not really so far removed from the "safety in numbers" argument that we should persuade people to take up cycling even though they don't feel safe so that more people wil cycle and then they'll feel safe - except that one of them relies on councils and the other only on the cyclists.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> the council clearly aren't going to go up against the LTDA.



Yes that's precisely what I meant by 'self defeating'.

'Circular' comes in when the argument takes a further turn, and the suggestion is made that since we aren't going to win, it would be better not to try.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

Bear in mind that Camden didn't need the LTDA to tell them to make the lanes as narrow as possible. They had loads of cyclechatters trying to achieve the same thing- in just the same way that an effort is being made to wreck current segregated infra.

Cyclist shoots himself in foot, blames Taxis.


----------



## Dan B (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Yes that's precisely what I meant by 'self defeating'.








Vehicular cyclists, which of you lot asked for this treat? If the person responsible does not own up up, the whole class will stay behind!


----------



## Dan B (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Bear in mind that Camden didn't need the LTDA to tell them to make the lanes as narrow as possible. They had loads of cyclechatters trying to achieve the same thing


Yes, I keep forgetting the potent political force that is CycleChat. It's a complete puzzle why Shaun hasn't been knighted yet


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> Vehicular cyclists, which of you lot asked for this treat? If the person responsible does not own up up, the whole class will stay behind!


The answer is ALL of them helped produce this- precisely by arguing that we would be better not even trying.


----------



## mjr (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> PS the same arguments from Vehicular Cycling fans that hampered Torrington are damaging Elephant & Castle now. What happens is you argue that lanes are only for 'slow cyclists', and presto, they build them too narrow for fast ones. It's a self defeating and circular argument: http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/dual-network-strikes-again/


I've read the Elephant and Castle consultation report. Did anyone actually make that argument or did TfL pull it out of their backside? I've had similar things said locally and I feel it could be a tactic to divide and conquer the local cycling groups.


----------



## Dan B (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> The answer is ALL of them helped produce this- precisely by arguing that we would be better not even trying.


They asked for the kerbs, did they? Someone must have done, I doubt they put them in just for fun


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> The answer is ALL of them helped produce this- precisely by arguing that we would be better not even trying.



Except that 'vehicular cyclist' isn't the right name here. We're all vehicular cyclists, with our well thumbed copies of cyclecraft, trying to survive with what we've got. But there is something distinctive about those that make of this a religion.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (1 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I've read the Elephant and Castle consultation report. Did anyone actually make that argument or did TfL pull it out of their backside? I've had similar things said locally and I feel it could be a tactic to divide and conquer the local cycling groups.


Absolutely they made that argument- I'm not clear if the consultation responses are published in full for that one, but on any project at all where they are, you find echoes of DZ (could be DZ himself) making arguments of that stamp.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> They asked for the kerbs, did they? Someone must have done, I doubt they put them in just for fun


You know what I'm saying, but I'll repeat it anyway. They asked that less money be spent on this, and that less road space be given to it. The argued that it would spoil a 'perfectly good ride'. And so they helped it to spoil rides.

It's incontestable that division within the UK cycling community is a factor in the @bollocksinfra we get served by the ministry of off-fob. I realise that some would rather this was solved by NO INFRA AT ALL, but the arguments to support this preference, extending even to the bizarre claim that the netherlands is more dangerous than the UK for cycling in, are frequently just daft.


----------



## theclaud (2 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I just bothered to look up cycling levels in Bracknell and Stevenage in the Cycling and Walking release from DfT, which are often claimed on this site to have the least cycling, alongside MK. I already posted that MK (18% cycling) is above the 15% average. Apparently Stevenage is below average at 11% *and Bracknell Forest is higher at 21%*. How does the claim they're all low keep getting repeated unchallenged? The actual places with least cycling are Luton, Barking and Dagenham, Hillingdon, and Blackburn, none of which are famous for their infrastructure.



Swinley is a major mtb destination - all great fun but bugger all to do with how people get around towns.


----------



## Pete Owens (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> There isn't any doubt at all who owns the execution. The council do, in this case.
> 
> The reason they put it in as narrow as that is that vehicular cyclists argued- as they have on this tread -that the lane would be unattractive to anyone wanting to get quickly from A-B,


Do yoiu have the faintest idea what the term vehicular cycling means - other than a term of abuse?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> Do yoiu have the faintest idea what the term vehicular cycling means - other than a term of abuse?


I expect you are the authority. I've only got a copy of Cyclecraft and a badge. I suppose what I should have said is- 'those who make a religion out of vehicular cycling' -given that I am. myself, a vehicular cyclist.


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> Could you possibly explain what you mean by the first two words in that sentence?


"At worst"? It means that I feel this was the most LCC could reasonably be blamed, that they had enough weight to make something happen but not enough weight to make the council ensure it was done right.

I don't agree with the argument that crap is worth having because it'll demonstrate demand. There are other ways to demonstrate demand.

Where I may differ from many on this forum is that I think good cycle lanes are possible... but in London, it's going to need reallocating some mixed lanes and I don't know if the authorities have the backbone to do it.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Where I may differ from many on this forum is that I think good cycle lanes are possible... but in London, it's going to need reallocating some mixed lanes and I don't know if the authorities have the backbone to do it.



Right. So they need that backbone stiffening- while in this forum at least (its a place of sorts) quite a lot of effort is going the other way.


----------



## Pete Owens (2 Oct 2014)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Pete, I found the report very interesting. Sorry if you've covered this already on this thread, but are you aware of any similar studies for rear lights that have 'laser lane' facility, where a red line shines either side of the bike?
> 
> Before reading the reports you linked, I considered them a good idea, now I'm not so sure.



And since then there has been more research on the subject:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457509001997

I doubt anyone has gone to the trouble of conducting research on such a little used gimmick - I think the projection would have a negative effect if anything as the projected virtual cycle lane is even narrower. However, I doubt there would be a significant effect as the driver would be so close by the time they saw the projection that they would already be commited to their overtaking trajectory.


----------



## Pete Owens (2 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Wow, some people really love making stuff up to disagree with! David Hembrow's vision would surely be cycleways away from car doors and peds with enough policing to deal with illegal parking, no?


Perhaps this sort of thing?


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2014)

theclaud said:


> Swinley is a major mtb destination - all great fun but bugger all to do with how people get around towns.


Looking at the cycle to work data, Bracknell Forest is only 2.2%, so still above average but not so much (and below MK) so you may be right. If you've better data, let's have it, but even so, still nothing like the least cycling in the country. For the 2011 census cycle to work data, that's Barnsley, NE Derbyshire and Rossendale.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

theclaud said:


> Swinley is a major mtb destination - all great fun but bugger all to do with how people get around towns.



Right. Has anyone looked up the 'regular cycling' numbers for the Netherlands, however..... http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/CyclingintheNetherlands2009.pdf


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> And since then there has been more research on the subject:
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457509001997
> 
> I doubt anyone has gone to the trouble of conducting research on such a little used gimmick - I think the projection would have a negative effect if anything as the projected virtual cycle lane is even narrower. However, I doubt there would be a significant effect as the driver would be so close by the time they saw the projection that they would already be commited to their overtaking trajectory.



Goodie- Here's a topic on which Pete Owens and I agree!


----------



## Pete Owens (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> The answer is ALL of them helped produce this- precisely by arguing that we would be better not even trying.


I always find it rather amusing to see proponents of this sort of thing attempt to blame those who opposed it when it turns out to be just as awful as we predicted.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> I always find it rather amusing to see proponents of this sort of thing attempt to blame those who opposed it when it turns out to be just as awful as we predicted.



If it is as awful as you predicted, why in God's name is it FULL OF CYCLISTS?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> If it is as awful as you predicted, why in God's name is it FULL OF CYCLISTS?



The lane is clearly defective- in that there's scarcely room for all the people who want to use it. But that is NOT the kind of 'defective' you attribute.

It should have been put in twice as big, and with a proper treatment at the junctions. Why wasn't it? Partly because people like you opposed the whole idea as a waste of money -which going by the numbers using it, it quite clearly is not.


----------



## Pete Owens (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> If it is as awful as you predicted, why in God's name is it FULL OF CYCLISTS?


Because cental London has lots of cyclists - and if you cram them together by restricting them to a narrow portion of a particular street then that will tend to become full.


knocksofbeggarmen said:


> I expect you are the authority. I've only got a copy of Cyclecraft and a badge. I suppose what I should have said is- 'those who make a religion out of vehicular cycling' -given that I am. myself, a vehicular cyclist.


Well since you claim to understand vehicular cycling then you would realise that the our opposition to this sort of thing is on the grounds of safety. One-way cycle tracks are bad enough - Two-way cycle tracks increase the risk at junctions by an order of magnitude. (look up the chapter on using cycle facilities and the extra skills required). I really can't for the life of me understand how you could possibly consider that wierd crossover and riding on the wrong side of the street to be remotely consistent with the principles of vehicular cycling.

I once had an exchange of views with Mark Treasure when I expressed the opinion that even if he thought that segregated cycle tracks were a good idea in theory they always worked out rubbish in practice (which is afterall the excuse offered by segregationists on this thread for why half a century of segregationist highway engineering has utterly failed to attract cycling). His response was that it was not inevitable - and gave the specific examples of 2-way cycle paths Tavistock Place http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/March2013
and Royal College Street - which has subsequently been dug up at enourmous expense due to its poor safety record.

So try not to make a fool of yourself by blaming opponents of these schemes - they were campaigned for by segregationists, built by segregationists (despite the opposition), defended after the event by segregationists and even hailed as examples to copy by segregationists.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Question:
If it is as awful as you predicted, why in God's name is it FULL OF CYCLISTS?

Answer:
Because cental London has lots of cyclists - and if you cram them together by restricting them to a narrow portion of a particular street then that will tend to become full.

.....Noises emerging listlessly from a head banging against a wall:

It's not a compulsory lane. Nor is it a compulsory street. Camden have not perfected a magic bike vortex, they have simply installed imperfect kerb separation. 

Look, there are maps of London bike traffic showing the intensity of traffic on that particular street. They go that way to take advantage of it. *I* go that way to take advantage of it.




Pete Owens said:


> I really can't for the life of me understand how you could possibly consider that wierd crossover and riding on the wrong side of the street to be remotely consistent with the principles of vehicular cycling.



Then perhaps you will stop trying- because as you might have noticed, I never said a single word in favour of the crossover. In my use of the lane, I don't do that bit- I turn north on Marchmont street.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> try not to make a fool of yourself by blaming opponents of these schemes



You calling me a fool won't stop me apportioning blame as I see fit- and you, Pete Owens, can have your share. In rejecting the whole idea of segregation, rather than criticising schemes on their merits, you help make cock ups like this. Two species are uniquely native to the UK cycling scene: Bollocks Infra and religious objectors opposed to any Infra at all. The relationship between the two is that of brotherhood- no, symbiosis.

Imagine where the Netherlands would be today if enough Pete Owenses had made their voices heard- they'd have tried to preserve DZ's notion of a 'perfectly good bike ride' by skimping on the infra for others- and they'd have made cock-ups like this.

The ministry of Off-Fob -who's telling them to fob off Segregationists with minimal space, minimal money, minimal everything? You are.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> So now these wonderful lanes require a special police force too?



Yeah right. Because its not like we'd want anyone to give a damn about illegal parking in general.


----------



## Pete Owens (2 Oct 2014)

Scene 1:
Jonny: "Daddy Daddy - look at me"
Daddy: "Don't play with those matches youll burn yourself"
Scene 2:
30 minutes later
Jonny: "Mummy Mummy - Ive burned myself"
Mummy: "Oh dear how did that happen"
Jonny: "It was all Dadd'ys fault - he told me not to play with matches"


----------



## Pete Owens (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Camden have not perfected a magic bike vortex, they have simply installed imperfect kerb separation.


Which apparently is the fault of those who asked them NOT to!


> Look, there are maps of London bike traffic showing the intensity of traffic on that particular street. They go that way to take advantage of it. *I* go that way to take advantage of it.


Which brings us back to the heat map of the 2011 census:
http://datashine.org.uk/#zoom=13&la...TTT&table=QS701EW&col=QS701EW0010&ramp=YlOrRd
Compare Camden (the pale yellow area to the left) with its enthusiasm for segregation - with Hackney (the deep red area to the right) and its scepticism.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> Scene 1:
> Jonny: "Daddy Daddy - look at me"
> Daddy: "Don't play with those matches youll burn yourself"
> Scene 2:
> ...



Gosh, analogies! They are fun. Two can play.

Jenny: "Daddy Daddy - meet my lovely new Boyfriend"
Daddy: "Don't have Boyfriends. They are Evil."
Scene 2:
10 years later
Jenny: "Mummy Mummy -my marriage is a wreck."
Mummy: "Oh dear how did that happen?"
Jenny: "It was all Daddy's fault - he scared off all the good ones."
Mummy: "I know, he's a twit. You never really developed a sense of yourself as a worthwhile partner."


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> Compare Camden (the pale yellow area to the left) with its enthusiasm for segregation - with Hackney (the deep red area to the right) and its scepticism.



"Enthusiasm?" Like hell. You are referring to how many miles of segregated provision exactly, on which types of road? The dutch model isn't either segregation or filtered permeability, it is both- deploying each technique on the appropriate roads by speed and volume. Deploying filtered perm. only Hackney has impressive numbers for the UK and seriously unimpressive numbers for the Netherlands. It would be even better with segregation provided on heavy traffic routes so that the filterd perm islands could get joined up, as is standard practice across the north sea. Probably Camden could do with more filtered perm- they also need better designed and located segregated provision. That means taking space from the motor car at torrington and elsewhere- which you refuse to support.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

By the way, the map you want Pete is a different one- showing bike traffic street by street, not point of origin street by street. I'll dig it up.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (2 Oct 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> And since then there has been more research on the subject:
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457509001997
> 
> I doubt anyone has gone to the trouble of conducting research on such a little used gimmick - I think the projection would have a negative effect if anything as the projected virtual cycle lane is even narrower. However, I doubt there would be a significant effect as the driver would be so close by the time they saw the projection that they would already be commited to their overtaking trajectory.



Thanks for the reply. I'll have a read of the link later, but so far it sounds logical to me. I feel the laser lights are unusual enough to make drivers notice them. and hopefully me, which is what I'm after.


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Where I may differ from many on this forum is that I think good cycle lanes are possible... but in London, it's going to need reallocating some mixed lanes and I don't know if the authorities have the backbone to do it.


Trivially, good cycle lanes are possible if you simply ban motor vehicles from parts of the existing road network. The resulting lanes will be level, regularly swept, less likely to develop drainage problems, and wide. Wide is important because users need to avoid debris in the road, for faster cyclists can safely overtake slow ones, and there is a much better chance of not hitting unthinking pedestrians when (not if) they step off the kerb without looking. That is the standard that segregated infra needs to attain if you want my support for it, but nobody in London yet has, and I see no appetite for changing that as long as campaigners carry on pushing for veloducts with kerbs each side to hold the cyclists in

[ Edit: I should clarify that a bit: yes, I agree with the 'backbone' comment: the political will for reallocating mixed-use roads as no-motor-vehicle roads is what's lacking, and by "trivial" I mean only that it's trivial to demonstrate that good seg infra is possible in theory, not that it would be in any way simple or easy to execute on in reality ]


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> Trivially, good cycle lanes are possible if you simply ban motor vehicles from parts of the existing road network. The resulting lanes will be level, regularly swept, less likely to develop drainage problems, and wide. Wide is important because users need to avoid debris in the road, for faster cyclists can safely overtake slow ones, and there is a much better chance of not hitting unthinking pedestrians when (not if) they step off the kerb without looking. That is the standard that segregated infra needs to attain if you want my support for it, but nobody in London yet has, and I see no appetite for changing that as long as campaigners carry on pushing for veloducts with kerbs each side to hold the cyclists in


A big part of my issue with the 'crossrail for bikes' plan in London is that it's a large two-way lane, so lots of overtaking in the oncoming lane and that kind of malarkey.

Plus the fact that it will be clogged with groups tourists on Boris Bikes...

Despite the protestations of the Twitter crew, I still reckon it will actually lead to fewer people cycling in the capital - they may claim greyer numbers, but most of them will be tourists and other day-trippers who would have been walking anyway


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> Despite the protestations of the Twitter crew, I still reckon it will actually lead to fewer people cycling in the capital - they may claim greyer numbers, but most of them will be tourists and other day-trippers who would have been walking anyway



Other than 'because I hate this' or similar, have you the slightest shred of evidence for your odd claim?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> Wide is important because users need to avoid debris in the road, for faster cyclists can safely overtake slow ones



Yes. You've just expressed support for Dutch design standards. So you will want to sign this petition: http://www.change.org/p/patrick-mcl...tainable-safety-principles-on-britain-s-roads


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Yes. You've just expressed support for Dutch design standards. So you will want to sign this petition: http://www.change.org/p/patrick-mcl...tainable-safety-principles-on-britain-s-roads


Sorry, but I have strict rationing on my change.org activity and I've signed one petition there today already


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Other than 'because I hate this' or similar, have you the slightest shred of evidence for your odd claim?


No, I just know London intimately and the second I saw the plans it was obvious it was a bad idea...

I'll just carry on riding on the main carriageway, but I resent you and the LCC etc making it more dangerous and confrontational for me just so you can fulfil your misguided 'Little Amsterdam' dreams...

By the way, relative to London, Amsterdam is a village, as is Utrecht. All the comparisons I see are entirely spurious.

Introducing a requirement for all learner drivers to have undertaken 10 hours of observed cycling before they get their license would do more for cycling than any of your posy lanes and segregation


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> Sorry, but I have strict rationing on my change.org activity and I've signed one petition there today already



Walthamstow one is a good petition. Maybe tomorrow you sill sign the petition to bind them all.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> No, I just know London intimately and the second I saw the plans it was obvious it was a bad idea...



OK. That's you admitting that 'I hate this' is your substitute for evidence, and that your predictions about usage demographic have no basis in fact whatsoever.



zimzum42 said:


> I resent you and the LCC etc making it more dangerous... for me [to cycle on the carriageway] just so you can fulfil your misguided 'Little Amsterdam' dreams...



Silly for me to ask, but other than the methodology described above, do you actually have any evidence to support the claim that such lanes would have or have had this effect?



zimzum42 said:


> By the way, relative to London, Amsterdam is a village, as is Utrecht. All the comparisons I see are entirely spurious.



No they aren't spurious, because distances travelled are actually larger than in London, and as ferry ticket and tape measure would verify, the mixes of street widths are entirely comparable. Plus, in parts the Netherlands comprises many continguous and continuous urban areas, and it is plainly misleading to treat these conurbations as collections of villages in any different sense to the sense London is. EG, consider Delft/Den Haag/Rotterdam.



zimzum42 said:


> Introducing a requirement for all learner drivers to have undertaken 10 hours of observed cycling before they get their license would do more for cycling than any of your posy lanes and segregation



In effect, that's precisely what Mass Cycling has achieved in the Netherlands: all learner drivers will have undertaken hundreds if not thousands of hours of observed cycling.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2014)

It's pointless actually responding to this guy directly as it becomes yet another really boring 'show me some statistics' willy-waving contest.

I had a quick look at the Walthamstow thing. It may work, it may not, but it's the terminology that always strikes me:

'Mini-Holland'

It oozes "I went on holiday to Breda and it was lovely, I wish it was like that back home" - followed by a return to the UK, annoying everyone about how great the little holiday was, followed by a 'grassroots' campaign to make changes, which generally amount to little more than "If we build it, they will come" and a proposal that the council whack in some replica infrastructure taken from a street view picture of Dutch streets.
No attempt to account for London's size, character and other peculiarities, just a bourgeoise desire to feel wanted and listened to.

All rather 'Ever Decreasing Circles'...


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

Walthamstow village is bourgeoise writ large anyway, so a potential upswing in middle class mums on bakfiets really won't make me fear for its character. 

I agree that "mini-Holland" sounds a lot like "model village"


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> No attempt to account for London's size


I'm sorry you regard this as "willy waiving" but, ahem, you have not supplied any evidence that size is a factor. I've already pointed out 1) that distances travelled are larger in the Netherlands and 2) that the extent of a conurbation called by a single name is neither here nor there where both the Netherlands and the South East of the UK comprise a large number of entirely contiguous urban settlements. (A rose by any other name...) Pop. density, too, is entirely similar.

If you cannot think of a relevant response to points 1&2, you could always think of some rude words ("willy waiving").


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> All rather 'Ever Decreasing Circles'...



I was alive then and got the reference, but not everyone was.
For the information of the Yoof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ever_Decreasing_Circles


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> Perhaps this sort of thing?


Clearly not. That's naughtily taken unattributed from the website of our sibling campaign group in Cambridge which said those lanes were "Wide enough to deal with the threat of opening car doors, though really a gap ought to be provided" http://www.camcycle.org.uk/events/visits/netherlands/



Pete Owens said:


> Because cental London has lots of cyclists - and if you cram them together by restricting them to a narrow portion of a particular street then that will tend to become full.


Except we're not restricted to it. My usual arrival points in central London are King's Cross or Paddington and usually I choose to ride in that lane along Torrington Place and nearby streets. Sometimes at busy times, I ride in the mixed lanes for some or all of it instead. More than once I've decided I can't be bothered with the bonkers switchover at the east end and joined/left the lane early... but still, I often ride in the cycleway or on that route.

Whether in the lane or not, I don't feel suffer more abuse there than I do elsewhere. Rather less in London than in Norfolk or Somerset and about the same as in Cambridge. Abuse from nutters in motors seems largely independent of whether there's a cycleway anywhere nearby.



> Well since you claim to understand vehicular cycling then you would realise that the our opposition to this sort of thing is on the grounds of safety. One-way cycle tracks are bad enough - Two-way cycle tracks increase the risk at junctions by an order of magnitude. (look up the chapter on using cycle facilities and the extra skills required). I really can't for the life of me understand how you could possibly consider that wierd crossover and riding on the wrong side of the street to be remotely consistent with the principles of vehicular cycling.


I don't consider it consistent with vehicular cycling as described in cyclecraft, but I don't see how you could possibly consider them consistent with protected space either. I think protected space would be a decent width with-flow lane on each side. What's there is a half-done thing and yes, the danger at some of the junctions is unnecessarily high.

I'm surprised Mark Treasure gave it as an example of best practice, but I've not found any verification of that. At best, I'd say it has some elements (eliminating most turns across cycle traffic at signalised junctions), but there are the sadly-typical mistakes (Byng Place and the give-ways!).



Pete Owens said:


> Which apparently is the fault of those who asked them NOT to!



Come on, this isn't a difficult argument to understand: putting forwards arguments that all cyclists should use the mixed lanes rather than building cycleways results in development of a dual network where mixed lanes are for the fast and the brave so cycleways don't need to be built to cope with fast travel because they're for slowcoaches.

I don't think that's what's happening. I think Pete Owens, DZ and other anti-infrastructure campaigners are a voice slowly dying on the margins. I think we get crap cycleways because it's cheaper to build crap, they look as good as proper ones to the casual observer in press releases and by the time the usage or crash stats show otherwise, the politician responsible will have moved up or out. To cover this cost-cutting compromising, pro-infrastructure campaigners are told that there's dissent and cyclists don't know what they want, which is a red herring. As far as I can tell, all of the major cyclist groups (CN/LCC, CTC, BC, BA, ...) are currently pushing in the same direction, with the non-democratic Sustrans as the last major organisation that seems to accept substandard provision by action if not policy - routing its National Cycle Network along it, publishing how-to guides for cycleway barriers and berating roadies for actually wanting to ride at the speed they're able to.



> Which brings us back to the heat map of the 2011 census:
> http://datashine.org.uk/#zoom=13&la...TTT&table=QS701EW&col=QS701EW0010&ramp=YlOrRd
> Compare Camden (the pale yellow area to the left) with its enthusiasm for segregation - with Hackney (the deep red area to the right) and its scepticism.


Yet, where are the riders who live in Hackney riding to? They're riding south-west into Camden... http://commute.datashine.org.uk/#zo...TT&mode=bicycle&direction=both&msoa=E02000361

But that doesn't tell us much about their routes. I'll be interested to see the street-level map @knocksofbeggarmen mentioned.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> I'm sorry you regard this as "willy waiving" but, ahem, you have not supplied any evidence that size is a factor. I've already pointed out 1) that distances travelled are larger in the Netherlands and 2) that the extent of a conurbation called by a single name is neither here nor there where both the Netherlands and the South East of the UK comprise a large number of entirely contiguous urban settlements. (A rose by any other name...) Pop. density, too, is entirely similar.
> 
> If you cannot think of a relevant response to points 1&2, you could always think of some rude words ("willy waiving").



I'm guessing the point is that the contiguous built up area of London looks a bit like this





I'll let you ignore some of the SW bits although equally there are some bits missing elsewhere.

While at the same scale the equivalent in Amsterdam is more like





So while your journeys may be longer, a big chunk of them are going to be using nice open not really urban in the London sense roads. They will be coming in from suburbs that are properly detached from the city in a way that London journeys aren't and because of that the ability to give them long contiguous (word of the day obviously) compulsory cycle lanes is greater. Of course they then let 50cc 'cars' drive on them which are an utter menace and you can't really go quickly because of the width. But we can ignore those bits if you'd prefer.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I'm surprised Mark Treasure gave it as an example of best practice, but I've not found any verification of that. At best, I'd say it has some elements (eliminating most turns across cycle traffic at signalised junctions), but there are the sadly-typical mistakes (Byng Place and the give-ways!).



What you've said here is pretty much exactly what Treasure has said. Reason you've not found verification of him saying that it's 'an example of best practice' is that he has not said that. But anything goes in resisting the hated lanes.



mjray said:


> Come on, this isn't a difficult argument to understand: putting forwards arguments that all cyclists should use the mixed lanes rather than building cycleways results in development of a dual network where mixed lanes are for the fast and the brave so cycleways don't need to be built to cope with fast travel because they're for slowcoaches.



Nicely put. 



mjray said:


> Yet, where are the riders who live in Hackney riding to? They're riding south-west into Camden... http://commute.datashine.org.uk/#zo...TT&mode=bicycle&direction=both&msoa=E02000361
> 
> But that doesn't tell us much about their routes. I'll be interested to see the street-level map @knocksofbeggarmen mentioned.



It was created in the last 6months (May? March?) from TfL data by a chap called @nuttyxander -as autocomplete came up just then, maybe this works to bring him into the conversation on cyclechat? It's also been published by LCC on their site- I'm sorry I haven't found it as quickly as I'd like.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I'm guessing the point is that the contiguous built up area of London looks a bit like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unfortunately your pics didn't load. Contiguous is probably not the word you want about cycle lanes, and I don't really follow what your argument is. If you mean that the Dutch will have more capacity to install continuous cycle lanes because some urban commute routes go through green land, this doesn't strike me as a particularly powerful explanation, since the whole point about the green land is that it is not continuous. Plus, I suspect you could do with a map open in front of you of Holland (which is a region of the Netherlands).

In general I recommend we stop trying to think of surperflous ad-hoc explanations for our not doing something that we have not decided to do. If the UK decided to do this, it would get done. Imagine where the NL would be if they had spent most of their time trying to think up reasons why they had not done what they needed to do, instead of doing it.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I'm guessing the point is that the contiguous built up area of London looks a bit like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your pics aren't working, but it sounds like you know what you're talking about!


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> Your pics aren't working, but it sounds like you know what you're talking about!



'I don't know what your hypothesis is exactly, but the upshot of your hypothesis seems to amplify my prejudice. THEREFORE your hypothesis (whatever it is) must be right.'


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> 'I don't know what your hypothesis is exactly, but the upshot of your hypothesis seems to amplify my prejudice. THEREFORE your hypothesis (whatever it is) must be right.'


I don't know how much more evidence you need that Amsterdam is massively different from London, maybe you could look at a map or a satellite picture or something.
Pretty much all the comparisons that people of your ideology make are entirely spurious


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> Plus the fact that it will be clogged with groups tourists on Boris Bikes...
> 
> Despite the protestations of the Twitter crew, I still reckon it will actually lead to fewer people cycling in the capital - they may claim greyer numbers, but most of them will be tourists and other day-trippers who would have been walking anyway


Oh yeah, I'm sure the cyclechat naysayers will be proved as right about these reducing cycling as they were when the hire bikes were welcomed almost immediately as "probably awful" ;-)

If they didn't cycle, wouldn't tourists be in taxis or those horrendous unpredictable tour buses more than walking? I think I'd prefer them to be on bikes and it even makes their movements a bit more predictable than walking.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> I don't know how much more evidence you need that Amsterdam is massively different from London, maybe you could look at a map or a satellite picture or something



Hell they even speak a different language, and the cheese is a bit different.

Come on. This is not hard. You've been asked repeatedly to substantiate the claim that Dutch cities are *relevantly* different. And this you have not done. 

What might be fun for you is to look at photographs of Dutch streetscapes in the 1960's. You'll probably declare them perfect- and confuse them with the UK.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2014)

I asked for a bike last Christmas but I didn't get one...

Plus I was a massive supporter of the Boris bikes and I use them almost daily, so natch...


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> I asked for a bike last Christmas but I didn't get one...


You should have nicked one and apologised: better to ask for forgivenes than permission


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2014)

And FWIW, that Torrington Place cycle lane is a shocker


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I'm guessing the point is that the contiguous built up area of London looks a bit like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now your pics have loaded your argument is clearly sophistical. You haven't even included the whole of the tag 'amsterdam', you've left off most of that city including lots that I've cycled in, and a similarly sized map at the same scale covering Holland (a region of the NL) would have included a series of contiguous urban areas.

In other words, you are having a laugh. But I don't find your disregard for fact funny.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Yeah but that is your fault, apparently. If you hadn't been an antilaneist, it would have been done properly. God might have spared a kitten or two as well, although I might be imagining that bit.



Not imagining, no. Deploying rhetoric and evasion, yes.

Here's that thought you don't want to understand, expressed succinctly by mjray: "putting forwards arguments that all cyclists should use the mixed lanes rather than building cycleways results in development of a dual network where mixed lanes are for the fast and the brave so cycleways don't need to be built to cope with fast travel because they're for slowcoaches."


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Once again, it is not " the mixed lanes " it is "the road".



Except by 'the road' we don't mean the M4. Although it has been rumoured the M4 is a road.

Anyhow, that was a rare case of an evasion of mjray's point that didn't involve rhetoric per se, only a weird redefinition of ordinary words.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Hell they even speak a different language, and the cheese is a bit different.
> 
> Come on. This is not hard. You've been asked repeatedly to substantiate the claim that Dutch cities are *relevantly* different. And this you have not done.
> 
> What might be fun for you is to look at photographs of Dutch streetscapes in the 1960's. You'll probably declare them perfect- and confuse them with the UK.


Much like I'm only arguing for London here, I'm also only using Amsterdam, because that's the city I have actual experience of cycling in.

If I compare my 12 mile commute in to Greenwich, not even the middle of London, I do around 7 miles of that in a properly urban environment. Last time I was commuting in to Amsterdam I was doing it from Zaandam, it was around 8 miles of commute and maybe 3 miles of that in a properly urban environment, although where my London commute takes me nowhere near the centre my Amsterdam commute took me within spitting distance of it.

What I found in Amsterdam was that there was a reason everyone rode knackered bikes (our current family expression for a buckled wheel is 'that looks a bit Dutch') and that was thanks to a sufficient number of the segregated paths not being in great condition. There's a lot of blockwork used out near the edges which suffers from the normal issues of paving stones on sand. There were the odd patches of broken glass which didn't get dealt with day on day and didn't get swept away by bigger road traffic, there were the normal roots under tarmac and bits just missing completely. The Dutch have a weird 2 seater motorised car thing that is allowed to use the cycle paths, it completely fills the larger lanes and travels at the best part of 30mph, they are somewhat terrifying, especially after dark. Also the mopeds use the cycle lanes, they aren't much better, but they are better. So the actual safety on the cycle lanes is better than sharing it with HGV's, but hardly what I'd call complete.

Yes, there were a lot of people cycling, I saw a lot more than I would have done on my commute in to Greenwich each day, even out around Zaandam. They were all on crap bikes because bike theft is so high (the Dutch we were with said that you don't so much own a bike, as use it while you happen to be in possession of it. We carried a large number of locks because our friends had basically told us not to bring our bikes at all. Also there are bikes locked up all over the place, again some locals 'own' 2 or 3 and can't necessarily remember where they've left them all.)

Ignoring the riding on the wrong side of the road thing, riding in Amsterdam didn't feel like riding in London, the closest I could suggest would be like riding down the Cable St bits of CS2 when they are at their busiest, but really it wasn't close. While some of the freedoms were nice, legal salmoning for instance, the actual experience while in the city wasn't that great, and not something I'd want to deal with every day. As I've mentioned before, even riding at odd times of the day our average speeds weren't that high because of the nature of the cycle paths. As a pedestrian it was significantly more terrifying than being in London, again this could be down to familiarity, especially when playing Frogger trying to get from one pavement to the other (with a cycle lane, then a car lane, then a pair of tram lanes, then a car lane, then a cycle lane). I don't know how significantly the roads have been mucked about, I'd guess the more major roads in London are similarly wide to the ones I've just described in Amsterdam, but they are running multiple lanes for cars at the moment. The cycle provision was taking space from a wide pedestrian pavement with the kerb segregating from a fairly narrow car carriageway. Without the mopeds being able to use the cycle lane I'm not sure you wouldn't just be moving the accident statistics from cycles to powered two wheelers.

Out in the countryside, I'm sure things are different, although the cycle lanes still never look as clear of debris and as well maintained as the roads and where there's no cycle provision you can even use the roads, which is nice. But I'm never sold when people just say 'like the Dutch' as a description of cycling nirvana. I'm really happy with where the bicycle sits in the Dutch consciousness but I'd like to think there are other ways to get it there and we'd be better off using one of those.

Oh, I know this is all anecdotal and really you want some statistics from a report somewhere, but it's all I have.


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Here's that thought you don't want to understand, expressed succinctly by mjray: "putting forwards arguments that all cyclists should use the mixed lanes rather than building cycleways results in development of a dual network where mixed lanes are for the fast and the brave so cycleways don't need to be built to cope with fast travel because they're for slowcoaches."


I notice you've not quoted the part of mjray's post where he goes on to say he doesn't think that's what's actually happening.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Except by 'the road' we don't mean the M4. Although it has been rumoured the M4 is a road.
> 
> Anyhow, that was a rare case of an evasion of mjray's point that didn't involve rhetoric per se, only a weird redefinition of ordinary words.


If we were allowed on the motorways I would happily use them - as it is I have to use the A10 to get to Cambridge, which is OK, but if I could use the M11 I would


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> I notice you've not quoted the part of mjray's post where he goes on to say he doesn't think that's what's actually happening.


No, I read it. He says:

"I don't think that's what's happening. I think Pete Owens, DZ and other anti-infrastructure campaigners are a voice slowly dying on the margins. I think we get crap cycleways because it's cheaper to build crap, they look as good as proper ones to the casual observer in press releases and by the time the usage or crash stats show otherwise, the politician responsible will have moved up or out."

I think mjray is right in his alternative explanatory hypothesis- but that his second explanatory hypothesis in no way excludes the first. And the two work together rather nicely. Because as MrJay observed TfL get to cite the arguments of DZ and others every time they want to put in crap rather than put in wide lanes sufficient to all users fast and slow. They get to say: but we are only building this stuff for a small section of the cycling community.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> If we were allowed on the motorways I would happily use them - as it is I have to use the A10 to get to Cambridge, which is OK, but if I could use the M11 I would



ha ha aha hahaha ha hhee haaa ha ha hhee haaa ha ha hhee haaa ha ha hhee haaa ha ha hhee haaa ha ha hhee haaa ha ha hhee haaa ha ha hhee haaa


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Oh, I know this is all anecdotal and really you want some statistics from a report somewhere, but it's all I have.



Look, the stats are out there. If you want to stick with anecdote that's your business, but don't pretend anecdote trumps science. I can't spare the time to discuss all aspects of your story, but about the dutch riding crap bike- well, bikes with only a rear drum brake functioning are legal there because the infra is good enough to make using such safe.


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

tl;dr Given that every previous attempt at veloduct-style seg infra in London has resulted in stuff that's a bit shoot, and that faster cyclists who want to get from A to B can already do it quite nicely using a combination of bus lanes, filtered permeability and just plain ordinary cycling-on-the-road, you're not really providing any compelling reason for any of them to support you in your quest to build more seg infra if you can't adequately explain why it won't be more a bit shoot all over again. Encouraging non-cyclists to take it up is great, don't get me wrong, but don't expect support from people already cycling if the most likely net effect is to make it worse for them.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Are you wanting people to take you seriously?


Yes. And also for them to laugh at things that are hilarious.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> tl;dr Given that every previous attempt at veloduct-style seg infra in London has resulted in stuff that's a bit ****, and that faster cyclists who want to get from A to B can already do it quite nicely using a combination of bus lanes, filtered permeability and just plain ordinary cycling-on-the-road, you're not really providing any compelling reason for any of them to support you in your quest to build more seg infra if you can't adequately explain why it won't be more a bit **** all over again. Encouraging non-cyclists to take it up is great, don't get me wrong, but don't expect support from people already cycling if the most likely net effect is to make it worse for them.



*I* am a person already cycling.


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> *I* am a person already cycling.


A sample size of one. What were you just saying about anecdote vs evidence?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Do let us know if you spot anything that falls in that category [of being ridicuolous] .



Will do- the habitual redefinition of the word 'road' to avoid facing up to a contradiction fits that description, as does the spectacle of various posters boasting about how much of the motorway network they have cycled on or plan to.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> A sample size of one. What were you just saying about anecdote vs evidence?



If you say "don't expect anyone who already cycles to support this" then my own case becomes relevant as a falsification of your theory. As would xThousand LCC members. None of which is a 'sample size of one' because we are not talking about a survey. Learn the meaning of 'sample size'.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> No contradiction here, just a childish attempt at petty point scoring on your point.


 ha hahheee ha ha ha


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Really? Why do you have no interest in any other part of this forum about riding bikes, and just confine yourself to this one issue?



ha ha ha

[man disagrees with me. therefore man is not cyclist.]

he he he hoo ho ho


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Exactly, you demonstrate my point perfectly.



You have a point? Possibly you've wrapped it in gaffer tape. What is your point? I mean, other than, you don't like being laughed at, specially when you are being ridiculous?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Will do- the habitual redefinition of the word 'road' to avoid facing up to a contradiction fits that description, as does the spectacle of various posters boasting about how much of the motorway network they have cycled on or plan to.


I thought I'd read the whole of this thread, I didn't remember seeing anything about people boasting about riding on motorways. Agreed some I kind of skimmed as my eyes glazed over. Could you point the post out to me. Ta.


----------



## Tim Hall (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> ha ha ha
> 
> [man disagrees with me. therefore man is not cyclist.]
> 
> he he he hoo ho ho


It's possible that posting 148 times on the forum on just one thread, on just one subject, might lead people to believe you have no interest in any other part of the forum.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Look, the stats are out there. If you want to stick with anecdote that's your business, but don't pretend anecdote trumps science. I can't spare the time to discuss all aspects of your story, but about the dutch riding crap bike- well, bikes with only a rear drum brake functioning are legal there because the infra is good enough to make using such safe.


Much like a lot of the (I'll be generous here) debates on CC, I've seen a lot more faith than evidence quoted.

From talking to Dutch friends, those that enjoy riding bikes (as opposed to those that just use them as transport) have nice ones that they ride at the weekend nowhere near the city. This seemed accurate as we saw some much nicer bikes on the Saturday and Sunday when we were commuting in compared to the Friday and Monday last time round. The shite that they ride in the city, it's not that they only need a functioning rear brake (I'd be impressed if some of them had any functioning brakes at all and a fair number seemed to be defying physics just by being able to propel a human being forwards) is much less to do with legal requirements and much more to do with not giving a toss and what they can get away with without maiming themselves. I'm guessing the fact you don't go anywhere quickly helps here.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I thought I'd read the whole of this thread, I didn't remember seeing anything about people boasting about riding on motorways. Agreed some I kind of skimmed as my eyes glazed over. Could you point the post out to me. Ta.





dellzeqq said:


> I've done it out to Junction 6


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I'm guessing the fact you don't go anywhere quickly helps here.



eh?


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2014)

This dude cannot seem to accept that for many cyclists, especially faster riders, major trunk roads are the safest roads for cycling - good surfaces, wide lanes, plenty of visibility, smooth gradients.

What's not to like?

I know some folk don't like being overtaken by trucks, but it's a mind over matter thing...


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Tim Hall said:


> It's possible that posting 148 times on the forum on just one thread, on just one subject, might lead people to believe you have no interest in any other part of the forum.



I've seen the way this bunch behaves towards people who dare to express another view. In those circumstances, keeping my identity to myself when discussing a life and death issue like the ew/ns lanes is reasonable step. I realise it prevents me from posting full details of my latest tour/ trip times/ gear purchases etc. I note that anyone so at variance with certain opinion here will get treated as not a proper cyclist. Also it is part of the deal that to distract from any point I make I will get made into the subject, which is pretty much what happened to David Hembrow.

I can't think of a way out of this bind, given how arguments on this forum go. If you know of any, let me know.

I am content to expose the foolishness of some posters by provoking them to say what they actually think. I may add that I have received messages of support from cyclechatters not commenting here. They each of them, independently, volunteered the word 'bullying' to describe how dissident opinion is engaged with on this thread, I will stay anonymous.


----------



## theclaud (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> I've seen the way this bunch behaves towards people who dare to express another view. In those circumstances, keeping my identity to myself when discussing a life and death issue like the ew/ns lanes is reasonable step. I realise it prevents me from posting full details of my latest tour/ trip times/ gear purchases etc. I note that anyone so at variance with certain opinion here will get treated as not a proper cyclist. Also it is part of the deal that to distract from any point I make I will get made into the subject, which is pretty much what happened to David Hembrow.
> 
> I can't think of a way out of this bind, given how arguments on this forum go. If you know of any, let me know.
> 
> I am content to expose the foolishness of some posters by provoking them to say what they actually think. I may add that I have received messages of support from cyclechatters not commenting here. They each of them, independently, volunteered the word 'bullying' to describe how dissident opinion is engaged with on this thread, I will stay anonymous.



What utter cobblers.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> eh?


You, as in 'the people in Amsterdam on bikes' that I had just been writing about. I have no idea if *you *go anywhere quickly on a bike so wouldn't wish to comment. Although if you were doing it in Amsterdam, you wouldn't be. By 'doing it' I mean riding a bike.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Ah the victim card.


No, I'm not the victim, and I intend to give as good as I get. But I recorded the experiences of others. And you might like to reflect on why this thread had not entertained the kind of focused evidence-based discussion you see below the line on blog posts. Degeneration into multi-commentator personal attack by way of anecdote is the norm here.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> You, as in 'the people in Amsterdam on bikes' that I had just been writing about. I have no idea if *you *go anywhere quickly on a bike so wouldn't wish to comment. Although if you were doing it in Amsterdam, you wouldn't be. By 'doing it' I mean riding a bike.



I see. Except I have been around Amsterdam on a bike. Quickly.


----------



## subaqua (2 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I think it's wrong. On one ride with another Cyclenation group (not LCC), we did use a footway which you're not meant to ride on, so I brought it up with the ride guide, he said it was a mistake (easily done that one I think, because neighbouring sections of footway are shared-use) and the next time through that area we went a different way.
> 
> If you got no joy on the ride, did you try telling LCC HQ about this? I'd be surprised if it's encouraged.


 
I spoke to one of the leaders at the protest ride ( well I assume they were leaders as they were at the front and had the megaphones) and got the brush off. pointless when there seems to be a prevalent attitude of we will do what we like


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> I see. Except I have been around Amsterdam on a bike. Quickly.


Got the Strava..? :-)

Don't worry, I'll believe you, you seem genuine.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> This dude cannot seem to accept that for many cyclists, especially faster riders, major trunk roads are the safest roads for cycling - good surfaces, wide lanes, plenty of visibility, smooth gradients.
> 
> What's not to like?
> 
> I know some folk don't like being overtaken by trucks, but it's a mind over matter thing...



I accept that there's variety in cyclists and even that there are different kinds of traffic challenges I want to tackle depending on how fresh I am. The denial I detect in the reverse direction: many posters won't take it that segregated lanes would help get masses cycling, or, if they will, fall back on arguing that if masses cycled this would be a Bad Thing.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Might, not would.



Which 'would' are you replacing? If the masses cycled this *might* be a bad thing? But DZ has argued in terms that there is no strategic case for mass cycling, and that they only obstrcut the busses.


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> If you say "don't expect anyone who already cycles to support this" then my own case becomes relevant as a falsification of your theory. As would xThousand LCC members. None of which is a 'sample size of one' because we are not talking about a survey. Learn the meaning of 'sample size'.


But I didn't say that. I said "don't expect support from people already cycling if the most likely net effect is to make it worse for them."
I didn't say "from any of the people already cycling"
I didn't say "from people already cycling if the most likely net effect is to give them a safer and more pleasant route"
I said "don't expect support from people already cycling if the most likely net effect is to make it worse for them."

If you're not in this group of people then the fact that you support your own proposal is neither here nor there in respect to "falsification of my theory". You're a cyclist, you enjoy doing A, B, C whatever. That's great[*]. It doesn't mean there aren't other cyclists who prefer doing W, F, G and see your proposals as likely to make it more difficult or less pleasant for them to do so, and given the evident disdain in which you hold them it's hardly surprising that they don't trust you when you say that it'll all work out for them if they just stop trying to get in your way

[*] I mean that sincerely. I fall into both groups myself depending on what I'm doing, notwithstanding that taking my Christiana down the kerbed-off cycle track on Howland St was a dumb idea that I really won't ever be repeating. But you're exuding at least as much disrespect here as you're experiencing yourself and that's because you're treating the people you're talking to as kids and idiots


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> The denial I detect in the reverse direction: many posters won't take it that segregated lanes would help get masses cycling, or, if they will, fall back on arguing that if masses cycled this would be a Bad Thing.


If it helps clarify things, my argument is that segregated lanes wouldn't necessarily help get the masses cycling in London. And that for cycling in London segregated cycle lanes would be a bad thing because they lead to compulsion over where you can cycle. I would be happy to infer that that compulsion could lead to a domino effect beyond London, but I'm not actually arguing that.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> I accept that there's variety in cyclists and even that there are different kinds of traffic challenges I want to tackle depending on how fresh I am. The denial I detect in the reverse direction: many posters won't take it that segregated lanes would help get masses cycling, or, if they will, fall back on arguing that if masses cycled this would be a Bad Thing.


I'd ask for evidence that creating segregated cycle lanes in London has increased cycling levels, but I fear that it would not only be deadly boring, but would also leave one with a distinct 'surely there must be other factors involved' feeling...


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> I would suggest that it is more deliberately courting disrespect.


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> If it helps clarify things, my argument is that segregated lanes wouldn't necessarily help get the masses cycling in London. And that for cycling in London segregated cycle lanes would be a bad thing because they lead to compulsion over where you can cycle. I would be happy to infer that that compulsion could lead to a domino effect beyond London, but I'm not actually arguing that.



It is a familiar argument, and a very old one. It's been put in the UK since the 30's -that is to say, since long before the 1970's dutch revolt that began to establish their current network. It's a familiar argument that has stayed with us in the face of near total collapse in the cycling mode share- even while proponents were telling us that this was the way to save cycling. How many years trying this failed approach is enough? Twenty? Eighty, is the present tally.

I'm not hopeful of the old argument suddenly going away, but I am grateful for the civil way you put it just here, without the embellishments of personal attack or of entirely false support claiming black to be white, as in DZ's remarks about the safety of Dutch Infra.

'Lead to' is a peculiar phrase. The gist of some comments I've seen is that if UK infra was a network of comparable quality and extent to the Dutch, concerns about being compelled to use it would be less- but that there must be a period of danger in any passage *between* here and there, in which period the existence of some few separate paths of varying quality **might** be used by someone or other to ban cycles off the roads everywhere. But this does not even happen in the Netherlands. Nor is it the proposal under discussion. Slippery slope arguments are generally regarded by philosophers as logically flawed. Because one thing is bad, it does not follow that something else is bad. And an E-W cycle superhighway in London is not the thing you admit to being against here.


----------



## jonesy (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> No, I'm not the victim, and I intend to give as good as I get. But I recorded the experiences of others. And you might like to reflect on why this thread had not entertained *the kind of focused evidence-based discussion you see below the line on blog posts. * Degeneration into multi-commentator personal attack by way of anecdote is the norm here.


I think I need one of @theclaud 's snorts of derision...


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

jonesy said:


> I think I need one of @theclaud 's snorts of derision...



Well you are quite right that it isn't all seminars and politesse in the cycling blogoshpere. The difference is that you do get at least some *focused evidence-based discussion below the line *there, and a norm is that you respond to the point- whereas by and large a constant of this forum (and this is not only my impression) is attempts to discredit the person.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> I'd ask for evidence that creating segregated cycle lanes in London has increased cycling levels, but I fear that it would not only be deadly boring, but would also leave one with a distinct 'surely there must be other factors involved' feeling...



I'm not sure why we have to start by excluding data from places that actually have the kind of infra now proposed.

If you confine matters to London, there's robust data from eg TfL that cycling levels substantially increased on Torrington & College Street on the actual routes where defective segregation is installed- but sensibly enough that's not what you are asking. You are asking about the effect on overal cycling demographic. My sense is that the more recent installation ('light segregation') is of such low quality that it has mainly attracted existing cyclists onto that route from alternatives they might otherwise have taken, rather than substantially increased the demographic thinking of cycling as a safe way to travel. But the e-w and n-s routes proposed are an entirely different kettle of fish- and my suspuicion is that this is part of the reason concern is being displayed on this forum: these schemes might actually work to bring about the dreaded mass cycling.... and in the opposite direction to that you favour.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> I have edited it for you. You are also misrepresenting what DZ wrote.


That's pretty rubbish editing, as you've quoted it as was, typo included. No I wasn't misrepresenting DZ, that's what the guy wrote: no strategic case for mass cycling.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> It is a familiar argument, and a very old one. It's been put in the UK since the 30's -that is to say, since long before the 1970's dutch revolt that began to establish their current network. It's a familiar argument that has stayed with us in the face of near total collapse in the cycling mode share- even while proponents were telling us that this was the way to save cycling. How many years trying this failed approach is enough? Twenty? Eighty, is the present tally.



I've only been arguing it for a short while, but I'll take that it's been on peoples minds for a while :-) . A lot of talk is that we are in a bit of a cycling golden age again, I'm not sure that segregation can take much of the credit for that. From my experience, including conversations with other people, the attitude of the majority to cycling in London is changing and while it's not necessarily to the positive, it is towards expecting to be sharing the roads with bicycles and that seems to be moving things in a positive direction.



knocksofbeggarmen said:


> I'm not hopeful of the old argument suddenly going away, but I am grateful for the civil way you put it just here, without the embellishments of personal attack or of entirely false support claiming black to be white, as in DZ's remarks about the safety of Dutch Infra.



I like to think I was well brought up (not suggesting anyone else wasn't, naturally).



knocksofbeggarmen said:


> 'Lead to' is a peculiar phrase. The gist of some comments I've seen is that if UK infra was a network of comparable quality and extent to the Dutch, concerns about being compelled to use it would be less- but that there must be a period of danger in any passage *between* here and there, in which period the existence of some few separate paths of varying quality **might** be used by someone or other to ban cycles off the roads everywhere. But this does not even happen in the Netherlands. Nor is it the proposal under discussion. Slippery slope arguments are generally regarded by philosophers as logically flawed. Because one thing is bad, it does not follow that something else is bad. And an E-W cycle superhighway in London is not the thing you admit to being against here.



I can see the potential for it to be flawed thinking, but considering the will from some quarters for cyclists to be restricted to cycle lanes already and coupling that with a need to pay back the less cycling orientated interests when it comes to getting major schemes voted through and funded I don't think worrying about a move in that direction is unwarranted paranoia. Add in to that the fact that places with a heavy spend on cycling specific infrastructure do have compulsion and it manages to take another step in the wrong direction. Considering all the places that have poor, but existing cycling infrastructure it becomes a bit more of a gamble that people might end up forced on to it (I cycle past miles of cycle lanes/shared use that would do me no benefit to use on my various commute routes) or penalised for having an accident while not using it. All of that might be a worthwhile risk if the benefits were going to be good enough, and that's where you make the judgement call, I don't think the benefits are good enough.

Although to be fair, I'm also not sure what argument could change my mind so we're really just chatting around the subject to no end.


----------



## zimzum42 (2 Oct 2014)

I'm not sure why this dude thinks I'm against mass cycling. I'd love to have more people to overtake.

What I don't want is to be corralled into a segregated space and to be stuck behind a bunch of numpties on bikes.

As soon as you start segregating you give fuel to the 'you should be in the cycle lane' brigade...


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> I spoke to one of the leaders at the protest ride ( well I assume they were leaders as they were at the front and had the megaphones) and got the brush off. pointless when there seems to be a prevalent attitude of we will do what we like


Thanks but a simple "no, I've not considered this serious enough to tell LCC HQ" would have sufficed.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> to be fair, I'm also not sure what argument could change my mind so we're really just chatting around the subject to no end.



Demonstrations of civility are never to no end. Ditto Honesty. But I understand that changing minds does not principally occur on forums like this- it occurs sometimes with foreign travel, or there are moments after being hit by a car despite doing everything precisely by the book. That contributed in my case, but I date my 'conversion' to the realisation that the Dutch got where they are through political action, in my lifetime, and not through there being something funny in the water.



w00hoo_kent said:


> A lot of talk is that we are in a bit of a cycling golden age again, I'm not sure that segregation can take much of the credit for that.



A golden age is a weird thing to declare when national mode share is pretty match static at the level it dropped to after the fifties, but there is always considearble commercial pressure to declare one, if only to sell books. Inside that overall picture of static mode share, what we are currently seeing is more cycling in Urban areas and less in the Rural. Why? 

Well yes, you are quite right that there are a variety of factors that seem to be at play, and that segregated provision in urban areas can't claim general credit for this slopping-around-in-thebowl.
Mostly (and with a few documented exceptions with local impact), that provision is of such low quality and extent that it is hard to see how it could have had an impact on mode shares, but the ew/ns schemes are substantially nearer in style to Dutch provision. One factor at play in cycling going down in rural areas and up in urban is that while the cycling demographic associated with UK conditions remains fairly constant (disproportionately fit, male, well educated) there have been trends in where this demographic lives. This is part of what has happened in London in general and Hackney in particular. But also Hackney has applied filtered permeability seriously- technique that was part of the Dutch revolution in the 70's. They are to be congratulated on that, but the mad part is that they think it's an either or question: segregation on main roads and filtered perm elsewhere are techniques that are meant to complement each other. Lastly the congestion charge and terrorism have both had discernable impact- though there is all the difference in the world between doubling a 2% mode share of restricted demographic and actually realising mass cycling.





w00hoo_kent said:


> (I cycle past miles of cycle lanes/shared use that would do me no benefit to use on my various commute routes) or penalised for having an accident while not using it. All of that might be a worthwhile risk if the benefits were going to be good enough, and that's where you make the judgement call, I don't think the benefits are good enough.



On this, it matters vitally that you be able to discern the differences between the schemes proposed. So I can only suggest you educate yourself to a point of discernment, and, with luck, and the flavour of your remarks there's no reason why you couldn't do that. You will however attract implacable hatred from some quarters if you confess to furthering your researches through some channels, so either curtail yourself to only considering the opinions of DZ, or acquire a thick skin and read up.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> You asked me to clarify which would. I edited it to show that clearly.



What on earth? I've stared at it and re-read a couple of times. There isn't a single character of what I wrote that you've changed in that particular quote, unless you are claiming to have also edited *my original post*. I wasn't aware you had that power. If you do have it, that would explain many sensible persons staying away from this forum and only posting anonymously if at all.


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I can see the potential for it to be flawed thinking, but considering the will from some quarters for cyclists to be restricted to cycle lanes already and coupling that with a need to pay back the less cycling orientated interests when it comes to getting major schemes voted through and funded I don't think worrying about a move in that direction is unwarranted paranoia. Add in to that the fact that places with a heavy spend on cycling specific infrastructure do have compulsion and it manages to take another step in the wrong direction. [...]


Yeah, I think whether or not compulsion happens is almost independent of whether or not more lanes are built because it's already been in at least one manifesto in the past. I don't really see fear of what bonkers laws may be introduced as a very good reason to oppose building better infrastructure now.

Have cyclists been forced into UK bike lanes anywhere except the ones alongside motorways like the M5 and M48?


> Although to be fair, I'm also not sure what argument could change my mind so we're really just chatting around the subject to no end.


:-(


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> Encouraging non-cyclists to take it up is great, don't get me wrong, but don't expect support from people already cycling if the most likely net effect is to make it worse for them.


How can it make things much worse? The "get in the cycle lane" idiots do that regardless. The "force them in the cycle lane" politicians are already trying to make it happen. Are there other negative effects apart from this 1930s bogeyman?

The other things (filtered permeability and so on) are also part of the LCC/CN/CTC/BA/... space4cycling campaign, but protected lanes are one way to reopen what most people see as no-go barrier streets to cycling. I think there should also be an emphasis on fixing past screwups (like the bus stop LCC describes as too narrow with kerbs too high, which started this thread), but that probably needs more pressure on politicians from more cyclists.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Is this really so hard to understand? I originally quoted your post in full and commented "might not would". You asked me which " would", as there were two instances. I went back and pared down the quote to show just one instance of the word "would".



It was hard for me because your 5 min edit of the quote didn't show up. Thanks for the effort, anyhow- I now gather you are doubtful these schemes as designed would increase cycling. This is a straightforward disagreement. I think that as designed it's a dead cert they will. If butchered about under pressure from limo drivers on the one front and an appearance of large scale disagreement among cyclists on the other, I'm sure they have the potential to join the ranks of @bollocksinfra -but this is precisely what I'm trying to avoid.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> So I can only suggest you educate yourself to a point of discernment, and, with luck, and the flavour of your remarks there's no reason why you couldn't do that. You will however attract implacable hatred from some quarters if you confess to furthering your researches through some channels, so either curtail yourself to only considering the opinions of DZ, or acquire a thick skin and read up.


I'm sure wOOhoo_kent, who seems to have displayed a laudable openness in this thread, is quite capable of making his or her mind up. Your post looks a tad patronising to me.

(For the record, though I'm very uneasy about those built out bus islands, I'm not averse to having adequate segregated facilities available. Not in a ''Cyclists This Way Only'' kind of way, mind. At least it will help us know how many of the non-cyclists who cite traffic dangers as their reason for not cycling will eventually use them.)


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> So no problem for you to evidence then.


"Increase" is a low hurdle. And the evidence for more than that is there if I'm allowed to cite places in the world that have actually installed this kind if infra.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I'm sure wOOhoo_kent, who seems to have displayed a laudable openness in this thread, is quite capable of making his or her mind up.



Agreed -emphatically stated, indeed. I'm not entirely sure what you thought wOOhoo_kent ought to find patronising, however. My suggestion was, there's more for wOOhoo_kent to consider while making his/her mind up than the opinions of DZ. That wrong?



deptfordmarmoset said:


> For the record, though I'm very uneasy about those built out bus islands, I'm not averse to having adequate segregated facilities available. Not in a ''Cyclists This Way Only'' kind of way, mind. At least it will help us know how many of the non-cyclists who cite traffic dangers as their reason for not cycling will eventually use them.



Clarification noted. But about the bus islands -they been in operation around the world for decades. Is your concern based on this experience?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Clarification noted. But about the bus islands -they been in operation around the world for decades. Is your concern based on this experience?



NO, just an apprehension based largely on the explosion of hand-held elsewhere devices amongst the general pedestrian population and my own experience of how they can behave in the path of cyclists and motors.


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> NO, just an apprehension based largely on the explosion of hand-held elsewhere devices amongst the general pedestrian population and my own experience of how they can behave in the path of cyclists and motors.


Ring your bell when you see an iZombie. I've had them step out abruptly into the road in front of my bike because they've not looked, they've just not heard a motor and assumed it's clear to go - Darwin may be along soon with an electric car!


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Ring your bell when you see an iZombie. I've had them step out abruptly into the road in front of my bike because they've not looked, they've just not heard a motor and assumed it's clear to go - Darwin may be along soon with an electric car!


I find it is usually more conducive to a relaxing and enjoyable ride if I slow down and take up a position further from the kerb when I see an izombie, that way even when they do step out it does not become an instant calamity. And really, they have the same right to the road as the rest of us.

Of course, this depends on having either the lane width to do so or an adjacent lane to move into without having to bunnyhop anything,


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> I find it is usually more conducive to a relaxing and enjoyable ride if I slow down and take up a position further from the kerb when I see an izombie, that way even when they do step out it does not become an instant calamity. And really, they have the same right to the road as the rest of us.
> 
> Of course, this depends on having either the lane width to do so or an adjacent lane to move into without having to bunnyhop anything,



In the same way that their stepping into the road depends on things like, whether their footway is wide enough for capacity, whether there are enough pedestrian crossings on desire lines, what the light timings are, and so forth. All of which comes back to whether motor vehicles are being honoured over active travel, with road space and so forth.

What you really need is a scheme that puts in more pedestrian crossings and takes away space from motor vehicles- which is precisely what the proposed E-W does.


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> I notice you've not quoted the part of mjray's post where he goes on to say he doesn't think that's what's actually happening.


Knocker is allowed to disagree with me. I hope my attempt at rephrasing his belief clarified things.

Furthermore, I think if I'm right and anti- infrastructure cyclists are being used as a scapegoat, then if antis are dealt with, some other reason would be given. I think it's better to support calls for fairer funding than to berate other riders.


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> I find it is usually more conducive to a relaxing and enjoyable ride if I slow down and take up a position further from the kerb when I see an izombie, that way even when they do step out it does not become an instant calamity. And really, they have the same right to the road as the rest of us.
> 
> Of course, this depends on having either the lane width to do so or an adjacent lane to move into without having to bunnyhop anything,


Yeah, I prefer half-kerbs (as shown in Making Space for Cycling) or posts for that reason, too. I do slow down too (else I'd be describing a collision with an iZombie) but a bell's a good way to tell them you're there and reduce the risk of them jumping as you pass. Walkers have a right to the road, but also some responsibility to be aware of their surroundings.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> We could always have more pedestrian crossings without a cycle lane scheme.



Cars are such a massively inefficient use of space (parking, at junctions, just driving along) that any mode switch from motor vehicles to bicycles has the potential to free up a lot of space for pedestrians- both for crossings and on the pavement.

Where in the world have they achieved such a mode switch, and how did they do it? Oh but we aren't to breathe the name of that dread country on Cyclechat.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Yeah, I prefer half-kerbs (as shown in Making Space for Cycling) or posts for that reason, too. I do slow down too (else I'd be describing a collision with an iZombie) but a bell's a good way to tell them you're there and reduce the risk of them jumping as you pass. Walkers have a right to the road, but also some responsibility to be aware of their surroundings.



Yes. It's both a mystery and annoyance to me that antis go on about the hated kerbs, given that the Dutch have 45 degree kerbs at the edges of the fietspad for precisely the reasons noted. So the LCC and others have been loudly demanding the same 45 degree curbs- but instead of supporting THAT call, you will find people from this thread actually resisting the 45 kerbs as another municipal extravagance. It's as if they ENJOY hating the 90 degree kerb, and so want it insitsted upon, so that the useable width of any path be minimised and their prejudices coddled in warm beer!


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> You can say what you like, don't try to pretend you are being in any way suppressed or censored here.



The Netherlands,provisions in which you may learn about by visiting and also by reading these following blogs [BOOO!! HISSS!! "ACCOLITE"!!! "GOD'S REPRESENTATIVE ON EARTH"!!! BAH!! DOES HE REALLY CYCLE?!! "SOCKPUPPETT!!"]


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Yes. It's both a mystery and annoyance to me that antis go on about the hated kerbs, given that the Dutch have 45 degree kerbs at the edges of the fietspad for precisely the reasons noted.


Have you ever tried skating along a path demarcated by a 45 degree kerb?


----------



## theclaud (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Cars are such a massively inefficient use of space (parking, at junctions, just driving along) that any mode switch from motor vehicles to bicycles has the potential to free up a lot of space for pedestrians- both for crossings and on the pavement.
> 
> Where in the world have they achieved such a mode switch, and how did they do it? *Oh but we aren't to breathe the name of that dread country on Cyclechat*.



Yes, that's why you've barely mentioned it at all...


----------



## theclaud (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> We could always have more pedestrian crossings without a cycle lane scheme.


 Quite. And a default 20mph limit. And presumed liability.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Oct 2014)

theclaud said:


> Quite. And a default 20mph limit. And presumed liability.


What the hell, I'd add fit for public roads construction vehicles to the list and let them build segregated routes for cyclists under the strict (enforced) condition that vehicular cyclists are allowed on any farking road without twattery.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Thanks but a simple "no, I've not considered this serious enough to tell LCC HQ" would have sufficed.


who was who e-mailed the LCC, got a foolish reply and cancelled his subscription?

Which reminds me, I really must send my LCC award back.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

theclaud said:


> Yes, that's why you've barely mentioned it [the Netherlands] at all...



It fires all the apoplexy neurons at once. Not merely do the facts about NL refute every bit of nonsense spewed here, but there is dammit National Pride at stake- for if a man can't take pride in his Nation's hard-campaigned-for commitment to killing off a few newbie cyclists and keeping the roads free for busses, what has he got?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Excellent stuff. Can I add a criminal justice system that grows a pair and sets about protecting the rights of the vulnerable?


The more the merrier!


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Excellent stuff. Can I add a criminal justice system that grows a pair and sets about protecting the rights of the vulnerable?



So so many possible distractions. Do you even know what decade the NL introduced 'presumed liabilty'?


----------



## theclaud (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> It fires all the apoplexy neurons at once. Not merely do the facts about NL refute every bit of nonsense spewed here, but there is dammit National Pride at stake- for if a man can't take pride in his Nation's hard-campaigned-for commitment to killing off a few newbie cyclists and keeping the roads free for busses, what has he got?


So, after pretending that there was some kind of ban on mentioning the Netherlands, you admit that you were talking nonsense and that you have been banging on about the Netherlands for nearly 40 pages. That's good then. But I can be forgiven for describing it as an obsession.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

theclaud said:


> So, after pretending that there was some kind of ban on mentioning the Netherlands, you admit that you were talking nonsense and that you have been banging on about the Netherlands for nearly 40 pages. That's good then. But I can be forgiven for describing it as an obsession.



You absolutely refuse to play the ball- which is why there is nothing left but to chuckle at you.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Not distractions at all, just a set of simple changes that could make all the difference we need.



So, your neighbouring country has a revolution the upshot of which is safe mass cycling, and TWO DECADES LATER introduces perfectly sensible presumed liability legislation with no discernible impact on cycling rates or injuries. Obviously it's the 1990's you want to copy.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

To be clear I'm pro presumed liability. But your idea of anything-but-segregation starts to attribute causal powers to these other measures in excess of any serious consideration of evidence. One reason the political system and justice system word for cyclists in the NL is that everybody cycles. Why does everyone cycle? Not because of the justice system, given that that only caught up with the political and infra changes twenty years later.


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> Have you ever tried skating along a path demarcated by a 45 degree kerb?


No, but I often ride a bike along one (and into one from the adjacent lane). Better than a square kerb. Suitable when motorists are unlikely to enter.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Your leaps of logic are a marvel to behold.


Actually I was doing breaststroke.

To be clear I'm pro presumed liability. But your idea of anything-but-segregation starts to attribute causal powers to these other measures in excess of any serious consideration of evidence. One reason the political system and justice system word for cyclists in the NL is that everybody cycles. Why does everyone cycle? Not because of the justice system, given that that only caught up with the political and infra changes twenty years later.


----------



## mjr (2 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> who was who e-mailed the LCC, got a foolish reply and cancelled his subscription?


If a foolish message meant it wasn't worth talking to the organisation ever again, it would be very quiet on here.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> If a foolish message meant it wasn't worth talking to the organisation ever again, it would be very quiet on here.



Winston, you are drunk, etc.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> I see no reason to duplicate their experience in real time when we can go straight to end game, taking just the better bits of course.



Ho ho ho. And when the order of events is telling you that you have completely the wrong idea about what the *effective* bits were, that does not trouble you in the slightest.


----------



## theclaud (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> You absolutely refuse to play the ball- which is why there is nothing left but to chuckle at you.


I'm afraid I'm hugely bored by your fetishization of the Netherlands, as well as your aggression. We had to send @Delftse Post out there from Amazingstoke to make it cooler.

Are you hoping for this kind of thing? Because I find it utterly grotesque.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Oct 2014)

theclaud said:


> I'm afraid I'm hugely bored by your fetishization of the Netherlands, as well as your aggression. We had to send @Delftse Post out there from Amazingstoke to make it cooler.
> 
> Are you hoping for this kind of thing? Because I find it utterly grotesque.



isn't this the video that some plank put up in order to impress us? And got pretty shirty when we described it as a vision of hell?

edit. I've just watched it through again. it's utterly, utterly horrible. Remind me - where is this?


----------



## StuAff (2 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> isn't this the video that some plank put up in order to impress us? And got pretty shirty when we described it as a vision of hell?
> 
> edit. I've just watched it through again. it's utterly, utterly horrible. Remind me - where is this?


Paradise for bimblers. Hell for everyone else.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Why do we need to run events in the same order?



Because 
1. You will only get political support for this kind of legislation if the vast majority of people cycle as a normal daily part of transport.
And because
2. The legislation didn't actually do any of the things you claimed for it. It didn't reduce injuries or change behaviour. Both those good things were done by the infra put in earlier.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

theclaud said:


> Are you hoping for this kind of thing? Because I find it utterly grotesque.






dellzeqq said:


> isn't this the video that some plank put up in order to impress us?



You've just selected a vid of the Dutch equivalent, not of Soho, but of the Hanger Lane Gyratory. So what you are saying is that their version is hell and our version is a fun thing to look at while you wile away the hours, conversin with the flowers. Well yes I suppose so, if you are making for M4 junction 6 on your audax bike.


----------



## theclaud (2 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> isn't this the video that some plank put up in order to impress us? And got pretty shirty when we described it as a vision of hell?
> 
> edit. I've just watched it through again. it's utterly, utterly horrible. *Remind me - where is this?*



In paradise, apparently. They've put one of these things straight through the middle of Port Talbot (as if it hasn't got enough to deal with). There's no cycle lane, of course, but it wouldn't be any less horrific if they put one in.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> You lack vision


I will control my laughter. I know it upsets you. And at this point my dominant emotion is compassion.

Look, I want presumed liability too. But a good way of getting that is to have Mass Cycling, and that requires Dutch style infra.


----------



## StuAff (2 Oct 2014)

theclaud said:


> In paradise, apparently. They've put one of these things straight through the middle of Port Talbot (as if it hasn't got enough to deal with). There's no cycle lane, of course, but it wouldn't be any less horrific if they put one in.


There is however the usual crock of **** shared path with sudden pointless diversions etc.


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> How can it make things much worse? The "get in the cycle lane" idiots do that regardless. The "force them in the cycle lane" politicians are already trying to make it happen. Are there other negative effects apart from this 1930s bogeyman?


Anecdotal evience time again, but I've had more "get in the cycle lane" abuse from drivers when there was a cycle lane than when there wasn't. And the "force them in the cycle lane" politicians would I suspect get rather more support if the cycle lane in question was a large-scale civil engineering works instead of a crappy bit of green paint.

But that aside, if the idea here is to remove one lane previously available to anyone able to keep up with the traffic, and replace it with slightly less than half a lane in which the presence of Boris Wobblers will make it impossible to maintain keep-up-with-the-traffic pace, then you can expect a certain segment of current cyclists will be upset by the proposal even before we start talking about the effects it might have on attitudes of non-cyclists


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> Anecdotal evience time again, but I've had more "get in the cycle lane" abuse from drivers when there was a cycle lane than when there wasn't.


same here. In Milton Keynes. Which, despite what the LCC bod is telling us, is almost devoid of cyclists. In fact, on six visits to MK this year, most of those visits spread over two days, and involving visits to 23C in Stony Stratford, we saw less than a dozen people riding bikes, And two of those were on the A5.

Still and all, what they do in Milton Keynes is up to Milton Keynes. Says the man drawing a six storey hotel covered in CorTen steel heading for the Theatre District............


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> That word "requires" demonstrates the lack of vision.


Oh come on. Vision is seeing things. Seeing things that are not there- that's fantasy.


----------



## StuAff (2 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> same here. In Milton Keynes. Which, despite what the LCC bod is telling us, is almost devoid of cyclists. In fact, on six visits to MK this year, most of those visits spread over two days, and involving visits to 23C in Stony Stratford, we saw less than a dozen people riding bikes, And two of those were on the A5.


And the same here, on Southsea and Brighton seafronts. Even when my speed & the number of pedestrians meant being on the road was clearly more appropriate.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> same here. In Milton Keynes. Which, despite what the LCC bod is telling us, is almost devoid of cyclists. In fact, on six visits to MK this year, most of those visits spread over two days, and involving visits to 23C in Stony Stratford, we saw less than a dozen people riding bikes, And two of those were on the A5.



"Me missus and I went to Blackpool- never saw the sea. We saw one bucket of sand, and that was in the Bingo."


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> And lack of vision is your lack of ability to see other ways



My lack of ability to see other ways is demonstrated to you in the fact that I consider 80 years of trying the same thing and going backwards a failure?


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> "Me missus and I went to Blackpool- never saw the sea. We saw one bucket of sand, and that was in the Bingo."


well, that sums you up, doesn't it? 

What do you think that you contribute to cycling? In a personal way?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> well, that sums you up, doesn't it?
> 
> What do you think that you contribute to cycling? In a personal way?



Oh no sir, not me sir, I'm only the stableboy sir- we all wants to know about you sir.


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> Anecdotal evience time again, but I've had more "get in the cycle lane" abuse from drivers when there was a cycle lane than when there wasn't. And the "force them in the cycle lane" politicians would I suspect get rather more support if the cycle lane in question was a large-scale civil engineering works instead of a crappy bit of green paint


Another thought occurs to me along these lines, which is about collisions and insurance companies. We all know they'll attempt to wriggle out of paying based on lack of helmet, no hi-vis, anything they can think of which they might be able to argue as contributory liability, and that they've attempted to do the same based on non-use of a cycle path (see e.g. the case of Daniel Cadden). How much more likely are they to try that one on again given more cycle lanes and more cycline organisations praising their merits to the skies? Surely a cyclist who prefers to use the road in such circumstances can only do so because he is insane and the author of his own misfortune?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> That phrase "trying the same thing", that's your lack of vision kicking in again.


Whatever I say, right- that's my lack of vision kicking in. Gotcha.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> Oh no sir, not me sir, I'm only the stableboy sir- we all wants to know about you sir.


so the answer is 'none'


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> Another thought occurs to me along these lines, which is about collisions and insurance companies. We all know they'll attempt to wriggle out of paying based on lack of helmet, no hi-vis, anything they can think of which they might be able to argue as contributory liability, and that they've attempted to do the same based on non-use of a cycle path (see e.g. the case of Daniel Cadden). How much more likely are they to try that one on again given more cycle lanes and more cycline organisations praising their merits to the skies? Surely a cyclist who prefers to use the road in such circumstances can only do so because he is insane and the author of his own misfortune?



They've never succeeded on the helmet front when challenged. Hi viz is more pestilential in that you can be damned both for wearing it and for not wearing it -cf hampshire police. On the other hand cases like that do make the argument for mass cycling as a legal measure- because it is plain that the jury and the police regarded cyclists as such a small minority as to be ipso facto in the wrong. We can rail against that, and good god but I do! -or we can both rail against it and do something about it. Like, by getting everyone cycling including jurors.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> so the answer is 'none'


No the answer is "stop personalising discussions of fact into a dick size competition, you authority fixated gentleman you"


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> No the answer is "stop personalising discussions of fact into a dick size competition, you authority fixated gentleman you"


so the answer is none. Another sofa cycle campaigner.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> so the answer is none. Another sofa cycle campaigner.


[Sigh].


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Let us all now take a moment to reflect.

What we should mainly reflect is that when a great man is mighty, and his contribution is great, then 
that great man is right, especially when he's wrong.

Let us also reflect that we will take no more shoot from anonymous upstarts talking back at us-
talking back mark you in tones we had righteously used at them. No. 

Nor will black be anything other than white, unless it be confessed by a mighty man.

We hold these truths to be self-evidently not the culture of a bunch of arrogant bullies.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> You are not being bullied, you are just failing to persuade some people to fall in with your view of the world and taking it a teensy bit badly.


I would not consent to being bullied. But say, did the gentleman attempt to settle a debate and discredit a contrary voice by claiming authority, or did he not?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

Did the gentleman simplify a discussion of policy and historical fact into the question of who had made the greater 'contribution', or did he not?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Then don't claim it



I didn't claim I was bullied. I suggested DZ behaved like a bully. Mark the distinction.


----------



## User169 (2 Oct 2014)

theclaud said:


> I'm afraid I'm hugely bored by your fetishization of the Netherlands, as well as your aggression. We had to send @Delftse Post out there from Amazingstoke to make it cooler.



Me and Mrs DP en route to the offy and not a cycle lane in sight...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewaRSOevgfM


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> You used the phrase "culture of a bunch of arrogant bullies".


That's right.

I think that's what it is when, in response to any serious challenge on matters of fact or theory, the response takes the form of asserting your authority as a leader in cycling, and an attempt to stick on an anonymous contributor a long long list of names it would now be vexatious to repeat in full.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Oct 2014)

I think the words 'no contribution' are coming back to haunt you


----------



## theclaud (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> That's right.
> 
> I think that's what it is when, in response to any serious challenge on matters of fact or theory, the response takes the form of asserting your authority as a leader in cycling, and an attempt *to stick on an anonymous contributor a long long list of names it would now be vexatious to repeat.*



Has anyone used up "nobber" yet?


----------



## Dan B (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> They've never succeeded on the helmet front when challenged. Hi viz is more pestilential in that you can be damned both for wearing it and for not wearing it -cf hampshire police. On the other hand cases like that do make the argument for mass cycling as a legal measure- because it is plain that the jury and the police regarded cyclists as such a small minority as to be ipso facto in the wrong. We can rail against that, and good god but I do! -or we can both rail against it and do something about it. Like, by getting everyone cycling including jurors.


They've not succeded on the helmet front _in the end_, but they've had a damned good try at it in the cases we know about and I bet there 
are an awful lot more cases where we don't because the cyclist doesn't have the time, money or patience to pursue the claim and settles for reduced damages out of court or even just gives up altogether. I agree that mass cycling would make this kind of thing less likely, but am at something of a loss to see how getting everyone cycling on seg infra will be of any help when someone attracts unwanted attention for cycling on the public road.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

theclaud said:


> Has anyone used up "nobber" yet?


 I don't know. Will you feel mighty if you use it first?


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> And you of course have been unfailingly polite throughout.


No I don't think so. When I've been told to f. off in some thinly veiled form, I've returned the compliment.


----------



## theclaud (2 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> I don't know. Will you feel mighty if you use it first?


It's not a mighty kinda word.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (2 Oct 2014)

User said:


> And you of course have been unfailingly polite throughout.


As I say I return compliments.
On the other hand you may have noticed I did have some entirely civil interactions in the midst of all this crap. But not with those who where dishing it out with a shovel.


----------



## Dan B (3 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> No I don't think so. When I've been told to f. off in some thinly veiled form, I've returned the compliment.


Where exactly were the personal insults you were responding to in #315 and #316? They seem to be your first contributions to cyclechat between this week and January ...


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (3 Oct 2014)

User said:


> So quit complaining and trying to make out you are being bullied, stifled, shouted down, victimised etc. You have just failed, that's all.



I don't think I've failed. Persuading you and DZ wasn't on the agenda. Exposing DZ and others was.


----------



## theclaud (3 Oct 2014)

knocksofbeggarmen said:


> I don't think I've failed. Persuading you and DZ wasn't on the agenda. Exposing DZ and others was.


----------



## knocksofbeggarmen (3 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Of course, well done. You can return to your mother ship now and bask in the glow of another well run campaign.


Basking is not my style. There was an honest and open minded fellow I surprisingly met in the middle of all this, and I will wonder quietly to myself what he made of the spectacle.


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Oct 2014)

Bus lanes.

We should have more of them.
They are good for cycling, far better than cycle lanes and other farcilities and they are useful for buses .... Which is a good thing.
They also require a lot of space which means less space for cars ... Which is a good thing.
Cars don't tend to park in them either .... Which is a good thing.

I'm not against separate farcilities per se. We have some good ones in Abingdon and in some parts of Oxford that are well used and appreciated.
The route by the motorway out of Brighton to Crawley whilst imperfect is useful. I have no idea how many use it though or how often.
Sustrans routes are another form of abomination.

We have just had a roundabout heavily modified on our way to work supposedly to help cyclists .... It is of little benefit to to those using the cycle path, it has created much greater traffic queues which greatly impedes those like me cycling on the road, it causes extra pollution, increases journey times and resentment against cyclists.
As a co-founder of one of 2 sizeable cycle clubs in Abingdon's compact environs I know of not one cyclist that had been consulted about the design. It's a huge waste of money that has now become a political football. Only the contractors have benefitted.

I have also ridden in holland on their so-called good infrastructure. It's like the curates egg, good in parts so not much different to here then and much is equally as crap too. Ede was a perfectly good town to cycle through until the farcilities arrived which turned my commute into a miserable nightmare ... For no apparent reason than trend I guess. I can't think it had any impact on safety or encouraged anyone to start to cycle.

Overall I think there is a limited application for cycle only segregated facilities. Much more energy and effort should be put into bus lanes, cyclists priority at busy junctions, traffic calming, bollarding of back roads and residential side streets, Making nice cycle routes and increased pedestrianisation. In fact things that ultimately make everyone's life better ... If only we knew it.

So when somebody bangs the drum for segregation (the argument of the car lobby) we are right to be highly sceptical.


----------



## jonesy (3 Oct 2014)

Sadly the Mayor has made it harder for tfl to promote bus lanes for cyclists by letting motorbikes into them. And worse still other councils are following...


----------



## subaqua (3 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Thanks but a simple "no, I've not considered this serious enough to tell LCC HQ" would have sufficed.



well one would have assumed that HQ would have been organising the protest and whaen i asked do you work for HQ and get a yes answer then a brush off the prevalent attitude seems to be we can do what we like , then i feel rather like trying to get you to see anything but your own point of view , it would have been a waste of my time and effort going direct to HQ


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> it would have been a waste of my time and effort going direct to HQ


That's not for sure but I can see that it's far more fun to have the anecdote than fix the problem.


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Oct 2014)

jonesy said:


> Sadly the Mayor has made it harder for tfl to promote bus lanes for cyclists by letting motorbikes into them. And worse still other councils are following...


A silly idea. However id have been ok with scooters as I think small wheeled low speed efficient motors are another good transport solution.


----------



## jonesy (3 Oct 2014)

The irony is that the study carried out after the initial trial period concluded that it was the motorcyclists themselves that were at increased risk, yet their lobby groups pressed for it anyway...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Oct 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> Bus lanes.
> 
> We should have more of them.
> They are good for cycling, far better than cycle lanes and other farcilities and they are useful for buses .... Which is a good thing.
> ...


There's an irony about London cycling and bus lanes, it seems. If I remember correctly, the widespread introduction of bus lanes on major routes happened prior to the introduction of congestion charging. Road journey times increased heavily for private and commercial vehicles at this time and this gave many people cause to reconsider how they were going to get around. The bus lanes were fundamental to this (first) step change in changing modes of transport. But it appears that a large increase in the number of cyclists happened at this time because they were allowed to use a reserved space that was never designed for them. Build a bus lane and cyclists appear....


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> same here. In Milton Keynes. Which, despite what the LCC bod is telling us, is almost devoid of cyclists. In fact, on six visits to MK this year, most of those visits spread over two days, and involving visits to 23C in Stony Stratford, we saw less than a dozen people riding bikes, And two of those were on the A5.


What LCC bod?

The data says there's more cyclists than average, so I wonder if it looks "almost devoid" because there's far far more infrastructure than average and so you've got a high-but-unremarkable number of cyclists mostly spread thinly over a vast network. If you were on roads, that would make you even less likely to see them in the newer parts of the city.

While not the bike-free-zone that some seem determined to say, I don't think MK is a good example for most of the country. Cambridge, London and to some extent Oxford are also open to accusations of special conditions causing high cycling (some restrictions motor ownership in the university cities and different highways management in London). So from the "top ten" that makes Norwich, York, Hull and Gosport more interesting to examine. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/censu...ab-Which-areas-have-the-most-cycling-to-work- suggests at least some of those are because of low rainfall and flat cities... which I think it a superficial answer. The east may be drier but it's also colder/icier and riding up the likes of Grapes Hill or Mousehold Heath still isn't easy. Worth a closer look?


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> Bus lanes.
> 
> We should have more of them.
> They are good for cycling, far better than cycle lanes and other farcilities and they are useful for buses .... Which is a good thing.
> ...


I'm happy with bus lanes and recently called for some in King's Lynn town centre when we were being consulted on the bus station redesign. Wwe didn't get them - the councils are pushing ahead with their original plan of a too-narrow two-way shared-use next to parked cars leading to a badly-positioned toucan across to a no-through-motors road. We'll try to block the worst bits but it's an awful missed opportunity - and yes, the "we're designing only for the less confident cyclist" excuse was trotted out again.

There are three problems with them, though: it requires about an extra metre width per direction, what should happen at junctions (where bus lanes often vanish like cycle lanes do) and what should happen at bus stops? After all, it was a design to get bikes past stopped buses more safely that started this thread.

Cars do also use bus lanes far too often, but that's an enforcement problem, which I seem to agree with almost everyone here that more is needed. Also, while us old riders may be OK with them, is there much data about what cyclists in general and maybe-cyclists think about riding in bus lanes?


----------



## jonesy (3 Oct 2014)

User said:


> I have a bit of a suspicion that a significant proportion of motorcyclists actively embrace the danger as part of their self image.


I agree, but that didn't stop them claiming that the trials had found it made it safer for motorcyclists, when no such conclusion was drawn. But then tfl did the same... Using.a mobile, so can't easily find the links, but to.compare and contrast the trial monitoring reports with tfl's press release would make an interesting comprehension test...


----------



## Dan B (3 Oct 2014)

User said:


> My observation is that there is more over-compliance with bus lanes. Ones that are in force 07:00 - 19:00 tend to have people respecting them outside those hours.


I suspect this is because the hours often vary along the route and the signage is difficult to read at speed and after you've "jumped the queue" for 1000 metres nobody will let you back into the traffic lane when you realise you're approaching the 24 hour bit. Or the parked car.


----------



## Dan B (3 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Cars do also use bus lanes far too often, but that's an enforcement problem, which I seem to agree with almost everyone here that more is needed. Also, while us old riders may be OK with them, is there much data about what cyclists in general and maybe-cyclists think about riding in bus lanes?


Of the non-cyclists who wish to cycle that I observed over a period of 25 minutes this morning, none of them (0) were cycling in bus lanes. Is that data? ;-)


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2014)

Dan B said:


> Of the non-cyclists who wish to cycle that I observed over a period of 25 minutes this morning, none of them (0) were cycling in bus lanes. Is that data? ;-)


Yeah it's data, but neither particularly useful nor what I asked for!

There's mention of "wide bus lanes (if properly enforced)" in the "Get Britain Cycling" report but frustratingly no way to follow that suggestion back to any evidence and it didn't make it into the recomendations.

There have been some surveys of opinions of new and would-be cyclists (like "Climate Change and Transport Choices", "Barriers to taking up cycling in Hackney" and so on) but I don't remember and didn't find any asking about bus lanes and they don't seem to be suggested by new/would-bes as something that would encourage them to ride. Is there any evidence about this? It seems a surprising omission.


----------



## zimzum42 (3 Oct 2014)




----------



## zimzum42 (3 Oct 2014)

http://versus.com/en/london-vs-amsterdam


----------



## zimzum42 (3 Oct 2014)




----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2014)

I forget what point those Amsterdam pictures were trying to prove, but they seem to show that Amsterdam has faster-flowing motor traffic and no way to build anything like the M25. Does that mean we should copy the Amsterdam solutions for London?

As I wrote earlier, I'd prefer to look at what works in high-cycling English places as much as what works abroad. Amsterdam and Copenhagen look different (although I've ridden in neither) so it's possible that what works here will look different to both.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2014)

Aha, I think it's that in Amsterdam


w00hoo_kent said:


> journeys may be longer, a big chunk of them are going to be using nice open not really urban in the London sense roads. They will be coming in from suburbs that are properly detached from the city in a way that London journeys aren't and because of that the ability to give them long contiguous (word of the day obviously) compulsory cycle lanes is greater. Of course they then let 50cc 'cars' drive on them which are an utter menace and you can't really go quickly because of the width. But we can ignore those bits if you'd prefer.


so those maps aren't really illustrating that point but a few minutes on www.osm.org standard layer illustrates the different structures, with Amsterdam area looking more like a series of urban islands (as I'd expect for a fenland/holland city) and London looking like a splat (as I'd expect for a river valley city). Doesn't say much about the 50cc or width and are Amsterdam area bike lanes much narrower than London mixed lanes that apparently people here are happy to whiz along?

And I write "mixed lanes" because cycle lanes are part of the road too.

Browsing osm a bit more and looking at high-cycling places, Cambridge and Oxford look to have the urban islands thing going on. Hull looks more solid and faces up to the Humber, but has a bit of the urban islands thing around it. Norwich and York don't have the island-y structure at all, but have relatively green river valleys cutting through them and cycle routes in/near those. Gosport is a peninsular with routes roughly along both coasts and over the bridge. Are waterway routes the key to cycling? So the EW London cycleway near the river may work well even if the design is merely not-lethal rather than particularly good.


----------



## zimzum42 (3 Oct 2014)

I think we should build a network of cycling tunnels


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2014)

We'll find out in a few years whether tunnels have made a difference in Bath ;-)


----------



## w00hoo_kent (3 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Almost a good idea, just the wrong way around. Give motorised vehicle users the troglodyte experience and leave the daylight for pedestrians, cyclists, and trams.


We didn't get to the tunnels, but if I was reading the Garmin right, they do a good job of avoiding some climbing, I'm happy to leave that to the cars.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (3 Oct 2014)

User said:


> I have a bit of a suspicion that a significant proportion of motorcyclists actively embrace the danger as part of their self image.


Not really.

Motorcycling is a lot more like cycling than either side care to admit. The big differences are that the motorcycling lobby failed to stop helmets becoming compulsory (I guess that may not be a difference given enough time) and motorcyclists tend to admit that their choice includes a degree of danger while cyclists seem not to. Although perversely the reason for the degree of danger is identical (other road users, generally cars and lorries).

As with any two forms of transport, the conflicts tend to arise because what is acceptable for one form is seen as crazy dangerous for another.

Oh, and as with cyclists, some motorcyclists are nobbers.


----------



## subaqua (3 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> That's not for sure but I can see that it's far more fun to have the anecdote than fix the problem.



do you really think think that. then you are a bigger nobber than i had originally thought. 

or you are high in the LCC and don't like criticism so try to belittle.


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> do you really think think that. then you are a bigger nobber than i had originally thought.
> 
> or you are high in the LCC and don't like criticism so try to belittle.


Sat here, it looks like either this bothers you and you want this fixed so should contact LCC HQ and see whether this is policy or - as seems more likely - a rogue ride guide... or you'd prefer to have the anecdote.

I'm not high in the LCC (or even in LCC - I'm a member of another cyclenation group) and have gotten used to criticism but I really don't understand your motivation for acting that way.


----------



## subaqua (3 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Sat here, it looks like either this bothers you and you want this fixed so should contact LCC HQ and see whether this is policy or - as seems more likely - a rogue ride guide... or you'd prefer to have the anecdote.
> 
> I'm not high in the LCC (or even in LCC - I'm a member of another cyclenation group) and have gotten used to criticism but I really don't understand your motivation for acting that way.



what bit of not wanting to waste my time for no result is the hard bit to understand. i spoke to several reps and got utterly fobbed off. 

segregation is not the way forward . being able to use the roads without fear is the way. if thew LCC think segregation is a panacea then they are utterly misguided. 


i am beginning to smell troll


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I'm not high in the LCC (or even in LCC - I'm a member of another cyclenation group) and have gotten used to criticism but I really don't understand your motivation for acting that way.


Are you letting on that you're lecturing us on what we need from afar? Sweet!


----------



## mjr (3 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> Are you letting on that you're lecturing us on what we need from afar? Sweet!


I've been quite clear (see sig or profile homepage) that I only ride in London (usually going to/from work) and live/campaign elsewhere. I joined this thread to try to correct the incorrect claims being made about MK (where I used to live) and then noticed some about LCC. I'm quite willing to listen to people who spend more time in London about London, but that includes LCC's 12000 too. I'm also not comfortable that protected lanes are suboptimal everywhere which seems a popular view on here.

@subaqua - I thought you approached the ride leaders who had gone the wrong way. LCC also campaigns for 20mph, green ways, no through motors, school routes and I've forgotten the sixth element of the space 4cycling just now. Protected lanes aren't seen as a panacea but nor are the failed MTFU policies of the last seventy years. As for smelling a troll, I've been thinking that already :-p


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Oct 2014)

set that 11000 against the 780,000 who cycle regularly in London and the 6000 that go round the Old Street Roundabout (the most dangerous junction this side of Mars etc., etc.,), and you have some idea of the LCC's relevance in London. 

How about we agree that Zimmers and I never, ever pronounce on cycling in Kings Lynn if you leave us to worry about London, not least one of our favourite rides?


----------



## theclaud (4 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> How about we agree that Zimmers and I never, ever pronounce on cycling in Kings Lynn if you leave us to worry about London, not least one of our favourite rides?



Zimmers might be more suited to Kings Lynn than you think...



theclaud said:


> I'm sure that I used to think you were pretty rock n roll. Now you post like Patrick Stevens, live with your mum and think that commuting to Windsor by train makes you as hard as an Ice Road Trucker.


----------



## stowie (4 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> same here. In Milton Keynes. Which, despite what the LCC bod is telling us, is almost devoid of cyclists. In fact, on six visits to MK this year, most of those visits spread over two days, and involving visits to 23C in Stony Stratford, we saw less than a dozen people riding bikes, And two of those were on the A5.
> 
> Still and all, what they do in Milton Keynes is up to Milton Keynes. Says the man drawing a six storey hotel covered in CorTen steel heading for the Theatre District............



That is interesting. I spend some time in MK with work, and I very much doubt many people commute to work, or are "utility" cyclists. I wouldn't be if I lived there. For instance my office is conveniently located off a 60mph dual carriageway and - despite there being an entire office complex - the closest places to eat, save a small snack bar on site, are a car ride away. The whole thing is set up for cars as I said before. You can have the best infrastructure in the world but if you are expecting people to cycle for significant distances just to grab a decent sandwich then it probably isn't going to be somewhere people will cycle.

On the other hand, colleagues of mine - people who wouldn't consider a bicycle for commuting or shopping - will often cycle with their children on the offroad paths to get to parks and generally have a ride out with their family. I would say they probably cycle for family leisure far more than my friends in London. I have seen more cyclists at weekends than during the week

It seems topsy turvey to my world where I use a cycle for pretty much all local tasks but haven't ever managed to muster courage to cycle with my child locally to anywhere other than the park across the street because any further involves roads - and drivers - that are simply unwilling to share.

Solutions to this aren't easy to achieve I think.


----------



## subaqua (4 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I've been quite clear (see sig or profile homepage) that I only ride in London (usually going to/from work) and live/campaign elsewhere. I joined this thread to try to correct the incorrect claims being made about MK (where I used to live) and then noticed some about LCC. I'm quite willing to listen to people who spend more time in London about London, but that includes LCC's 12000 too. I'm also not comfortable that protected lanes are suboptimal everywhere which seems a popular view on here.
> 
> @subaqua - I thought you approached the ride leaders who had gone the wrong way. LCC also campaigns for 20mph, green ways, no through motors, school routes and I've forgotten the sixth element of the space 4cycling just now. Protected lanes aren't seen as a panacea but nor are the failed MTFU policies of the last seventy years. As for smelling a troll, I've been thinking that already :-p




I did explain that i approached the ride leader and the protest organisers on the day who confirmed they were from HQ , the attitude back from them was a CBA one.


----------



## mjr (4 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> set that 11000 against the 780,000 who cycle regularly in London and the 6000 that go round the Old Street Roundabout (the most dangerous junction this side of Mars etc., etc.,), and you have some idea of the LCC's relevance in London.


Credit to you for speaking up, but we've no idea whether the other 779900+ agree with you or LCC.



> How about we agree that Zimmers and I never, ever pronounce on cycling in Kings Lynn if you leave us to worry about London, not least one of our favourite rides?


How about if you ride in Lynn much, then you can comment on it? I'm riding in London to work again this week and while I'm happy to listen to others who ride there more, I'm going to keep commenting on riding there.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> How about if you ride in Lynn much, then you can comment on it? I'm riding in London to work again this week and while I'm happy to listen to others who ride there more, I'm going to keep commenting on riding there.


Don't. Seriously. It's our city. Screw up your own home town by all means, but just leave ours alone.


----------



## mjr (4 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> Don't. Seriously. It's our city. Screw up your own home town by all means, but just leave ours alone.


Why should travel design be decided by a place's residents rather than its travellers? You already get disproportionate power over those who have to use London, because we can only elect to Parliament while you also elect to Assembly and boroughs.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Oct 2014)

'Travel design'. That sums up your ignorance. 

I'll give you time to think about that one.


----------



## srw (5 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Not really.
> 
> Motorcycling is a lot more like cycling than either side care to admit. The big differences are that the motorcycling lobby failed to stop helmets becoming compulsory (I guess that may not be a difference given enough time) and motorcyclists tend to admit that their choice includes a degree of danger while cyclists seem not to. .


I think it might be time* for this link again....
http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

The equivalent link for motorbikes would be rather different - on whatever measure you care to use, motorcycling is considerably more dangerous than cycling.

*It's probably time for this thread to be nuked, but never mind.


----------



## mjr (6 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> 'Travel design'. That sums up your ignorance.
> 
> I'll give you time to think about that one.


Ignorance how? Streets serve many purposes and the trade aspects should be decided more by the traders and the public space and cultural aspects by the people who live near it and so on. What's wrong with thinking travellers through should have a say mainly about the travel aspects more than the other bits?


----------



## theclaud (6 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Ignorance how? Streets serve many purposes and the trade aspects should be decided more by the traders and the public space and cultural aspects by the people who live near it and so on. What's wrong with thinking travellers through should have a say mainly about the travel aspects more than the other bits?



All these places and people in your way, refusing to divvy up the "bits" of their lives for your transportation convenience! It's just not fair, is it?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (6 Oct 2014)

srw said:


> I think it might be time* for this link again....
> http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect
> 
> The equivalent link for motorbikes would be rather different - on whatever measure you care to use, motorcycling is considerably more dangerous than cycling.
> ...


Ah, yes, the 'if it doesn't kill you it isn't dangerous' argument. (yeah, yeah, kill you, or almost kill you).

I know it's anecdotal, and we all hate that, but here's a little experiment for you to try. The next time you're with a group of cyclists, start up a conversation about accidents and injuries. See if anyone has suffered either while on a bicycle. If you can tell me the numbers feel about right for striking up a similar conversation with, I don't know, a group of Eddie Stobart truck spotters then I'll concede that there is no danger in cycling. Feel free to nominate your own test group, but I may take umbridge if it's vert skateboarders, or technical SCUBA divers. As I've mentioned before, my RPG forum (the game, not the weapon, naturally) doesn't feel a need to allocate space specifically for people who have been injured or killed and just because it's never the fault of the cyclist, it doesn't mean the act is safe.


----------



## jonesy (6 Oct 2014)

Not quite clear what your point is, however what @srw said is correct: motorcycling is more dangerous than cycling. And there are some important differences in accident causes, not least because motorcycles tend to be ridden at speeds higher than those of other vehicles, whereas cycling speeds are generally lower.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (6 Oct 2014)

jonesy said:


> Not quite clear what your point is, however what @srw said is correct: motorcycling is more dangerous than cycling. And there are some important differences in accident causes, not least because motorcycles tend to be ridden at speeds higher than those of other vehicles, whereas cycling speeds are generally lower.



I get it, motorcycling does not equal cycling.

Interestingly looking for other data like that in the post responding to me came up with this







And you're right, but notice how the rate drops rapidly and discrepancies start to fade as the riders get older and more sensible. Arguably because speed becomes less of an issue and the things that both bicycles and motorbikes hit becomes more of one.

Anyway, my point was that most motorcyclists are no more likely to thrill at the danger of their activity than most bicyclists, and that they both have their share of danger.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (6 Oct 2014)

I've chased around to find out what the cars are on cycle paths and found them. The Canta is officially a disability vehicle but with no particular issues needed to drive them, needing no licence and being quick enough they appear to be rising quickly in popularity. Apparently there is a customising subculture for them. We crossed the ferry to Zaandam with one that had a couple in it and their baby in the 'back' so I guess it was the family car.


----------



## srw (6 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I get it, motorcycling does not equal cycling.
> 
> Interestingly looking for other data like that in the post responding to me came up with this
> 
> ...


Unless you really want another 43 pages of discussion on how best to measure safety rates for cyclists (headlines: KSI isn't necessarily the best measure, and it doesn't actually measure what you think it is; rate per billion km is sometimes a sensible comparator, except where rate per trip or rate per hour or rate per person makes more sense; however you measure it, the risk involved in cycling is frequently over-stated and over-estimated) you might want to dig around in this particular corner of the forum. It's not exactly new ground. Important, but not new.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Ignorance how? Streets serve many purposes and the trade aspects should be decided more by the traders and the public space and cultural aspects by the people who live near it and so on. What's wrong with thinking travellers through should have a say mainly about the travel aspects more than the other bits?


let me see..............

History. Place. Power. The public realm. Civility. Or..........if everywhere is on the way to somewhere else, where is there left to be?

What marks the east-west route out as a piece of shoddy opportunism is that nobody, but nobody is going to use it as an east-west route. It's simply a grandiose bit of felt-tippery, stitching disconnected pieces of so-called infrastructure together in to one big vanity project. The Embankment, which means more to this city than the LCC could ever imagine, just happens to be in the way. And, here's the irony - a bus lane would hasten the fit and the not-so-fit cyclist along one of the nicest three miles one could ever ride on - this half-assed scheme will slow cyclists down. And make cycling on the Embankment more dangerous.

So why don't you go and sort out Kings Lynn or wherever it is?


----------



## mjr (7 Oct 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> And, here's the irony - a bus lane would hasten the fit and the not-so-fit cyclist along one of the nicest three miles one could ever ride on - this half-assed scheme will slow cyclists down. And make cycling on the Embankment more dangerous.


Are there service buses there or just the tour buses? http://osm.org/go/euu4idZx?layers=T shows one service 490 using it but http://www.tfl.gov.uk/bus/route/490/ says that is Richmond to Heathrow so something's not correct there. If there's no buses, how about building bus lanes and labelling them as cycle lanes? ;-)

Cycling speed for most people is far more influenced by what happens at junctions than by other cyclists, which is also where the main sources of danger are. The plans https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/71a267bd looks like they're making the tough decisions on turn restrictions and so on needed to make them relatively safe, although some devils hide in the details of signal timings and so on which aren't spelt out. Other than a couple of junctions where give-ways would work better for most cycle movements than lights, can anyone give examples of specific parts that seem slow and/or unsafe by design?


> So why don't you go and sort out Kings Lynn or wherever it is?


That's already underway and looks to be ahead of London, with higher proportions of regular cyclists and cycling-commuters in King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough than in London, even despite West Norfolk's mixed rural/urban make-up and London's recent doubling of cycle-commuting. West Norfolk has more policing challenges than London (we've not even got pavement/cycleway parking under anything like as good control as London), as well as a far more cycling-harmful approach to congestion and air quality where the councils seem to be trying to address them bizarrely by rewarding motorists with more roads and more, cheaper parking - trying to build the way out of congestion yet again. Even so, a relatively low-key mix of no-through-motors roads, green space routes (the Walks, the riverside, the Sandringham Railway Path and the Springwood-Reffley) and a few bits of protected space beside the A149 (especially where it's now a nine-lane monstrosity) seems to be producing good results despite their imperfections.


----------



## mjr (7 Oct 2014)

User said:


> What absolute bollocks!
> 
> There's more regular cyclists and more cycling-commuters in London than there are people in Kings Lynn (which is a sh1te hole) and West Norfolk as a whole...


Yeah sorry I was still on my first coffee. It should have said higher proportion. I'll go back and fix it. Thanks for checking it in a way that no one seems to bother about some of the bogus claims about places like MK, although that was a bit of a harsh wording!

Can't agree on the hole bit. A lot of good stuff has been done to put right the sixties/seventies atrocities, although of course there's more could be done.


----------



## subaqua (7 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Yeah sorry I was still on my first coffee. It should have said higher proportion. I'll go back and fix it. Thanks for checking it in a way that no one seems to bother about some of the bogus claims about places like MK, although that was a bit of a harsh wording!
> 
> Can't agree on the hole bit. A lot of good stuff has been done to put right the sixties/seventies atrocities, although of course there's more could be done.


 
betjeman wrote about Slough, but could very well have substituted Kings Lynn.

as an aside do the residents of Kings lynn not get to vote in County council or Borough elections ?


----------



## mjr (7 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> betjeman wrote about Slough, but could very well have substituted Kings Lynn.


When Betjeman wrote that in 1937, King's Lynn was basically a part-medieval port town, yet to enjoy the Slough-style trading estates or the slum clearances that made way for big roads, sixties blocks of flats and an ugly shopping centre which I think is a lot of what has given the town a bad image outside, as well as caused a few problems for cycling: most of those big roads are big barriers to most people cycling because there's not really the traffic to fill them most of the day and so vehicle speeds seem uncomfortably high. Some of the worst bits have been bypassed or tamed now, though, while the ugly shops and flats are being replaced.


> as an aside do the residents of Kings lynn not get to vote in County council or Borough elections ?


Yes, but the town tends to vote Labour (11:3:1 Lab:Con:LD last borough vote) while both councils tend to be Conservative-run. The Borough runs the town from "special expenses" which seems a bit odd to me, although it has its positives for cycling sometimes. London could teach the area quite a bit about democracy...


----------



## subaqua (7 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> When Betjeman wrote that in 1937, King's Lynn was basically a part-medieval port town, yet to enjoy the Slough-style trading estates or the slum clearances that made way for big roads, sixties blocks of flats and an ugly shopping centre which I think is a lot of what has given the town a bad image outside, as well as caused a few problems for cycling: most of those big roads are big barriers to most people cycling because there's not really the traffic to fill them most of the day and so vehicle speeds seem uncomfortably high. Some of the worst bits have been bypassed or tamed now, though, while the ugly shops and flats are being replaced.
> 
> Yes, but the town tends to vote Labour (11:3:1 Lab:Con:LD last borough vote) while both councils tend to be Conservative-run. The Borough runs the town from "special expenses" which seems a bit odd to me, although it has its positives for cycling sometimes. London could teach the area quite a bit about democracy...


So based on your post that said Londoners have an assembly and boroughs I think you sort of boxed yourself in there


----------



## mjr (7 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> So based on your post that said Londoners have an assembly and boroughs I think you sort of boxed yourself in there


I think part of the reasoning is missing from the above post, once again.


----------



## subaqua (7 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I think part of the reasoning is missing from the above post, once again.


When I get home and can access the thread properly I will quote your posts so you can see what bollox you post


----------



## noodle (7 Oct 2014)

User said:


> It matters not if it is currently used by buses. If we build it, they will come.


Right few beers in me so bear with me
I've tried following everything since my last visit and it's not happening
But is this post in relation to buses, bikes, cars or any mixture of them
As I've read it doesn't work like that about ten pages back.
No idea about London I've read a few of the chaps who looks to have a poirot thing going on whom is dead against it. Me no desire to go to London. Been it's full of people who are ever so slightly obnoxious more so than Manchester and Leeds combined
Anyway he makes sense with it not working in London if I've read him right. But please throw a few crumbs up this way even if it's only not making speed bumps full width or setting paths up on major roads, re designating rights of way to suit cycles.
Oh as for kings Lynn hmm. Thanks but no thanks I'm fine they make breakfast with chips, burgers and bubble on them 
I'd sooner walk through the Syrian Turkish border in full on steampunk gear playing I'm British than visit that place again. Oh an that is coming from a pike angler


----------



## noodle (7 Oct 2014)

Right cheers
It works for cars though 
Very serious question regarding all this 
Are the points being raised and argued by seemingly quite political types in the cycling fraternity missing something? That being schemes like this probably won't make a real difference to them but it will to the plebs and idiots who ride, I'm looking at it in the manner motorways came about for years cars had to make do with rough bye ways, then a few major routes started to get metalled surfaces then later came the motorways
These silly little schemes are probably the early metalled stage as we progress to the Orwellian future where everyone rides carbon monstrosities with a sky kit adorning them
That's when the cyclists get Dutch style motorways 


User said:


> It was buses and yes, as you point out, it doesn't work. That was my point.


----------



## srw (8 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> Yeah sorry I was still on my first coffee. It should have said higher proportion



Evidence? 

And if you mention the 2011 census I'll point out that the question was very seriously flawed (at least when it comes to big cities with good-quality public transport) and that it reports by residency, not by working or cycling location.

Any other evidence gratefully welcomed, even if it essentially boils down to "Kings Lynn is poor and people can't afford cars."


----------



## w00hoo_kent (8 Oct 2014)

noodle said:


> Very serious question regarding all this
> Are the points being raised and argued by seemingly quite political types in the cycling fraternity missing something? That being schemes like this probably won't make a real difference to them but it will to the plebs and idiots who ride, I'm looking at it in the manner motorways came about for years cars had to make do with rough bye ways, then a few major routes started to get metalled surfaces then later came the motorways


For me, almost the opposite. One of the arguments is that what we are looking at is a huge and costly white elephant that will lead to compulsion as justification for its existence. It'll be a feather in the cap for those with political aspertains 'look at this huge thing *we *made them build' while being of no practical use to the people actually cycling in that area. The motorway analogy holds some water, as it won't be built where people want to actually be. But as bikes aren't cars people won't want to make the detour to use it. Personally, I'd hate to end up with an Amsterdam style bike culture in London, while the added safety is nice bikes are treated as tools and there is no joy in the act of cycling just rows of people riding horrible, badly maintained bikes at a fraction of current cycling pace. If I want to go back to cycling in the 50's I'll move to the Isle of Wight :-) .


----------



## subaqua (8 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> I think part of the reasoning is missing from the above post, once again.





mjray said:


> Why should travel design be decided by a place's residents rather than its travellers? You already get disproportionate power over those who have to use London, because we can only elect to Parliament while you also elect to Assembly and boroughs.





mjray said:


> Yes, but the town tends to vote Labour (11:3:1 Lab:Con:LD last borough vote) while both councils tend to be Conservative-run. The Borough runs the town from "special expenses" which seems a bit odd to me, although it has its positives for cycling sometimes. London could teach the area quite a bit about democracy...



now which is it? London has disproportionate powers or can teach places about democracy ? 

by your own admission you get to vote in the same number of elections but just to make it absolutely clear

KL London

Parliament Parliament
County council Assembly
Borough Borough

and google seems to indicate you are not unitary.


----------



## subaqua (8 Oct 2014)

I wonder if/when we get segregated cycle lanes if TfL will alter all the sub surface services to ensure there are no ironwoks in the lanes . the dumbass lane this morning ( sorry i had to use it and hate it ) was bordering on lethal as it was lovely and wet with some leaves and the back end slewed a fair chunk. I also noticed that when there are lots of riders it slows the lane right down - who would have thunk that cycles were becoming congestion.


----------



## noodle (8 Oct 2014)

If motorways were so misplaced why on earth are they full of traffic? I spend a bit of time on three of them and all seem fairly well suited to travelling between places
Sorry about the Dutch thing that was drunk talking. I do (having never been but google images tells a good tale) know what you mean about the bikes



w00hoo_kent said:


> For me, almost the opposite. One of the arguments is that what we are looking at is a huge and costly white elephant that will lead to compulsion as justification for its existence. It'll be a feather in the cap for those with political aspertains 'look at this huge thing *we *made them build' while being of no practical use to the people actually cycling in that area. The motorway analogy holds some water, as it won't be built where people want to actually be. But as bikes aren't cars people won't want to make the detour to use it. Personally, I'd hate to end up with an Amsterdam style bike culture in London, while the added safety is nice bikes are treated as tools and there is no joy in the act of cycling just rows of people riding horrible, badly maintained bikes at a fraction of current cycling pace. If I want to go back to cycling in the 50's I'll move to the Isle of Wight :-) .[/QUOT


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (8 Oct 2014)

Minor diversion: after having checked it's not April 1st, I'm still having difficulty getting my head around this.... We now have something which we didn't know we wanted, namely a River Cycleway Consortium, whose big idea is to build a floating deckway from Battersea to Canary Wharf - Sorry, 2 things we didn't know we wanted...). Of course, to fund it there'll be a non-congestion charge of £1.50 for cyclists. Now, how are they going to get a pontoon across the river without messing river traffic up? Who goes from Battersea to Canary Wharf - don't most cyclists want to simply get across the river? Still, in its favour, the artist's impression shows that they'll be dismantling the Shard by the time they build it.









http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...oute-over-river-thames-in-london-9780528.html


----------



## noodle (8 Oct 2014)

User said:


> You have both asked and answered the question there.


No that is two questions
If and how rather being such a pedant and arguing just because you want to have a crack at answering the two


----------



## noodle (8 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Motorways really are an example of "if you build it, they will come". The easier we make it appear for people to make journeys by car, the more they do so. The more they do so, the more congested the motorways. This leads to pressure to build more and the cycle continues.



Hang on but that doesn't work does it the whole point of this thread being 
We don't want it built as no one will use it


----------



## albion (8 Oct 2014)

Well, that The Thames Deckway Toll Cycleway will surely get a lot of support from politicians promoting privatisation.
And I quite imagine that anyone refusing to pay their £1.50 will 'get what they deserve'.


----------



## mjr (8 Oct 2014)

srw said:


> Evidence?
> 
> And if you mention the 2011 census I'll point out that the question was very seriously flawed (at least when it comes to big cities with good-quality public transport) and that it reports by residency, not by working or cycling location.


2011 census for commuter proportions and Active People Survey 2014 for cyclist proportions. I think the 2011 census has also reported by working location as well as residency, which I think is what's shown at http://commute.datashine.org.uk/ - So as far as the data goes, there's a higher proportion of cycling in West Norfolk than London. The datashine isn't revealing any huge cycling flows across the London boundary, but tube and train travel are probably changing the shares both sides of the boundary.

It's quite true that nothing really reports by cycling location. The data we have on that are the DfT traffic count points for major roads and some council automatic counters at other locations and they're not drawn together in any consistent way.


subaqua said:


> now which is it? London has disproportionate powers or can teach places about democracy ?


Those two things are not opposites! There are a lot of people affected by London politics who have no say over them, and there are also people in King's Lynn who don't have as much say as Londoners over their own home area, as if the Assembly were running a London Borough directly and disregarding its election results. Also, missing from your table was London's directly-elected mayor.


----------



## noodle (8 Oct 2014)

Wasn't the mayor the point you made initially?


mjray said:


> 2011 census for commuter proportions and Active People Survey 2014 for cyclist proportions. I think the 2011 census has also reported by working location as well as residency, which I think is what's shown at http://commute.datashine.org.uk/ - So as far as the data goes, there's a higher proportion of cycling in West Norfolk than London. The datashine isn't revealing any huge cycling flows across the London boundary, but tube and train travel are probably changing the shares both sides of the boundary.
> 
> It's quite true that nothing really reports by cycling location. The data we have on that are the DfT traffic count points for major roads and some council automatic counters at other locations and they're not drawn together in any consistent way.
> 
> Those two things are not opposites! There are a lot of people affected by London politics who have no say over them, and there are also people in King's Lynn who don't have as much say as Londoners over their own home area, as if the Assembly were running a London Borough directly and disregarding its election results. Also, missing from your table was London's directly-elected mayor.


----------



## mjr (8 Oct 2014)

noodle said:


> Wasn't the mayor the point you made initially?


No, it was more that London's government affects far more people than only London residents, yet only residents get a vote on most of it.


User said:


> I think Kings Lynn's reputation arises from the very high level of inbreeding...


I doubt that's true in general (I'm not from round here, and King's Lynn is an old port which has usually seen more coming and going than much of Norfolk), but several bits of the royal family do live in the Borough which might skew the data, although they seem to be picking from outside the aristocracy lately... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Royalty_and_nobility


----------



## subaqua (8 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> No, it was more that London's government affects far more people than only London residents, yet only residents get a vote on most of it.
> 
> I doubt that's true in general (I'm not from round here, and King's Lynn is an old port which has usually seen more coming and going than much of Norfolk), but several bits of the royal family do live in the Borough which might skew the data, although they seem to be picking from outside the aristocracy lately... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Royalty_and_nobility


 

are you getting confused between local govt like the assembly and central government ( westminister) .
the mayor is little more than a figurehead as most of what he wants has to be agreed by assembly members anyway.


----------



## Tim Hall (8 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Wasn't the deck thing a Boris idea that was going to be in place for the Olympics?


There was a deck thing across Royal Victoria Dock to give extra pedestrian access from Pontoon Dock DLR to the Excel centre during the Olympics. It was made of 40 foot shipping containers, almost filled with concrete (so they floated at the right level), topped off with polystyrene, to make sure they couldn't flood. Some antislip decking and handrails and job done.


----------



## mjr (8 Oct 2014)

User said:


> Actually, it's very true. One of the specific NHS pressures in King's Lynn is the very high rate of health issues related to people being too closely related...


If you're referring to the claim by Dr Ian Gibson, he said he wished he'd never said it and apologised unreservedly. If you're referring to something else, please say what.


----------



## mjr (8 Oct 2014)

subaqua said:


> are you getting confused between local govt like the assembly and central government ( westminister) .


No. Central government abdicates much of its responsibility for transport and especially cycling to local government. Everyone who works in London and many who don't are subjected to London's local government transport policies. A good alternative would for central government to do a proper job and put decent cycling things into the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. If you fancy really depressing reading, go look at http://dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol5/section2.htm part 4 TA 91/05. It's dated 2005, but could have been written 30 years before it, it's so backwards in most ways... and the few ways it isn't are routinely ignored, sadly.


----------



## noodle (8 Oct 2014)

User said:


> No, I am not disputing that people will use it. I am disputing that it will make anything any better overall.


Based on?


----------



## noodle (8 Oct 2014)

User said:


> You could start reading from page one.


Have done and if that is it it seems like the answer is just for the sake of the argument
Cheers


----------



## Wobblers (9 Oct 2014)

noodle said:


> Have done and if that is it it seems like the answer is just for the sake of the argument
> Cheers



You'll find an excellent answer the first time you try the cycle path on a cold frosty morning and come off on ice as, unlike the road, the council didn't bother gritting it...


----------



## noodle (10 Oct 2014)

noodle said:


> Based on?





User said:


> Suit yourself but, as far as I am concerned, the arguments as to why infrastructure don't help cyclists are laid out already.





McWobble said:


> You'll find an excellent answer the first time you try the cycle path on a cold frosty morning and come off on ice as, unlike the road, the council didn't bother gritting it...



that doesnt fit either of the quotes above yours
it doesnt fit the based on question
nor does it fit into the general planning and implementation of any infrastructure
councils dont really grit for any pedestrian activity once you get out of the town centre, and they dont even grit the majority of roads so lets say you live on bronte street in st helens and are taking a short ride into the town centre you will need to ride on a road that hasnt seen the councils gritters attend for about a third of the journey on which there are no cycle routes so if you do come of you are doing it in traffic
now maybe im missing something here but am i better hitting the deck on a path as shown here or on a road with motor vehicles present


----------



## w00hoo_kent (10 Oct 2014)

The cars are your friends here. They've kept the road clearer for you. In winter I cycle on busier roads because they have had traffic on. It's only an issue if you are first out and there's no avoiding that.


----------



## noodle (10 Oct 2014)

Mine certainly is it's got heaters in it and winter tyres on all year (better on grass and mud than road tyres) plus they help keep my speed down as they are quite noisy on motorways so I stick to 55-60 ish mostly bob up a bit to overtake when needed


w00hoo_kent said:


> The cars are your friends here. They've kept the road clearer for you. In winter I cycle on busier roads because they have had traffic on. It's only an issue if you are first out and there's no avoiding that.


----------



## mjr (10 Oct 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> The cars are your friends here. They've kept the road clearer for you. In winter I cycle on busier roads because they have had traffic on. It's only an issue if you are first out and there's no avoiding that.


They're not doing a proper job, then, as it's still damn icy even on fairly busy roads. I have copies of gritting maps, I have access to a bike with much grippier tyres, I delay journeys on icy days if I can and I take it slow if I have to leave the de-iced network... but if I do ride off the salted streets, I prefer to ride where cars don't go much because the bike can cope with snow better than compacted ice and a crash there is less likely to involve a vehicle and the antics of some motor vehicles on ice are flabbergasting (skidding? spun sideways? Floor the accelerator, it'll bite eventually!).

Cambridge cycleways are salted by a quad bike - http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/directory_record/9309/no_dearth_of_the_salt_in_cambridgeshire - but the lack of snowploughs still causes complaints in deep winter.


----------



## noodle (10 Oct 2014)

mjray said:


> They're not doing a proper job, then, as it's still damn icy even on fairly busy roads. I have copies of gritting maps, I have access to a bike with much grippier tyres, I delay journeys on icy days if I can and I take it slow if I have to leave the de-iced network... but if I do ride off the salted streets, I prefer to ride where cars don't go much because the bike can cope with snow better than compacted ice and a crash there is less likely to involve a vehicle and the antics of some motor vehicles on ice are flabbergasting (skidding? spun sideways? Floor the accelerator, it'll bite eventually!).
> Cambridge cycleways are salted by a quad bike - http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/directory_record/9309/no_dearth_of_the_salt_in_cambridgeshire - but the lack of snowploughs still causes complaints in deep winter.


Floor it works with the right tyres in about 50% of the instances when you loose it although I think the flooring it isn't really what's happening just a loss of traction with no differential means even at low revs the wheels look like they are floori
Better not to loose it in the first place though


----------

