# Kennington. LCC and TfL foolishness. Now it's personal.



## dellzeqq (20 May 2015)

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/betterjunctions/oval/user_uploads/oval-consultation-drawing.pdf 

This is utterly, utterly moronic. For those of you who don't know the junction - it's not unusual for forty cyclists to be waiting at a light - now to be squeezed in to a two metre wide cycle lane. And diverted around the back of a bus stop. And made to wait at a light. Good going, LCC.....


----------



## mjr (20 May 2015)

TfL drawing. TfL consultation. What's LCC's involvement?


----------



## martint235 (20 May 2015)

mjray said:


> TfL drawing. TfL consultation. What's LCC's involvement?


LCC are usually consulted first I believe or come up with these ideas in the first place. I can't say I'm a huge fan of LCC myself


----------



## Sittingduck (20 May 2015)

If they think cyclists will stick to the segregated lane there, they have another thing coming. What a cluster f


----------



## StuAff (20 May 2015)

Extremely dumb. I've used that junction a few times to & from Brixton and can't recall thinking there were any issues with it. It wasn't broken and they certainly haven't fixed it....


----------



## Fab Foodie (20 May 2015)

I'm constantly amazed that people receive a pay-check for that kind of stupidity ....


----------



## mjr (20 May 2015)

martint235 said:


> LCC are usually consulted first I believe or come up with these ideas in the first place. I can't say I'm a huge fan of LCC myself


Ah, it's just a belief that LCC were consulted and listened to, rather than anything we know? 

I've looked a bit closer and this seems to be in a 2014 consultation on a TfL-initiated scheme https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/betterjunctions/oval - LCC are listed on page 32 in the report as consulted, but aren't shown on pages 20-21 as having responded, which seems a bit of a surprise.

I quite like LCC (they're a sibling of my local group rides) and I think they often get blamed on this site for things which aren't theirs, but I know they're not 100% perfect or consistent.


Sittingduck said:


> If they think cyclists will stick to the segregated lane there, they have another thing coming. What a cluster f


I think it's good if there's so many people on bikes that they fill the carriageway too, don't you?


----------



## Sittingduck (20 May 2015)

mjray said:


> I think it's good if there's so many people on bikes that they fill the carriageway too, don't you?



Actually no, I don't. The cyclists there do not fill the carriageway. The tend to spread out a little bit in the ASZ next to Oval stn. As the lights change they disperse, some turning left, most going straight on and occupying the CS7 lane that is there. Some may need to be in the main left lane, as there is another busy junction coming up that has a further split of left and stright on traffic. I have ridden this stretch of road many times and the current setup there tends to work. Danger of a left hook at Oval, but unlikely due to the afforementioned number of bikes in the ASZ and motorised vehicles are generally behind the first stop line, where they should be. Cyclists in the lane moving straight on are not much of an impediment to other vehicles, as there's a ped crossing that almost always causes all road users to slow or stop, just after the Oval lights go green.


----------



## mjr (20 May 2015)

Personally, I don't think the Oval junction is the main difficulty with the as-seen-in-2014 layout. I found it difficult going straight on on CS7 when the A23 turned left, partly because the CS7 markings stopped on the left side and then just restarted in the next lane without any warning that I noticed (but I do get a bit overwhelmed trying to watch everything when riding in London). It was worse heading south than north and I suspect from the redesign that I ended up on the left side of motorists turning left down Brixton Road when I was trying to go straight ahead past Oval station, but I didn't have the camera with me then.

There weren't many other people riding bikes when I was there last time, but I think it was a Saturday.

It doesn't look noticeably worse to me than what's there - some losses, some gains - but what would be the best solution there?


----------



## mcshroom (20 May 2015)

What's with the *Mandatory* Cycle lanes on the A202?!!


----------



## StuAff (20 May 2015)

mcshroom said:


> What's with the *Mandatory* Cycle lanes on the A202?!!


Perhaps they got a bit confused and thought they were in Belgium.


----------



## mjr (20 May 2015)

mcshroom said:


> What's with the *Mandatory* Cycle lanes on the A202?!!


What's wrong with them? All it means is that motorists MUST NOT enter them, as outlined in http://highwaycode.info/rule/140


----------



## martint235 (20 May 2015)

My prejudices against the LCC aren't really based on stuff I read here. They are largely based on the crappy emails LCC send to me themselves. They tend to be overly patronising and "Ooh look at us! We know what's best for you even more than you know yourself". I put them in the gap between BC and CTC and I can't say I'm a huge fan of CTC.


----------



## mcshroom (20 May 2015)

mjray said:


> What's wrong with them? All it means is that motorists MUST NOT enter them, as outlined in http://highwaycode.info/rule/140


I read it as mandatory use cycle lanes.


----------



## benborp (20 May 2015)

Three quarters of a mile up the road towards Elephant and Castle there's a five metre wide segregated bus and cycle lane. That can't accommodate all the cyclists of the morning rush hour and that is i) five metres wide and ii) not immediately bottlenecked by a light controlled junction.

Confining that number of London rush-hour cyclists at the Oval to that small a space while accommodating two diverging paths and traffic lights is a recipe for constant blue on blue incidents. The southbound A3/A23 junction has barely any capacity at all before the separate streams will foul.

The consequences of encountering any misbehaving traffic, of any type, look far more severe, harder to mitigate and likely to be more frequent than at present.

Looking solely at cyclists' behaviour, using the straight, consistent CS7 along Kennington Park Road is dicey enough at the moment. Now I am happy to recognise that the boom in cycling means that some of the pleasures of London cycling past have gone forever, that sharing a wonderfully convenient mode of transport with countless thousands is going to be slightly less convenient than those times when I was seemingly tootling around on my own twenty-five years ago, I shall never dash from the fringes of Bromley to the Southbank in under twenty minutes ever again; the gains of a wider recognition and enjoyment of cycling though are worth the compromises and they are easy and sensible accommodations to make. These changes at Oval are not sensible, and I can see few cyclists that currently use the junction materially benefiting, further there are probably an awful lot of people that will fail to make sensible accommodations for this sub-standard design and make its daily use even more unpleasant and fraught. It seems to be a scheme for exporting the congestion, frustration and some of the worries of motoring to the world of cycle commuting. This will be a barrier to many taking up or continuing cycling. I don't think a better attempt could be made at limiting capacity on a 'cycle superhighway'.


----------



## Drago (20 May 2015)

That gonna end in tears.


----------



## StuAff (20 May 2015)

Neil Young did a song about it.....Piece of C***.


----------



## RedRider (20 May 2015)

What's a stepped.cycle track? Hemmed in by a kerb?What's a raised carriageway? What's an improved urban realm for fark's sake?



benborp said:


> It seems to be a scheme for exporting the congestion, frustration and some of the worries of motoring to the world of cycle commuting.


Seems like it.

Seems pedestrians get a raw deal too. Far less pavement and a cycle bus bypass to negotiate.


----------



## srw (20 May 2015)

mcshroom said:


> I read it as mandatory use cycle lanes.


No such thing in the UK. Unless cycling is explicitly barred it's allowed everywhere on the road.


----------



## benborp (21 May 2015)

User13710 said:


> Is that on top of the MGIF thing that cycle commuting already seems to have?


Exactly that!


----------



## mjr (21 May 2015)

martint235 said:


> My prejudices against the LCC aren't really based on stuff I read here. They are largely based on the crappy emails LCC send to me themselves. They tend to be overly patronising and "Ooh look at us! We know what's best for you even more than you know yourself". I put them in the gap between BC and CTC and I can't say I'm a huge fan of CTC.


Yeah, I get those emails too and I know what you mean. I really ought to have a look at who's actually writing them. They feel a bit like it's been outsourced to a staffer semi-detached from cycling. Which I can understand - I don't envy our local newsletter editor who has to keep chasing volunteers for stories.

I'd put most CycleNation groups (including LCC) sort of in the gap and slightly off the BC (racing) and CTC (touring) axis. As far as I can tell, CN's always been more about pushing politicians to support lone practical riders, although it's not always headed forwards IMO.


benborp said:


> Confining that number of London rush-hour cyclists at the Oval to that small a space while accommodating two diverging paths and traffic lights is a recipe for constant blue on blue incidents. The southbound A3/A23 junction has barely any capacity at all before the separate streams will foul.


Except that cyclists aren't confined to the blue lanes and nor should they be. I don't like that the straight-on northbound cycle lane is left of the turn-left carriageway lanes because it looks like your last chance to overflow into the carriageway lanes might be a long way back at Magee Street, if that pink line means a stupid Bloomsbury-style kerb rather than something you can ride over.



> The consequences of encountering any misbehaving traffic, of any type, look far more severe, harder to mitigate and likely to be more frequent than at present.


Such as...?



> Looking solely at cyclists' behaviour, using the straight, consistent CS7 along Kennington Park Road is dicey enough at the moment.


"straight, consistent CS7"??? Straight except that it hops lanes and consistent except that it suddenly vanishes from a cycle-only lane and reappears in an adjacent shared lane?

But so much for just kicking it, long after the consultation has passed. I ask again: what would be the best solution there?

I think I would have preferred a layout more like the about-to-be-replaced layout of the Hills Road bridge in Cambridge http://cambridge.cyclestreets.net/location/48831/ where the turn-left lane has to give way to crossing cycle lane traffic, but I doubt that's popular on CC.


----------



## youngoldbloke (21 May 2015)

Lets face it - If all the encouragement to get more and more people on bikes is successful, NONE of the existing provision will be adequate.


----------



## booze and cake (21 May 2015)

I live near here and myself and many others have complained about this junction for years. My main gripe is coming from Kennington to Oval and the danger of traffic cutting across CS7 to turn left onto the A23 Brixton Road, I've seen countless near misses here. Yet unless I'm misreading the diagram it seems they have'nt done a thing to change that (unless the traffic light phasing is now going to make turning right across CS7 impossible??) and seem to be focusing more on traffic going the other way towards Kennington, which was never any trouble before anyway.

The current painted smurf road is nowhere near wide enough for the volume of cyclists at rush hour, so by segregating it they seem to be trying to condemn cyclists to the gridlocked misery currently experienced by the forlorn motorists using this route at present. Traffic caused by the roadworks as they do this is absolute chaos, cars are often nose to tail in total gridlock every morning going back to Brixton. I refuse to be hemmed in and shall be ignoring the blue road of slowness and will instead continue to filter inbetween the mostly stationary traffic. Luckily I won't hear the shouts of 'get in the bloody cycle lane' as they'll be drowned out by the thumping techno from my headphones


----------



## Origamist (21 May 2015)

I've looked at that kaleidoscopic plan _really hard_ and the only positive I can see is that they have banned left turns onto Harleyford St.


----------



## mcshroom (21 May 2015)

srw said:


> No such thing in the UK. Unless cycling is explicitly barred it's allowed everywhere on the road.


No there isn't, though it's possible to make them under existing laws such as the Humber bridge where bikes are banned from the main carriageway of the A15 over the bridge. Along with the raising of the adjacent road as it seemed to be labelled then I wondered if they were trying to do similar. May just be paranoia.


----------



## mjr (21 May 2015)

Yes, it's explicitly barred on that bit of A15, which is what was written. These plans don't seem toinclude such a ban, bbut people should keep watching the fine print to make sure because it wouldn't be the first time plans change after consultation


----------



## benborp (21 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Except that cyclists aren't confined to the blue lanes and nor should they be. I don't like that the straight-on northbound cycle lane is left of the turn-left carriageway lanes because it looks like your last chance to overflow into the carriageway lanes might be a long way back at Magee Street, if that pink line means a stupid Bloomsbury-style kerb rather than something you can ride over.



Exactly. That cycle infrastructure will not accommodate the number of cyclists that will attempt to use it at peak times. People will use it, it will fill up, some will queue, some will jump the queue, some will bypass the cycle routes when they see they are busy, some will bypass the cycle routes as a matter of course. With this layout a cyclist would sensibly have to have made a decision on how to navigate this junction before they had passed the previous one (probably before they can see which route through is clearest), taken a position on the road and held it for 200-300m. The majority of people aren't going to be behave in such a clear cut disciplined manner. The infrastructure doesn't grant the flexibility to allow a mix of cyclists to navigate that junction safely.
A side note on the the cyclist's option to bypass the cycle infrastructure northbound - the three main traffic lanes have been reassigned from one turning left onto the A23 and two continuing straight on via the A3 to the other way round. Now, it's a regular occurrence as a cyclist to find oneself being bullied out of an attempt to use the centre lane to access the cycle lane and continue straight on. The provision of highly visible, disruptive cycle infrastructure while providing only one lane for all other traffic not using the cycle route on to the A3 isn't going to make that manoeuvre any easier to negotiate. 



> Such as...?



The current layout does have problems. Conflicts arise between those that wish to turn left and those that wish to continue straight on - this happens in both directions and isn't limited to solely cyclist/motorist interactions. These conflicts occur when streams diverge - the vehicles involved are initially travelling in the same direction and shouldn't have any conflict of priority; they do so when someone doesn't grant another road user the space and time one should expect. Dealing with this sort of conflict is part of the general awareness of travelling in a traffic stream, there are usually a few cues as to when a situation is developing. The resulting (hopefully) near miss is usually a squeeze.
The traffic streams with alternate priorities are held back at some distance and cross at right angles - visibility and awareness of any transgressor is pretty good - it's why many cyclists successfully RLJ.

The proposed layout separates different streams of traffic that originate from the same direction and then grants each stream different priorities as they cross each other. This means that if someone jumps a light or swaps lanes aggressively then they will come into conflict with those that are
i) already in close proximity
ii) probably less aware of the transgressors presence due to the acute angles involved
iii) more likely to collide as the streams cross at a sufficient enough angle to make a 'squeeze' less likely

The more complex arrangement will lead to more people making mistakes, more people deliberately flouting rules and laws and more opportunities for people to do so. Designing a junction in London without an awareness that this would be the case isn't feasible after Bow. This scheme is another whole area of fail.



> "straight, consistent CS7"??? Straight except that it hops lanes and consistent except that it suddenly vanishes from a cycle-only lane and reappears in an adjacent shared lane?



The 850m of CS7 that continues on Kennington Park Road in a straight line, in the same lane, at the same width, with the same status broken only by markings for pedestrian crossings and bus stops. That bit.



> But so much for just kicking it, long after the consultation has passed. I ask again: what would be the best solution there?
> 
> I think I would have preferred a layout more like the about-to-be-replaced layout of the Hills Road bridge in Cambridge http://cambridge.cyclestreets.net/location/48831/ where the turn-left lane has to give way to crossing cycle lane traffic, but I doubt that's popular on CC.



The Cambridge solution is pretty similar to the current northbound arrangement on the A3. The problem is scale, variety and complexity. The London junction carries more traffic, in more lanes, that backs up further. Its requirements change drastically through the day. There are other large junctions in close proximity and rush hour motor vehicle capacity will have knock on effects for miles in several directions. It's a symptom of London's unwieldy road system that was first bolloxed when the Romans decided to move London Bridge. I don't think that there is a hard infrastructure solution that will work in the space available. Banning turns and regulating traffic flows is one option (which this proposed layout does, and I can imagine that being the only solution to one of the essential requirements for this scheme - stop the repeated killing of cyclists outside Oval tube station). But I think such measures need to be far more robustly implemented. Brixton is an example where this has been done extensively, and for some distance from the centre, but for the sake of congestion management though.

Dare I say it, but paint, oodles of coloured paint that designates pretty much the whole junction as a mandatory cycle lane during rush hour might be the solution that offers flexibility. If mandatory cycle lanes were more like bus lanes in London that would be a game changer. Bus lanes are observed religiously because of enforcement. Many motorists don't even use them outside their hours of operation. Enforced mandatory cycle lanes would boost the effectiveness of advisory lanes as well. Both should have a minimum width of one standard traffic lane, it would make for a far more pleasant cycling experience - newcomer to old hand alike.


----------



## benborp (22 Jul 2015)

This appears to be close to the finished state, there is a temporary ramp onto the pavement at the start.

I can't say I'm impressed and the implementation of this section has made me aware of other flaws elsewhere in the plans that I hadn't anticipated.

What are others' thoughts?


----------



## subaqua (22 Jul 2015)

benborp said:


> This appears to be close to the finished state, there is a temporary ramp onto the pavement at the start.
> 
> I can't say I'm impressed and the implementation of this section has made me aware of other flaws elsewhere in the plans that I hadn't anticipated.
> 
> What are other's thoughts?



If it is anything like the "new improved " bits of CS2 between aldgate and mile end, it will be a utter shambles. They really ought to get an engineer in who can 

i) set a level accurately
ii) manage a contractor to ensure the correct levels are followed

And make sure it is kept clear of detritus that will batter wheels into Pringles in a quick timescale.


----------



## mjr (22 Jul 2015)

benborp said:


> What are others' thoughts?


Where's the blooming protection? I was expecting a proper step with a slope on the cycleway side and gaps to allow entry/exit. Like the Bloomsbury cycleway but proper width and with the correct kerb on the cycleway side.

Time will tell, but it looks a bit like neither fish nor fowl: insufficient physical protection to prevent motorist encroachment yet enough that it's hazardous for cycles to overflow onto the carriageway, insufficient width for the volume of cycles yet enough to attract them.

How's the surface? Level and smooth machine-laid HRA 55/10? Wasn't it meant to be blue? Does it being black mean that they're going to be putting paint on top?


----------



## mjr (22 Jul 2015)

User said:


> And this from a segregationist.


Or rather, from what @User thinks is a segregationist, from behind those blinkers.


----------



## mjr (22 Jul 2015)

User said:


> Apologies if I have misunderstood your point of view. Care to explain what it is?


I want safe and attractive space for cycling for everyone. I don't care if that's achieved through cycleways, quieter roads, modal filtering, motor traffic reduction, presumed liability or what... probably we're going to get a mix of them and some sooner than others.

I worry that this is attractive but may not be safer. They've built it anyway, so let's all push for monitoring?


----------



## benborp (5 Aug 2015)

Riders are reporting guaranteed conflict with buses at both of the Northbound exits from segregation. On Kennington Road and Kennington Park Road buses to the right of the cycle lane are released at the same as cyclists. On both roads a bus stop is situated on the left just beyond the segregation. The bus stops are just beyond the area covered by the junction redevelopment.

Here is a video from CycleGaz of the Kennington Park Road conflict:


----------



## mjr (5 Aug 2015)

benborp said:


> On Kennington Road and Kennington Park Road buses to the right of the cycle lane are released at the same as cyclists.


Would anyone local like to report that screwup to www.fixMyStreet.com or similar public place, please?


----------



## benborp (6 Aug 2015)

http://www.lfgss.com/conversations/186788/?offset=7925#comment12435799

Broken pelvis this morning at Oval crossing from road to path.


----------



## mjr (9 Aug 2015)

OK, that's two authorities to injure cyclists by botching that layout (Brighton and London). Can we get national instruction or does localism mean every highway authority gets to maim a few cyclists?


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Aug 2015)

mjray said:


> I want safe and attractive space for cycling for everyone. I don't care if that's achieved through cycleways, quieter roads, modal filtering, motor traffic reduction, presumed liability or what... probably we're going to get a mix of them and some sooner than others.
> 
> I worry that this is attractive but may not be safer. They've built it anyway, so let's all push for monitoring?


let's push for our money back - and the return of the cycle lanes to the footpath


----------



## benborp (16 Aug 2015)

At least the current arrangement avoids the danger of left hooks from HGVs...



...as long as everyone else has their wits about them.


----------



## Pete Owens (24 Nov 2015)

dellzeqq said:


> https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/betterjunctions/oval/user_uploads/oval-consultation-drawing.pdf
> 
> This is utterly, utterly moronic. For those of you who don't know the junction - it's not unusual for forty cyclists to be waiting at a light - now to be squeezed in to a two metre wide cycle lane. And diverted around the back of a bus stop. And made to wait at a light. Good going, LCC.....



Presumably you are one of the 40%:
http://road.cc/content/news/171701-...ng-commissioner-and-lying-reporter-over-cycle


----------



## mjr (25 Nov 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> Presumably you are one of the 40%:
> http://road.cc/content/news/171701-...ng-commissioner-and-lying-reporter-over-cycle


Like it says in their comments... "Classic troll, must be ex Daily Mail perhaps?!"


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Nov 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> Presumably you are one of the 40%:
> http://road.cc/content/news/171701-...ng-commissioner-and-lying-reporter-over-cycle


different junction.....

in fairness the old Vauxhall cycle path was unused. 40% would be a considerable underestimate. I used the new cycle path a couple of weeks ago, out of curiosity. It's kind of rubbish.


----------



## subaqua (25 Nov 2015)

dellzeqq said:


> different junction.....
> 
> in fairness the old Vauxhall cycle path was unused. 40% would be a considerable underestimate. I used the new cycle path a couple of weeks ago, out of curiosity. It's kind of rubbish.



Is it dangerous as well, like CS2 is now it has been " improved" for segregationist nobbers. Criticise them though and wait for all the holland bollox they trot out.


----------



## martint235 (25 Nov 2015)

subaqua said:


> Is it dangerous as well, like CS2 is now it has been " improved" for segregationist nobbers. Criticise them though and wait for all the holland bollox they trot out.


You've noticed that too?


----------



## subaqua (25 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> You've noticed that too?


Oh yes.

Apparently segregation everywhere there . And it improves everything . 

There is a place for segregation. Lanes alongside dual carriageways that are motorways in all but name, and motorways. 

But not along arterial routes like the mile end road. With countless junctions that I can't protect myself at by riding in a primary. But apparently only the strong and fit ride primary. ( I am neither to be honest )


----------



## mjr (25 Nov 2015)

Do you enjoy making stuff up to argue against, @subaqua? CS2 is dangerously defective in places like the junction you got hooked and I think even most people who like Dutchish infrastructure would agree. It's yet another example of where part-doing something is worse than not doing it 

And the usual accusation is "the fit and the brave" (two groups) and I think you're brave  given how crap management and policing of London's roads has been for ages.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (25 Nov 2015)

mcshroom said:


> I read it as mandatory use cycle lanes.


It is confusing, it actually means that it's mandatory that only cyclists use them.


----------



## Markymark (25 Nov 2015)

So given how awful these schemes are either improve or scrap them. I'd rather scrap then as I doubt they'll improve.


----------



## mjr (25 Nov 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> So given how awful these schemes are either improve or scrap them. I'd rather scrap then as I doubt they'll improve.


Of course you would. You're happy to use even busy carriageways. But they will improve because of the numbers pushing for it, including riders whose safety perception is a bit off and will use these routes when they wouldn't ride otherwise. More people cycling should enable other changes like presumed liability which also helps people happy to cycle on the carriageway.


----------



## subaqua (25 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Do you enjoy making stuff up to argue against, @subaqua? CS2 is dangerously defective in places like the junction you got hooked and I think even most people who like Dutchish infrastructure would agree. It's yet another example of where part-doing something is worse than not doing it
> 
> And the usual accusation is "the fit and the brave" (two groups) and I think you're brave  given how crap management and policing of London's roads has been for ages.




Erm where have I made stuff up. That is the words used to Me by a LCC cockwomble yesterday. 

Dangerously defective along its whole length. Not just at specific junctions , it tips you out into danger at loads of places. 

Put the segregated lanes where they are needed. Alongside trunk carriageways etc, and have proper robust prosecutions with no " aww but I need my licence despite driving like a bell end " 


There was a delicious irony this morning when a cockwomble with space for cycling and LCC stickers plastered everywhere gave me no space as he decided that the red light wasn't for him, just the cars.


----------



## mjr (25 Nov 2015)

subaqua said:


> Erm where have I made stuff up. That is the words used to Me by a LCC cockwomble yesterday.


Sorry but it looked like the all-too-common stating of a flawed argument which no-one here supports and then arguing against it. Take it up with LCC or the person themselves, rather than arguing against people who aren't here to defend themselves and whose views we can't check because we don't know who they are - I think I've suggested this about reported problems with unnamed LCC people before, but you seem content to be fobbed off and then rant on here, rather than do anything effective.



subaqua said:


> Dangerously defective along its whole length. Not just at specific junctions , it tips you out into danger at loads of places.


Defective possibly (it's been a while since I saw it) but not dangerous along the whole length. It's pretty difficult to screw up straight lengths with no junctions so badly they're all dangerous.



subaqua said:


> Put the segregated lanes where they are needed. Alongside trunk carriageways etc, and have proper robust prosecutions with no " aww but I need my licence despite driving like a bell end "


Mile End Road is a trunk carriageway in all but name and that's mainly because trunk roads didn't extend within London, isn't it? (Edit: you may be able to see on http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=51.55395,0.00385&map=NPEMap&zoom=11&layer=6, that the blue solid line - which then meant trunking - stopped where the old A11 met the A118 aka the old A12.) That's why it's a TfL road they can build along so easily, rather than a borough one which is a bit more vulnerable to local democracy. I agree with you about prosecutions, as you can probably guess.



subaqua said:


> There was a delicious irony this morning when a cockwomble with space for cycling and LCC stickers plastered everywhere gave me no space as he decided that the red light wasn't for him, just the cars.


It's almost like they give those stickers out to anyone!


----------



## subaqua (25 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Sorry but it looked like the all-too-common stating of a flawed argument which no-one here supports and then arguing against it. Take it up with LCC or the person themselves, rather than arguing against people who aren't here to defend themselves and whose views we can't check because we don't know who they are - I think I've suggested this about reported problems with unnamed LCC people before, but you seem content to be fobbed off and then rant on here, rather than do anything effective.
> 
> 
> Defective possibly (it's been a while since I saw it) but not dangerous along the whole length. It's pretty difficult to screw up straight lengths with no junctions so badly they're all dangerous.
> ...




I have taken it up with several people in LCC - one was the local area organiser , who on a ride into Central London decided to completely ignore the No cycling signs along the river front from Dowgate to Blackfriars, yes that narrow little walkway with PEDESTRIANS on it. The attitude was one of "so what" when i asked if that was a good example to be setting to the younger members of the ride.

LCC HQ wasn't bothered either. the attitude was "we are not responsible for our ride leaders actions "
the LCC also say they are " your voice for a cycling city " and claim "We are a 12,000-strong membership charity, making sure that everyone who cycles, or wants to cycle, has a voice in Greater London." well sorry that doesn't represent MY VOICE so the statement is bollix. 

you yourself say you haven't seen it for a while yet you claim it isn't dangerous along its whole length. 
I would suggest you ride it in its current state and again after the improvements are finished then make a comment based on reality, I suggest doing it on a cold frozen day after some rain and then tell me it isn't dangerous and defective. and when the Market at whitechapel is in full swing 


Oh I love the feeble disengenious arguments about trunk roads in all but name , however it would appear that Trunk routes did come into London . the 1/4 inch series is quite good for demonstrating that.

You do know full well what is meant by trunk route though . A dual carriageway ( there is a difference between that and 2 lanes each way I suggest you use SABRE to educate yourself there) with a speed limit of above 30 , so something like the North Circular , or indeed the A12 proper heading out to deepest East Anglia.


----------



## mjr (25 Nov 2015)

User said:


> I love to point out to the Hembrow acolytes just how little segregated provision the Netherlands actually has. They have some good segregated routes (i.e. the North Sea Coast route) but they are a fraction of the main cycle routes in the Netherlands, the majority of which are on roads.


Yes, when I've seen videos of real rides through the Netherlands (rather than the promotional stuff we're bombarded with), they've often included sections that aren't much different from ours - maybe except for greater willingness to block rat-runs, speed-limit urban routes and encourage motorists to use the motorways? But a lot of what they do have is on major urban routes like Mile End Road so I'm not sure that helps here.

Do you have some stats handy which can be used to drag off-the-road-is-the-one-true-way fans back to reality?


----------



## mjr (25 Nov 2015)

subaqua said:


> I have taken it up with several people in LCC


Since yesterday? Wow. Apologies.



subaqua said:


> You do know full well what is meant by trunk route though . A dual carriageway


I know what is meant by trunk route. I also had a pretty good idea what you meant, but that's not the same as a trunk route. There's still quite a lot of single carriageway trunk routes and most of the TfL Road Network is at least as busy. There's also quite a lot of dual carriageway non-trunk routes. It may be that single/dual is a better place to draw the line than non-trunk/trunk, but Mile End Road was pretty crap to ride on before CS2 - I'd agree what it needs most is more effective traffic policing but I feel building consent for that needs more convinced politicians and part of doing that is to get lots more voters cycling.

I don't care much how we get more people cycling more, but my experience is that glitzy cycle tracks do seem to attract new riders and convince them to go further. I've ridden into London with people who never thought they'd dare, using a combination of similar tracks and back streets... and yes, if I can during a ride, I try to take them onto the bus lane of a larger road if I can - Gray's Inn Road was one but I can't remember if the planned changes remove it. We may know that the carriageway is generally no more dangerous and be willing to bet with our wheels, but few newcomers are.

I'll try CS2 again when I'm nearby for work (I'm more often central, west end or Hackney lately). It makes me angry that TfL seem to have followed that brain-dead TRL junction safety study instead of best practice from elsewhere or what cyclists were telling them during consultation: continue the tracks across the side roads and allow cyclists more chances to move to/from the leftmost carriageway lane.  I'm getting heartily fed up with the letters TRL appearing so often when I look into why something's been part-done.


----------



## jefmcg (25 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Defective possibly (it's been a while since I saw it) but not dangerous along the whole length. It's pretty difficult to screw up straight lengths with no junctions so badly they're all dangerous.


Most accidents occur at junctions. If a lane hasn't helped at those points - or indeed has made them worse - then I would regard it as a failure along it's whole length.


----------



## martint235 (25 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> I don't care much how we get more people cycling more, but my experience is that glitzy cycle tracks do seem to attract new riders and convince them to go further. I've ridden into London with people who never thought they'd dare, using a combination of similar tracks and back streets... and yes, if I can during a ride, I try to take them onto the bus lane of a larger road if I can - Gray's Inn Road was one but I can't remember if the planned changes remove it. We may know that the carriageway is generally no more dangerous and be willing to bet with our wheels, but few newcomers are.


But all these cyclists who have materialised because of the new tracks and are now cycling further, what do they do when the said track drops them in some hell hole like Elephant and Castle or around Bank or around Kings Cross and they have no experience of cycling on typical London streets?

I still say stop wasting money on white elephant, "look at what I did as mayor" projects and put serious money into integrating cyclists into where they should be: on the road, in the traffic, as safe and confident members of that traffic.


----------



## martint235 (25 Nov 2015)

subaqua said:


> I have taken it up with several people in LCC - one was the local area organiser , who on a ride into Central London decided to completely ignore the No cycling signs along the river front from Dowgate to Blackfriars, yes that narrow little walkway with PEDESTRIANS on it. The attitude was one of "so what" when i asked if that was a good example to be setting to the younger members of the ride.


I've been on an LCC led ride where we were taken (or at least the leader tried to take us) through a red light and then the wrong way down a one way street. Never been on another ride led by them.

I don't believe that LCC are the voice of London cyclists, they are a group of cyclists with their own agenda and portray themselves, falsely, as the voice of the majority in order to get the ear of the mayor and TfL.


----------



## subaqua (25 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Since yesterday? Wow. Apologies.
> 
> 
> I know what is meant by trunk route. I also had a pretty good idea what you meant, but that's not the same as a trunk route. There's still quite a lot of single carriageway trunk routes and most of the TfL Road Network is at least as busy. There's also quite a lot of dual carriageway non-trunk routes. It may be that single/dual is a better place to draw the line than non-trunk/trunk, but Mile End Road was pretty crap to ride on before CS2 - I'd agree what it needs most is more effective traffic policing but I feel building consent for that needs more convinced politicians and part of doing that is to get lots more voters cycling.
> ...




no when the nobber ride leader was a dick. I know the attitude i will get so its pointless . your responses sort of affirm that LCC are indeed cockwombles of the self serving smug variety who really don't want to give an answer and will skirt around issues with bluster and bollix


----------



## mjr (25 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> I've been on an LCC led ride where we were taken (or at least the leader tried to take us) through a red light and then the wrong way down a one way street. Never been on another ride led by them.


I've been on a British Cycling led ride this autumn that headed the wrong way down a one way. I'd still go on another. People make mistakes sometimes. :shrug:

And a quick reminder that I'm not LCC and it seems they're not here to defend themselves - which I think is a shame because there seems to be a lot of London cyclists on here - so we're only getting one side of any stories.


----------



## martint235 (25 Nov 2015)

There are more LCC members on CC than you might think. I even know some of the user names. The fact they stay silent could mean something. Or then again it might not


----------



## mjr (25 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> But all these cyclists who have materialised because of the new tracks and are now cycling further, what do they do when the said track drops them in some hell hole like Elephant and Castle or around Bank or around Kings Cross and they have no experience of cycling on typical London streets?


I don't know. I see a lot of people get to the end of the route that links to the Bloomsbury protected track at King's Cross and either dock their hire bike or walk their bike across towards the back of the departure concourse where I suspect they get back on and ride up the access-only-and-bikes road towards Goods Way. Maybe some are OK to ride a short distance but wouldn't ride the whole trip on such streets. Heck, even I prefer the Bloomsbury track to the Euston Road bus lanes because I'd rather deal with cyclist congestion and dodgy junctions than taxi congestion and dodgy junctions.


> I still say stop wasting money on white elephant, "look at what I did as mayor" projects and put serious money into integrating cyclists into where they should be: on the road, in the traffic, as safe and confident members of that traffic.


1. The numbers say these things aren't white elephants. 2. How? Years of offering rides and training basically didn't work. The main less infrastructurey things to make dents seem to have been the congestion charge and cycle hire and expanding those has been problematic because of politics rather than finance.


----------



## mjr (25 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> There are more LCC members on CC than you might think. I even know some of the user names. The fact they stay silent could mean something. Or then again it might not


If you know of an elected member or staffer, please invite them. I don't think ordinary members can speak for LCC without checking any more than we could.


----------



## martint235 (25 Nov 2015)

Stop painting costly, useless blue lines on roads. Tactical squads of police on bikes but drop the uniformed guys on MTBs: suits on bromptons, hipsters on fixies, full kit roadies, bikes with baskets on the front. Dangerous driving around these, 5 points on your license no ifs, no buts. While they are out there, they can enforce the driving on mobile phones etc.

Cyclist jumping a red light, confiscated bike again no ifs no buts. 

It might take a year, it may take 10 but it'll be cheaper than blue paint and it'll get the message across.


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> Dangerous driving around these, 5 points on your license no ifs, no buts. While they are out there, they can enforce the driving on mobile phones etc.
> 
> Cyclist jumping a red light, confiscated bike again no ifs no buts.


 So the cyclist gets his vehicle seized, while the motorist gets some pointless points on his record? I think that's rather imbalanced.

In general, more unmarked traffic police of all sorts would be good. I've asked Norfolk for that a year or two ago, but I think they said they've unmarked traffic cars and motorbikes, but unmarked cyclists aren't used for traffic tasks ATM. Anyone here know what the met or city police are doing?


----------



## martint235 (26 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> So the cyclist gets his vehicle seized, while the motorist gets some pointless points on his record? I think that's rather imbalanced.
> 
> In general, more unmarked traffic police of all sorts would be good. I've asked Norfolk for that a year or two ago, but I think they said they've unmarked traffic cars and motorbikes, but unmarked cyclists aren't used for traffic tasks ATM. Anyone here know what the met or city police are doing?


I felt 5 points was suitable to put a miscreant driver at risk of losing their license. It would be difficult to balance seizing a £15,000 car against a £500 bike don't you think?

But I'm not really fussed and I'm happy to make the penalties as punitive as you like, the key is zero tolerance with immediate consequences. And while it would be impossible to have police everywhere all the time, even if you only had 10 officers so long as you moved them around the city, drivers and cyclists would have no idea if the cyclist nearest to them was police or not and would begin to behave with respect towards each other and peds.


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> It would be difficult to balance seizing a £15,000 car against a £500 bike don't you think?


I think it's easy: both are impeding the mobility of the offender. If two people run around shooting, should the one with the more expensive gun get a lesser punishment? I'd go the other way and fine the cyclist heavily, though.


martint235 said:


> even if you only had 10 officers so long as you moved them around the city, drivers and cyclists would have no idea if the cyclist nearest to them was police or not and would begin to behave with respect towards each other and peds.


I don't share your optimism about rational behaviour by road users! Also, how could we convince someone to authorise this sort of action? News media goes nuts every time a signed and hi-vis speed camera is switched on 

Can we predict that it should help? Does anyone keep track of what proportion of cyclist-or-walker-involved motoring collisions result in a motorist being charged or fined, or something like that, London or nationally?


----------



## martint235 (26 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> I think it's easy: both are impeding the mobility of the offender. If two people run around shooting, should the one with the more expensive gun get a lesser punishment? I'd go the other way and fine the cyclist heavily, though.
> 
> I don't share your optimism about rational behaviour by road users! Also, how could we convince someone to authorise this sort of action? News media goes nuts every time a signed and hi-vis speed camera is switched on
> 
> Can we predict that it should help? Does anyone keep track of what proportion of cyclist-or-walker-involved motoring collisions result in a motorist being charged or fined, or something like that, London or nationally?


It's a different crime to shooting fairly obviously so. The aim in this case is to deter people so you go for what matters most to them and what can easily be applied at the time. So how do you fine a cyclist who may have no ID on them? Taking their bike is an immediate and noticeable punishment.

You're not authorising anything, you're enforcing a regulation that is already there. You're just amending the punishment.

If we're going to live in a world ruled by media nothing will change and something drastically needs to change to encourage a different view of cycling.

Yes I predict it will help. Once word gets around that there are people enforcing the law and you could lose your bike or your livelihood (if you're a professional driver with multiple transgressions) people won't take the risk. If it doesn't work at first, increase the number of officers, it'll still be cheaper than blue paint. It will also upset the good drivers less as they won't be held up in traffic jams by people painting said blue paint onto road.


----------



## booze and cake (26 Nov 2015)

Considering how much money it cost, and the delays and misery the work has caused, I am unimpressed by the whole thing around Kennington and Oval, in parts its a bloody mess. Apologies for the rant I just have to get this off my chest, I live in the area so can't avoid the changes. I hope someone at TFL and LCC at least reads this.

Cycling from Oval to Vauxhall is definitely better than it was, but it appears the planners popped into the Royal Vauxhall Tavern (RVT) for 8 pints each as what happens immediately in the crossing over towards MI6 is some comedic zig zagging that actually made me laugh out loud riding it for the first time. What the hell is that all about? 

Coming the other way from MI6 towards Oval, I really don't like the bit right outside RVT where the cyclist are funnelled through a narrow gap between 2 concrete posts that is totally blind. There used to be one of those mirrors there before when it was wider so it was a known blind spot, but now the blind spot is even bigger but there's no mirrors. I would actually prefer to cycle in the 4/5 lines of traffic than do this section. Also bearing in mind the RVT is a busy pub and often has revellers outside, there is going to be accidents here for sure. They used to have a temporary urinal right by this point too, dont know if this is being allowed to continue but if so it wont be long before a cyclist crashes into a member of the village people here who just popped out for a piss. 

Also just after this point you cross the road, but rather than continuing up towards Oval you want to continue up the marked cycle path towards South Lambeth Road, you have to cut across cyclists coming the other way and do a sharp turn of about 120 degrees avoiding a lamp post. This is very badly done as in practice it just means that cyclists dont bother doing the sharp turn and instead just cycle on the pedestrian bit and come back round in a shallower curve to rejoin the cycle path, so in fact this section actually introduces conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. Honestly have these clowns even thought to cycle it and see what they've made?

Back up to the Oval bit, and on the northbound CS7 just past Oval junction we have the new feature, Oval pond. The surface is really uneven and weeks ago when this opened my first impression was, 'when are they going to come and finish it'? Nobody came back. After even the tiniest shower the entire cycle lane turns into a huge pond, there is no drainage whatsoever. Really? In this country, where its kind of world famous for raining, a lot. And we've had the good weather bit of the year, god knows how grim this is going to be for the next 4 months. I don't mind cycling through the odd puddle, but I'd rather not, and this is about 6ft by 6ft in size I've actually stood and watched this section, and in practice yet again this poor design is just creating more danger. TFL and LCC, after the next bit of rain go and sit by this junction for a day and observe. You will see that cyclists are swerving the puddle, back out into the traffic on the right, and due to us being segregated by the kerb you cannot simply go round the puddle, you have to cycle 50 yards in the road before you can rejoin the cycle path, exposed to the 'dangerous' traffic the whole time. The other alternative is cyclists swerve left onto the pavement again introducing conflict with pedestrians, way to go designers

Coming from Kennington towards Oval is not clear either, just past Kennington Road junction there is a newly opened cycle lane on the left but absolutely no signs or roadmarking indicating its a cycle lane, I genuinely thought it was pavement the first time and I missed it completely, and as above was again stuck in traffic at being found the wrong side of the kerb being forced and kept in a danger zone, cheers for that. Are they really not going to have any signs or roadmarkings indicating cycle lane approaching or some arrows, or even some blue paint so its clear? Its just smacks of being a half arsed effort yet again. 

Ride 100 yards up to Oval and we have another section of kerbed-in-ness with a traffic light. Now at least this is better than before as the cyclists and cars are on different lights phasing so the cars going up Brixton road can't veer left across you path. But again it seems the planners did'nt seem to get of grasp of what they are trying to achieve, as in practice conflict is being introduced again. The 1st time I came to these lights due to the high volume of traffic the cars were totally backed up from Brixton Road and totally blocking the exit to the kerb in cycle lane . There is no yellow boxes/grids warning cars of not stopping and blocking this section where the cycle lane crosses the road. So you are trapped in, You either wait there trapped and miss the light phasing and forced to repeat the same cycle again. Or you are forced to try and climb out of the kerbed in bit to try and pick you way between the bumpers of the nose to tail cars and try and rejoin the other side, honestly it is a joke. I thought maybe I was unlucky this first time, but I did it every day last week and 4 out of 5 days the exact same thing happened, that is just rubbish and frankly piss poor design again. I honestly can't decide whether its just inept, or are they trying to put us in more danger on purpose and TFL are just massively trolling us 

And then of course you cross the road and have another one of these behind the bus stop routes like they do on the Stratford CS. I hated these the first time I saw them and ranted and raved at the time. I know the Stratford one has been open for ages and I don't know if there has been any accidents, if not then maybe they are not as bad as they seem and if there has been no conflict, fair enough I'll accept my fist impressions were wrong. Anyone know of any reported cyclist/ped incidents at these points on the Stratford route?

Anyway the problem with this bit at Oval is it so narrow. The cycle path in the run up to the crossing is enough for cyclists to pass each other, going through the lights though and its bottle-necked down to a very narrow lane, so narrow I wonder if anyone riding one of the new breed of wide barred mountain bikes can even get through this section. I'm no planning and traffic flow super-guru but I'm fairly sure introducing bottlenecks at points like this is not a good idea, the most annoying thing is there is plenty of space, they are not forced into it by buildings or anything, it could easily have been wider. Just why?

My final gripe is about light phasings. If TFL were serious about encouraging people out of their cars and onto bikes, they should be giving cyclists priority. Car drivers should visibly see the cyclists are getting the fast track treatment, then they will some of that action. Some of the light phasings clearly indicate to me cyclists are 2nd class road users. Coming from Victoria up Vauxhall Bridge Road towards Vauxhall, before the bridge on the new lane there is a set of lights as you approach the junction with John Islip St. I had to wait so long at this set of light recently I needed to step off my bike and as I needed another shave. Honestly, WTF? So now when I come to this section I ride in the cycle lane, then at the lights hop into the main traffic flow, through the lights an then rejoin the cycle lane. This is much more risky but is the 'obvious' thing that many cyclist will do in the real world, encouraged by poor design and again this seems to be introducing conflict when before there was none, which I think could be the motto for the whole damn scheme, oh the irony. I'm sure TFL and LCC look at actual real human behaviour in these situations, so they must be ignoring it then? Drivers rage and seethe at cyclists getting ahead of them and moan more about RLJ'ing than anything. Give us all the green lights, if they cant beat us, a lot will join us.......if the infrastructure was'nt so badly designed. 

I should point out I'm not some cycling anarchic renegade (mores the pity maybe) . I'm in my 40's, I stop at red lights. I am an experienced and confident cyclist so appreciate much of the segregation debate is not aimed at the likes of me, but if its not clear to me how is it going to be any clearer to a novice? I live in this area so want it improved for cycling, and it is indeed personal now. I completed numerous questionairres and responded to the consultations before the work started, have endured the traffic chaos for months and months caused by the works, which cyclists still get the blame for as aparently its all for us Its cost millions and really if is this the best they can manage, sorry to sound so negative but from me its an overall....but I was trying to be constructive, it just seems no one is listening. Rant over, and breathe......


----------



## Drago (26 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> Stop painting costly, useless blue lines on roads. Tactical squads of police on bikes but drop the uniformed guys on MTBs: suits on bromptons, hipsters on fixies, full kit roadies, bikes with baskets on the front.



It's a nice thought, but if the copper isn't in uniform they don't have the power to require you to stop, so it achieves nothing.


----------



## subaqua (26 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> But all these cyclists who have materialised because of the new tracks and are now cycling further, what do they do when the said track drops them in some hell hole like Elephant and Castle or around Bank or around Kings Cross and they have no experience of cycling on typical London streets?
> 
> I still say stop wasting money on white elephant, "look at what I did as mayor" projects and put serious money into integrating cyclists into where they should be: on the road, in the traffic, as safe and confident members of that traffic.



You would have thought that 60 years after motorways were first opened that we would have learnt the lessons from that .

M10. (As was) , M45 were built because we had this wonderful M1 that just tipped people off the end of it.




Drago said:


> It's a nice thought, but if the copper isn't in uniform they don't have the power to require you to stop, so it achieves nothing.



So change that bit of legislation . And what's to stop them having uniform on underneath a plain jacket etc. 

At least it means you will never be quite sure who is or isn't a police officer.


----------



## martint235 (26 Nov 2015)

Drago said:


> It's a nice thought, but if the copper isn't in uniform they don't have the power to require you to stop, so it achieves nothing.


So the next time a plain clothes detective asks me to stop I can politely tell him to do one?

If that's the case then I think we're going to have some real issues with terrorism and should maybe look at changing that bit of legislation.


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> So how do you fine a cyclist who may have no ID on them?


Same way you fine a motorist who may have no ID on them. Let's apply similar rules in this instance 



martint235 said:


> You're not authorising anything, you're enforcing a regulation that is already there. You're just amending the punishment.


And allocating resources to its enforcement. I'm not saying let's be ruled by media, but it seems reasonably probable to cause a reaction, so it'd be nice to have a rational defence.



martint235 said:


> Yes I predict it will help.


I know you do, but is there any data?



booze and cake said:


> What the hell is that all about?


In general, you may find the answer if you dig around https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk and if not, then emailing them or asking the local LCC reps, or if TfL don't answer then asking for relevant stuff through www.WhatDoTheyKnow.com (but get in quick before Cameron starts charging for everything) may reveal the answer. In my experience elsewhere, it's usually cost-cutting or thoughtlessness... more on that now:



booze and cake said:


> Honestly have these clowns even thought to cycle it and see what they've made?


Designers seem about as likely to cycle as the rest of the population (which seems wrong IMO) so that means 20% at best in most places will have regular experience of cycling... but the rest really should be professional enough to follow the guidance and not enable mad crap like sharp zero-radius corners or dangerous obstacles in/by the track!




booze and cake said:


> I am an experienced and confident cyclist so appreciate much of the segregation debate is not aimed at the likes of me, but if its not clear to me how is it going to be any clearer to a novice?


Exactly! I'm fine with you saying you're not going to use it because you're OK on the carriageway - and I want lots of opportunity for cyclists to move between carriageway and cycle track so there are options for all sorts - but where do the future riders like you come from? They probably haven't been gently built up to riding on busy A roads by their parents (like I was fortunate enough to) and I'm sure the majority aren't going to dive in at the deep end on the carriageway, so they'll begin on things like these, so it's really important that they're designed so that experienced riders think they're OK because novices don't enjoy obstacle courses and maybe won't spot the dangers before they get hurt and won't keep cycling if they feel it's a choice between that and the hurly burly. So please keep on and if ANY highway designer ever tries to dismiss legitimate concerns because "this isn't aimed at the likes of you" then fire your question straight back at them and ask if they think novice riders like dangerous obstacle courses!.... ok, rant over - you can probably tell I've had that experience a few times!



booze and cake said:


> Its cost millions and really if is this the best they can manage, sorry to sound so negative but from me its an overall....but I was trying to be constructive, it just seems no one is listening.


Part of the problem is that highways planning isn't part of the normal planning process, so what gets consulted upon isn't what gets built - if potential users are consulted at all! (At least TfL seems to do that fairly consistently...) If the design changes (or lack of) in response to the consultation are fundamentally perverse, there's very little opportunity to challenge it. Even then, projects often change with no visible reason between the consultation report approval and final construction. This accountability problem doesn't just afflict cycle tracks, but all highways - but when they cock it up for motorists, there are massively expensive collisions and outrage and cock-ups usually get corrected, whereas on a cycle track, a few people fall over and nothing blows up or gets demolished by a car. They are basically unaccountable. They are the dandy highwaymen who the mayor's too scared to caution - They spend our cash on looking flash and grabbing our attention! The devil take your handlebars and your cycle collection - The way you look you'll qualify for next year's old age pension. Stand and deliver! Your money or your life! Try and use a mirror - no bullet or a knife!

Ahem. TFL won't read your fine words. Please slap them with it. Email a copy to your assembly member www.WriteToThem.com - you're a resident and voter, you have a much louder voice than commuting workers like me. If you're free at the time, please consider going along tomorrow evening for a little lie-down outside their office. #NoMoreCoffins.


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2015)

subaqua said:


> You would have thought that 60 years after motorways were first opened that we would have learnt the lessons from that .
> 
> M10. (As was) , M45 were built because we had this wonderful M1 that just tipped people off the end of it.


Yebbut M10 and M45 just spread the load from the ends of the M1 onto more non-motorways... most of the CS load spreads among non-cycle-superhighways in a similar fashion, doesn't it? There's no shortage of junctions on most of them, as you know to your cost


----------



## martint235 (26 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Same way you fine a motorist who may have no ID on them. Let's apply similar rules in this instance
> 
> And allocating resources to its enforcement. I'm not saying let's be ruled by media, but it seems reasonably probable to cause a reaction, so it'd be nice to have a rational defence.
> 
> ...


You mean checking their license plate against who they say they are and arresting them if there's enough of a discrepancy? Or perhaps expecting them to have a driving license on them when they are driving? That'll be fun with cyclists.

The rational defence is that we are trying to make the roads safer (parents happy) for less cost (everyone happy) than disrupting traffic and putting stupid blue paint everywhere (motorists happy). Even the Daily Wail can't complain about that.

Yep I'll make up some data for something we've never attempted yet.


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> You mean checking their license plate against who they say they are and arresting them if there's enough of a discrepancy? Or perhaps expecting them to have a driving license on them when they are driving?


The registration plate has nothing to do with who's driving and we don't have to carry licences when driving ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/164 ), or indeed any official ID. Personally, I think that's a basic freedom... but possibly that's OT here (rather than SCP).



martint235 said:


> Yep I'll make up some data for something we've never attempted yet.


I suggested possible data which should already exist but may not be published. I don't mind if someone else knows it. It's OK to say we can't find it.


----------



## martint235 (26 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> The registration plate has nothing to do with who's driving and we don't have to carry licences when driving ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/164 ), or indeed any official ID. Personally, I think that's a basic freedom... but possibly that's OT here (rather than SCP).
> 
> 
> I suggested possible data which should already exist but may not be published. I don't mind if someone else knows it. It's OK to say we can't find it.


164(1) suggests that you do have to produce your license: 
*"Power of constables to require production of driving licence and in certain cases statement of date of birth.*
F1or vehicle examiner] has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road,

F1or vehicle examiner] has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use of a motor vehicle on a road, or

F1or vehicle examiner] has reasonable cause to believe was supervising the holder of a provisional licence while driving, at a time when an accident occurred owing to the presence of the vehicle on a road or at a time when an offence is suspected of having been committed by the holder of the provisional licence in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road,

must, on being so required by a constable [F1or vehicle examiner], produce his licence [F2and its counterpart] for examination, so as to enable the constable [F1or vehicle examiner] to ascertain the name and address of the holder of the licence, the date of issue, and the authority by which [F3they were] issued. "


I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a driver to carry their license when they are operating their vehicle anyway so if the above isn't sufficient it's a minor law change. It would be more difficult to enforce for cyclists though as you'd have to introduce a licensing scheme. Then again I'm not against a requirement to carry photo ID anyway.


----------



## booze and cake (26 Nov 2015)

@mjray thanks some good points and pointers there. It was mainly a frutration rant, if they're going to do it, at least do it properly. You're right I should'nt just be 'outraged on the internet' I shall ping an email to them, even though my cynicism leads me to think it won't get beyond the inbox of some low level TFL droid.

I really don't agree with the whole die-ins protest thing so won't be going along to that, but the suns trying to break out so I'm off out to play with the traffic


----------



## subaqua (26 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Yebbut M10 and M45 just spread the load from the ends of the M1 onto more non-motorways... most of the CS load spreads among non-cycle-superhighways in a similar fashion, doesn't it? There's no shortage of junctions on most of them, as you know to your cost



My point was that it chucks traffic into a place not entirely suitable for them . So no lessons learned at all. 

But LCC love this sort of infra


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2015)

booze and cake said:


> even though my cynicism leads me to think it won't get beyond the inbox of some low level TFL droid.


It might not, but it's a fairly cheap lottery to play and you never know, it could be you that wins it 

Highway improvements really ought not to be a lottery, so please flame your elected members too.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2015)

User said:


> I used to be an LCC member.... until the Hembrow acolytes took it over and turned it into the Mayor's rubber stamp.


Once the CEGB folk took over I cancelled my membership.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2015)

Nothing wrong with the existing infrastructure. The existing roads are great for cycling on.

The motor traffic on the roads is the problem. Regulate it more closely. Stop prioritising it over other road users. Take away its advantages. Reduce its speed and volume.

And stop wasting money building piecemeal "cycling infrastructure"


----------



## srw (27 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Nothing wrong with the existing infrastructure. The existing roads are great for cycling on.
> 
> The motor traffic on the roads is the problem. Regulate it more closely. Stop prioritising it over other road users. Take away its advantages. Reduce its speed and volume.
> 
> And stop wasting money building piecemeal "cycling infrastructure"


url=http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...be-trafficfree-within-12-months-a3119371.html

The link address says everything you need to know. And further west, Camden have bowed to the inevitable and taken a lane out of the roads in Bloomsbury to widen the horribly narrow bike lane. And they've taken out ability of general traffic to use the roads as a through ratrun by making different bits of it one-way in different directions.


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Once the CEGB folk took over I cancelled my membership.


Please can you tell me which of http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/people have taken over LCC?



srw said:


> And further west, Camden have bowed to the inevitable and taken a lane out of the roads in Bloomsbury to widen the horribly narrow bike lane.


I'm still not sure what to think of that. Does that mean the horribly narrow cycle track actually did encourage numbers on that route to rise to the point cycling more dedicated road space made sense, or that it had dangerously failed to scale to cope an increase which was happening anyway, or something else?


----------



## srw (27 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> I'm still not sure what to think of that. Does that mean the horribly narrow cycle track actually did encourage numbers on that route to rise to the point cycling more dedicated road space made sense, or that it had dangerously failed to scale to cope an increase which was happening anyway, or something else?


Who knows? And does it really matter? The new arrangement (which appears to be a year-long experiment) is much better than the old one, although I'm not sure about the lane separators, and half of the bollards (the ones by the kerb) are unnecessary and positively dangerous.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Please can you tell me which of http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/people have taken over LCC?


Are you always so literal?

btw your link is merely a list of CEGB officials...


----------



## mjr (27 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Are you always so literal?
> 
> btw your link is merely a list of CEGB officials...


It's the only public list I found. Do you always avoid direct questions about your claims?


----------



## subaqua (27 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> It's the only public list I found. Do you always avoid direct questions about your claims?


Only as much as you do it seems.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Do you always avoid direct questions about your claims?


No.


----------



## tatr (2 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> But all these cyclists who have materialised because of the new tracks and are now cycling further, what do they do when the said track drops them in some hell hole like Elephant and Castle or around Bank or around Kings Cross and they have no experience of cycling on typical London streets?



Elephant and Castle is being dug up at the moment to make it more cycle friendly (new cycle lanes all over the place, as well as getting rid of the roundabout which should make riding in the road less terrifying if you chose to do that) and as someone else said Bank is being redesigned as well.

A new Vauxhall Cross scheme is currently in consultation which will remove the gyratory and improve the cycle lanes. King's Cross gyratory is also due to be removed - consultation will start in 2016 for this one - and the redesign will almost certainly include new cycle lanes.

You can't really expect them to dig up the whole of London all at once - although they seem to be trying! The amount of cycle-related work going on in central London is pretty amazing.


----------



## martint235 (2 Dec 2015)

You miss my point. No matter how many litres of blue paint you use, cyclists at some point will have to be on the road. Better to spend the money making the roads safer than waste it on blue paint


----------



## srw (2 Dec 2015)

The Bank proposals and the (ongoing) removal of the Aldgate gyratory are both about making the road safer for all road users, not about blue paint and segregation. The improvements to the segregation in Bloomsbury are about restricting motorised traffic and turning much more of the road over to bikes - essentially it's a massive contraflow bike lane. I don't know anything about Vauxhall, King's Cross or Elephant and Castle.


----------

