# The LCC "Go Dutch" campaign



## style over speed (16 Nov 2011)

Wow




, after years of backing the discredited vehicular cycling craze, the LCC is now campaigning on this! Brilliant, the cycle embassy of GB has a rival:




> *Londoners should have the freedom to cycle wherever they live, whatever the route, and whatever the destination.
> 
> Years of car-centric planning have squeezed cyclists off major routes across and between boroughs.
> 
> ...



http://lcc.org.uk/pages/key-principles



> Cycling on London’s main roads can and must be made *safe, enjoyable and convenient *for all Londoners, whatever their age or cycling ability.This has been achieved in succesful cycling nations, such as the Netherlands, where a quarter of all journeys are taken by bike, by people of all ages and experience.
> 
> The solutions exist, now our decision-makers must find the political will to make them happen here.
> 
> ...





and more here:

http://lcc.org.uk/pa...principles-full


I dont see why this should just be a London campaign, ALL of the UK suffers from miserable and corrupt urban planning.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Nov 2011)

the longest and most tedious suicide note in history!


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (16 Nov 2011)

Whilst I'm no fan of the "segregation everywhere" approach, anything that promises to change the culture should be welcomed. However, I started to reply by pointing out that there is far more to "going Dutch" than putting cycle lanes in, such as presumed liability, decades of cultural change management, some punitive cases against careless motorists, etc. Then I was looking for articles to back up some of my arguments and found that someone has already written the reply, here. So just read that for a less utopian view.

[Edit] Oh, and before Del mentions it, we certainly don't want the kind of bleak concrete jungle that has been created in parts of Holland in the name of cycle segregation.

[Second edit] The segregation proposed appears not to be everywhere, but apparently includes in most places measures to help cycles and motor vehicles to co-exist. That sounds good, though it depends on how it is interpreted.


----------



## Red Light (16 Nov 2011)

Interesting. They've changed the photo to go with it which looks a lot less like cycle faciities and more like shared space/naked street. The old one was most appropriate. A busy road with a shared use cycle path on the pavement with no-one cycling on it but someone walking in it instead.

I bet the version of Go Dutch will just be something taken from the catalogue and nothing like the Dutch at all.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Nov 2011)

without getting all Wittgenstein on yo asses, when the LCC says 'going Dutch' they mean what people think they mean. And. let's face it, people will think they mean 'cycle paths'. It's against that expectation that the success (or failure) of this campaign will be measured.

It's no use saying 'oh, well, we didn't really mean cycle paths' six months or a year down the line.


----------



## John the Monkey (17 Nov 2011)

Arg. "Dutch" isn't segregation everywhere. It's a combination of redesign of roads, better design of new roads, some segregation, and prioritising things other than the "flow" of motor traffic within cities.

Vehicular cycling is "discredited" only in the sense that it couldn't stand against successive, intensely pro-car governments. I doubt whether a "Dutch" campaign over the same time would have either.


----------



## Red Light (17 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> without getting all Wittgenstein on yo asses, when the LCC says 'going Dutch' they mean what people think they mean. And. let's face it, people will think they mean 'cycle paths'. It's against that expectation that the success (or failure) of this campaign will be measured.
> 
> It's no use saying 'oh, well, we didn't really mean cycle paths' six months or a year down the line.



I can't deconstruct the "they mean what people think they mean" and "people will think they mean cycle paths" I'm assuming its supposed to mean LCC are thinking cycle paths? The LCC vote was clearly different and just called for "clear space, Dutch-style, for cycling along major roads in every London borough." not just cycle tracks and lanes

Personally I very much doubt there are many places in London where you could Go Dutch in the way that most people perceive it which is one way cycle lanes and tracks between 2 & 4m wide depending on cycle volumes built to CROW standards. 

What I have seen at the local campaign level is all the segregated cycle track enthusiast are rubbing their hands at the opportunity to install replicas of the Bloomsbury segregated tracks which are things the Dutch would run a mile from and rightly so.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Nov 2011)

I read 'clear space' as cycle lanes. As in.......nothing in the way. Not parked cars, delivery vans, buses, pedestrians, whatever. The bit about 'dedicated space' sort of backs that up. And the website does say...

Where a main road has high volume or speeds of motor traffic cyclists will be given protected space. This includes ‘separation,’ i.e. cycle-only tracks that are physically separated from main carriageway, as well as physically ‘protected’ lanes on the road itself.

Now that's my reading, and it could be that something else was meant, but I'm willing to bet that if you asked 100 Londoners what was meant by 'clear space' almost all would suggest something like the above. Which, plainly, (and mercifully), is not going to happen

the 'Continuity' thing is a bit special. Nobody gets to make 'continuous, unobstructed journeys' across London, and there's no particular reason why they should. If that's what people want they should move to Milton Keynes.

I suspect that this is a putsch by a bunch of self-publicising self-gratification artists, and that sense will prevail.


----------



## Red Light (17 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I read 'clear space' as cycle lanes. As in.......nothing in the way. Not parked cars, delivery vans, buses, pedestrians, whatever.



I read it as much wider than that and space for example like in the photo at the top of the LCC page on it. But I do agree lots of people think it means cycle lanes and tracks and a lot of campaigners for those think its Christmas.




> the 'Continuity' thing is a bit special. Nobody gets to make 'continuous, unobstructed journeys' across London, and there's no particular reason why they should. If that's what people want they should move to Milton Keynes.



Remembering that almost no-one cycles in Milton Keynes despite the ability to do continuous journeys on segregated cycleways from anywhere to anywhere in the city using the Redways.


----------



## Fab Foodie (17 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Nobody gets to make 'continuous, unobstructed journeys' across London, and there's no particular reason why they should. If that's what people want *they should move to Milton Keynes*.


That's a bit harsh ....


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Nov 2011)

Fab Foodie said:


> That's a bit harsh ....


Sorry. I meant Swindon

more of the same...

Cyclists will be given dedicated space away from motorised traffic on main roads (or where not possible, priority over motorised traffic) so that they are not endangered or intimidated by motor vehicles passing near them; in particular cyclists will not have to overtake motorised vehicles on the outside on main roads


----------



## Richard Mann (17 Nov 2011)

It's useful in that it raises the sights, but delivery is another question. 

Let them make some noise. We need roads that are fit for large numbers of people to cycle quickly and safely. We can worry about the precise details of how in due course. If people want to build tracks that will only have to be ripped out later, then let them. Just as long as they're doing some more sensible stuff as well, so we can compare effectiveness and value.

Richard


----------



## StuartG (17 Nov 2011)

There's plenty of space on most of our quieter residential streets. All we have to do is stop people treating what should be a shared public space as their personal and private garage facility. Give the kids somewhere to kick a ball too.

Oh and make it easier for motorists to actually motor ... but despite car clubs this is something that appears to be a political impossibility despite the obvious benefits for many if not most people.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Nov 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> It's useful in that it raises the sights, but delivery is another question.
> 
> Let them make some noise. We need roads that are fit for large numbers of people to cycle quickly and safely. We can worry about the precise details of how in due course. *If people want to build tracks that will only have to be ripped out later, then let them.* Just as long as they're doing some more sensible stuff as well, so we can compare effectiveness and value.
> 
> Richard


I don't think they will (and. speaking as a precept payer I fervently hope they don't). £140M on LCN+ has proved to anybody who's interested that you can waste an awful lot of money on cycling. The Cycling Superhighways are a far more successful (and far, far, far more visible) way of spending less dosh.

Of course, Johnson will respond by saying that the LCC can 'go Dutch' if cyclists pay for this stuff.


----------



## Red Light (17 Nov 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> It's useful in that it raises the sights, but delivery is another question.
> 
> Let them make some noise. We need roads that are fit for large numbers of people to cycle quickly and safely. We can worry about the precise details of how in due course. If people want to build tracks that will only have to be ripped out later, then let them. Just as long as they're doing some more sensible stuff as well, so we can compare effectiveness and value.



The one thing I would like to see from this experiment if its done is some proper monitoring. So at least lets know as a result answers to the two key questions 

do they attract people to cycling (and that's new cyclists not just cyclists displaced from other routes) and
are they safer.
Because its an ideal chance to ab initio gather the data that everyone argues about.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Nov 2011)

Red Light said:


> The one thing I would like to see from this experiment if its done is some proper monitoring. So at least lets know as a result answers to the two key questions
> 
> do they attract people to cycling (and that's new cyclists not just cyclists displaced from other routes) and
> are they safer.
> Because its an ideal chance to ab initio gather the data that everyone argues about.


not going to happen. Neither LCC or Sustrans has the stomach for counting cyclists.


----------



## stowie (17 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> not going to happen. Neither LCC or Sustrans has the stomach for counting cyclists.



This may be a bit OT, but does _anyone_ actually count the number of people who cycle?

I am not talking about modal share or no. of cyclists on a given road at a given period. I am talking about seeing how many people in a given area cycle (say at least once a week) on road? I guess it wouldn't be too difficult to do with sample group and polling techniques.

Back on topic, I don't really want to engage in another segregation debate where we all collectively stick our fingers in our ears and shout at each other, but I think that the LCC seem to having an effect in raising the issue of cycling in London into mainstream media. In my years of membership of the LCC I have never seen them quite so energised in terms of communicating to members and also on campaigns.


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Nov 2011)

Exactly - I suggest we forget the segregation debate, and just treat "Go Dutch" as a call for TfL to do lots of stuff: "we should be able to cycle everywhere like the Dutch do". The Dutch are perfectly happy in practice to do lanes if that's all they've got politics/money/space for, and that's what we'll probably mostly get, because that's the most cost-effective.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (18 Nov 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Exactly - I suggest we forget the segregation debate, and just treat "Go Dutch" as a call for TfL to do lots of stuff: "we should be able to cycle everywhere like the Dutch do". The Dutch are perfectly happy in practice to do lanes if that's all they've got politics/money/space for, and that's what we'll probably mostly get, because that's the most cost-effective.



I think it depends on your measure of effectiveness.

It's certainly effective if your measure is how many boxes get ticked on forms.

In many circumstances, it may be effective if your measure is how many people start cycling as a result of a perception of increased safety. In my decision to come back to cycle commuting, I certainly was influenced by the increased number of cycle lanes since I stopped doing it 15 years earlier.

If your measure is actual improved safety, then I suspect there are very few places where it is effective. 15 months after starting back, I now wish most of the cycle lanes weren't there on my route. This is because I have learned a lot in that time, much of it from personal experience.

It does seem a bit strange to say "forget the segregation debate" in a post that goes on to say that a very weak form of segregation is "what we'll probably mostly get".

Having said that, I think I would accept the negative results of having more paint on the roads, if it were coupled with presumed (or even strict) liability laws and an education campaign aimed at drivers.

Of course, it's all academic for me because nothing is going to happen about this in my neck of the woods.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Nov 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> Exactly -* I suggest we forget the segregation debate,* and just treat "Go Dutch" as a call for TfL to do lots of stuff: "we should be able to cycle everywhere like the Dutch do". The Dutch are perfectly happy in practice to do lanes if that's all they've got politics/money/space for, and that's what we'll probably mostly get, because that's the most cost-effective.


we'd love to do that, but the LCC is clearly going for it. Hence my crack about suicide notes. It brings to mind the 1983 Labour Manifesto


----------



## totallyfixed (18 Nov 2011)

Going Dutch? Is this a joke? You can substitute Dutch for German, Danish and a host of other countries in Europe. In case it hasn't been obvious to anyone yet, it's not possible to "go Dutch" until the transport culture changes in this country, and you can't effect a culture change without a change in the law. Until cyclists become a protected species, as the law dictates among many of our European partners, I don't see a way forward. I lived over the water for 10 years and not once did I have a close encounter with a car that I can recall. As a for instance, the "left hook" [or right everywhere else in Europe] simply doesn't exist. Hit a cyclist and at the very least it's bye, bye licence.
The effect of changing the law is massive and would at a stroke both protect cyclists and change our society into a much safer one. It would do more to put bums on saddles than any namby ideas of conjuring up millions to build protected cycleways that are a practical impossibility. I am sick of the British mentality that says we are different from other countries and know better. I actually made some of these points to a big wig at a conference years ago, and his reply was, "yes but they cycle more over there don't they", I give up.


----------



## StuartG (18 Nov 2011)

I think you wrong Totallyfixed.

Law happens when there is a majority (of people and/or the media) are already in favour of something. It is not to convince but to coerce the minority into accepting the wish of the majority.

Hence it took many decades to get, say, drink driving and smoking in public places laws into place. Law is a lagging indicator. 

We are still stuck at the stage of the majority of the people and the media actually not wanting to protect and promote cycling. Anyone who has had to moderate a cycling thread on a non-cycling forum has a nose for how far we have to travel. And whilst cycling is increasing slowly IMHO hostility is growing faster.


----------



## her_welshness (18 Nov 2011)

I was at the LCC AGM when they explained more about this 'Go Dutch' scheme.

To be honest I am pretty ambivalent about it.

1. It is very gimmicky, and members are confused whether it means total segregation and/or share the road.

2. It does not offer local borough campaigners (like myself) any guidelines on how we promote it - except for a concertina piece of paper.

3. Some people argued at the AGM that we should not be comparing ourselves to the Dutch. Fair point I guess as their laws are very different from our own as are other European countries.

4. One person argued that if we are 'Go Dutch' then we should campaign for legal practices such as driver are fully liable. They rather sneered at this.

At the end of the day most of us are just going to ignore it and do our own campaigning. It makes life easier


----------



## Richard Mann (18 Nov 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I think it depends on your measure of effectiveness.



The measure of effectiveness is pretty much irrelevant if one costs 100x the other. As far as safety goes, it's much of a muchness (excluding big junctions). In terms of bums on saddles, both lanes and tracks are positive; tracks probably more so, but not 100x better.

Who knows, maybe they have the money, but quite likely they don't. But doing something vaguely sensible to main roads, preferably a lot, would be a big step forward, and it deserves support rather than quibbling.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (18 Nov 2011)

Richard Mann said:


> The measure of effectiveness is pretty much irrelevant if one costs 100x the other. As far as safety goes, it's much of a muchness (excluding big junctions). In terms of bums on saddles, both lanes and tracks are positive; tracks probably more so, but not 100x better.



Not if the one is 200x more effective than the other.

In any case, who said anything about tracks? I do not believe that making a change in the law to introduce presumed liability would be 100x more expensive than painting a load of lanes on the road, then maintaining and policing them; it would probably cost less, in fact. I also do not believe that an education campaign aimed at motorists would be 100x more expensive; that also would probably cost less, especially given that we already pay for the BBC. I do believe that both would be far more effective, however.

Of course, I am assuming that, by "cost", we mean money. If by "cost", we mean political will, then that is a different matter entirely.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Nov 2011)

I think Her Welshness has summed it up. It's a document that, (besides setting aside the segregation thing which is a blind alley), is so diffuse that it's pretty meaningless. It's not exactly a toolkit that can be adopted by borough organisations. And it is completely at odds with the 'grid' analysis they produced three or four years ago, not to mention the long-forgotten (and wildly expensive) LCN+ thing.

Happily most LCC borough organisations (with the exception of Camden) are made up of smart items - I reckon that the Lambeth lot have more campaigning knowledge than the entirety of CTC Towers. They'll continue pushing on a case by case basis.


----------



## stowie (18 Nov 2011)

Go Dutch (whatever that means) or not, I feel a difference with LCC now.

The "Tour Du Danger" which started out as an idea on two blogs and grew was helped by LCC local organisations from promotion when the idea started to get bigger to marshalling and organisation on the ride. I don't think they were initially involved, and this shows a certain flexibility to be able to jump onto an idea and help it. I was impressed. I think the Blackfriars flashrides are another example.

And now the mayor has announced a review of all CSH junctions with priority on Bow. I don't think the fact that the cycle event the other week got so much publicity on local TV and newspapers is unrelated to this decision.

The "Going Dutch" thing was voted in by members, and I think will evolve, or not, as time goes on.


----------



## style over speed (2 Dec 2011)

great little film, about turning city centres back to human scale streets. Removing through motor traffic is the key.

from this








to this








this could be applied to any of countless British town centres, blighted by corrupt urban planning… this really should be a UK campaign not just a London one.


----------



## Richard Mann (2 Dec 2011)

Without wanting to state the bleeding obvious, there are lots of places in the UK that have removed traffic from major city centre roads: this sort of history is hardly specific to the Dutch.

What's different is that they've provided for cycling as part of the process, whereas we've generally left nasty big roads round the centre, making it almost impossible to cycle in safety.

It's the treatment of big junctions that's the crux. The Dutch tend to provide a signalled bike crossing alongside a straight pedestrian crossing, and kinda ignore the implications for pedestrian/cyclist conflicts. This tends to reduce the vehicular capacity of the junction, so they make junctions bigger to compensate. Which is why we'll have to be quite smart about reconfiguring gyratories and roundabouts if we're to achieve the same in London.

Richard


----------



## Imalemon (4 Dec 2011)

I'm new to cycling and it seems to me that the sentiments expressed in this blog typified by Delzzeq when he says "I suspect that this is a putsch by a bunch of self-publicising self-gratification artists, and that sense will prevail..." - is what is wrong.

For years it seems to me London cyclists have been divided over whether to segregate or not segregate but how much has this in-fighting actually helped in practical terms? How far, for example, has London come since the 80s or 90s if you are a cyclist?

Not very far is the answer -only about 2% of the population cycle in a city that is largely flat -  and the reason for this is that it is mostly down to people like Delzzeq who want to keep it the way that it is.

This is not good enough and I for one think the Go Dutch Campaign is a fantastic idea. It is about reaching the latent majority who do actually want to get out on their bikes but consider the idea of cycling in London too dangerous. For me it is about changing the mentality and normalising cycling and for that you have to start somewhere. Picking holes in the idea on a blog from your bedroom is a blind cul-de-sac.


----------



## style over speed (4 Dec 2011)

Imalemon said:


> I'm new to cycling and it seems to me that the sentiments expressed in this blog typified by Delzzeq when he says "I suspect that this is a putsch by a bunch of self-publicising self-gratification artists, and that sense will prevail..." - is what is wrong.
> 
> For years it seems to me London cyclists have been divided over whether to segregate or not segregate but how much has this in-fighting actually helped in practical terms? How far, for example, has London come since the 80s or 90s if you are a cyclist?
> 
> ...


 
^ the Go Dutch campaign is exactly about this, to invite the 90% of people who don't use a bike for transport to be able use it as a safe and convenient way to get around in normal gear, at least 25% of people want to do this right away but are rightly put off by the dreadful conditions people have to contend with. Segregation is a blind alley, dutch planning only segregates where needed, not as prescription, ie only for major roads.


----------



## Red Light (4 Dec 2011)

Imalemon said:


> I'm new to cycling and it seems to me that the sentiments expressed in this blog typified by Delzzeq when he says "I suspect that this is a putsch by a bunch of self-publicising self-gratification artists, and that sense will prevail..." - is what is wrong.
> 
> For years it seems to me London cyclists have been divided over whether to segregate or not segregate but how much has this in-fighting actually helped in practical terms? How far, for example, has London come since the 80s or 90s if you are a cyclist?
> 
> ...




The segregation approach has been tried in ultimate form in Stevevage, Milton Keynes & East Kilbride all of which had segregated cycle networks that go everywhere designed in from the beginning. You can't get much better than that. They have some of the lowest cycling rates in the country while Cambridge, York & Oxford have some of the highest with everyone crammed onto the same narrow roads. Build it and they will come has demonstrably failed in getting people to start cycling. 

No doubt someone will be along to protest they didn't build them right but if we can't get it right in ideal circumstances after nearly a century of trying what makes you think it will be any different this time? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Imalemon (4 Dec 2011)

> Cambridge, York & Oxford have some of the highest with everyone crammed onto the same narrow roads


 
The good news is that a determined, small minority are prepared to cycle in spite of being crammed into narrow roads, but that is not an environment the majority are prepared to expose themselves. It's not because cyclists are able to share the road with lorries and cars that they cycle, it is inspite of this but imagine how many more would cycle in a world which prioritised pedestrians and cyclists. Incidently I have lived in York and the most popular routes used are dedicated cycle paths.

Redlight has correctly identified that Stevevage, Milton Keynes & East Kilbride have not yet got it right but that is not an excuse for giving up. We are stuck in the 70s and need to move from the old world to the new...


----------



## ComedyPilot (4 Dec 2011)

I rode 1200km round The Netherlands in 2010, so have first-hand experience of the 'Dutch' way, and we in the UK are decades behind in attitude, culture and motivation to change. Edit:- we are told to aspire to be motorists and the sportier the car, or more expensive, the better. So it is a massive culture shock to be sat in a tin box, going nowhere in gridlock, being passed by 'gay-boy in lycra' cyclists (who don't pay road tax) and to then have to come to terms with losing, or reducing the use of your phallic status symbol is incomprehensible to a lot of cagers motorists.


----------



## Flying Dodo (4 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> The segregation approach has been tried in ultimate form in Stevevage, Milton Keynes & East Kilbride all of which had segregated cycle networks that go everywhere designed in from the beginning. You can't get much better than that. They have some of the lowest cycling rates in the country while Cambridge, York & Oxford have some of the highest with everyone crammed onto the same narrow roads. Build it and they will come has demonstrably failed in getting people to start cycling.
> 
> No doubt someone will be along to protest they didn't build them right but if we can't get it right in ideal circumstances after nearly a century of trying what makes you think it will be any different this time? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


 
I've tried going on the Stevenage ones - totally useless, as:- 

a) there are virtually no signposts so you don't know where you're going,
b) what signs they do have seem to only mention local estates, so not designed to get you across the town,
c) sometimes they randomly go in different directions and due to a) you end up even more lost,
d) they aren't maintained so have lots of glass in places.

On the other hand, I've also been around Milton Keynes a lot, and have seen quite a few cyclists on the Redways.


----------



## Red Light (4 Dec 2011)

Imalemon said:


> The good news is that a determined, small minority are prepared to cycle in spite of being crammed into narrow roads, but that is not an environment the majority are prepared to expose themselves. It's not because cyclists are able to share the road with lorries and cars that they cycle, it is inspite of this but imagine how many more would cycle in a world which prioritised pedestrians and cyclists. Incidently I have lived in York and the most popular routes used are dedicated cycle paths.
> 
> Redlight has correctly identified that Stevevage, Milton Keynes & East Kilbride have not yet got it right but that is not an excuse for giving up. We are stuck in the 70s and need to move from the old world to the new...


 
I wouldn't call 30-35% of journeys in Cambridge being by bicycle (and that's without including the students) a "determined, small minority". Nor are the cyclists crossing the Thames at peak hours in London who are equal in number to those driving a "determined, small minority". Nor the Boris Bikers who have taken to the streets of London in great numbers despite a paucity of facilities.

But explain to me how we are going to move on from the 70's in a way that wasn't achieved in the nineties or noughties with segregated facilities like Royal College St or the Seven Stations Link in London (both dreadful examples of the segregationsists' art).

We'll build it right next time has been the un-honoured cry of segregated facility promoters since they first started and a century later its wearing thin


----------



## Red Light (4 Dec 2011)

Flying Dodo said:


> I've tried going on the Stevenage ones - totally useless, as:-
> 
> a) there are virtually no signposts so you don't know where you're going,
> b) what signs they do have seem to only mention local estates, so not designed to get you across the town,
> ...


 
a) there are no signposts on the estate roads either but people seem to find their way around alright. Signposts are for out-of-towners mainly, not locals.
b) local estate names will mean something to locals but not to visitors
c) only if you don't know your way around because your a visitor. But its not visitors we're trying to get cycling, its locals.
d) glass, ice, mud......are cycle facilities anywhere maintained and cleaned?


----------



## Flying Dodo (4 Dec 2011)

Ah, so it's local facilities for local people!! 

Stupid me for trying to get to the other side of Stevenage on them.


----------



## Red Light (4 Dec 2011)

Flying Dodo said:


> Ah, so it's local facilities for local people!!


 
Well who else would want to go there?


----------



## Imalemon (4 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> But explain to me how we are going to move on from the 70's


 
By getting behind campaigns like the Go Dutch campaign and not accepting the status quo.


----------



## Red Light (4 Dec 2011)

Imalemon said:


> By getting behind campaigns like the Go Dutch campaign and not accepting the status quo.


 
I'll get behind it when someone can draw me a practical plan of how they are going to fit a Dutch style CROW compliant segregated facility onto a typical London street. Every time someone has been given the opportunity to do just that we end up with woefully CROW non-compliant facilities like the ones in Bloomsbury. And the reason we get that is there isn't room for a CROW compliant facility. But the promoters are so focussed on getting a segregated cycle facility that anything is acceptable no matter how bad rather than admitting its not possible and moving on to some of the other Dutch approaches that are practical like controlling traffic speed and mixing the bikes in with the cars.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Dec 2011)

Imalemon said:


> By getting behind campaigns like the Go Dutch campaign and not accepting the status quo.


show me the drawing........... (whoops, sorry, RL!)

and the picture of Utrecht is horrible. If anybody tries to inflict that kind of idiocy on my part of the world, they'll have me to answer to


----------



## CotterPin (5 Dec 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> I rode 1200km round The Netherlands in 2010, so have first-hand experience of the 'Dutch' way, and *we in the UK are decades behind in attitude, culture and motivation to change*. Edit:- we are told to aspire to be motorists and the sportier the car, or more expensive, the better. So it is a massive culture shock to be sat in a tin box, going nowhere in gridlock, being passed by 'gay-boy in lycra' cyclists (who don't pay road tax) and to then have to come to terms with losing, or reducing the use of your phallic status symbol is incomprehensible to a lot of cagers motorists.


 
And it is the attitude and culture we should be working on before (or indeed, if) we start attempting to build segregated facilities. Otherwise we end up with dangerously compromised facilities such as those around Tavistock Square.

It is frequently suggested that more people would cycle if there were segregated cycle lanes for them. However, I wonder what response you would get from them if you told them they would lose the parking space outside their house or local shops for that cycle lane?

Stephen


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> I'll get behind it when someone can draw me a practical plan of how they are going to fit a Dutch style CROW compliant segregated facility onto a typical London street.


 


dellzeqq said:


> show me the drawing........... (whoops, sorry, RL!)


 
No response from Imalemon? He must be finding those drawings a bit tricky. Still, I'm sure they'll be worth the wait...


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Dec 2011)

The LCC is putting a lot of effort in to this 'Go Dutch' campaign. There are people within the LCC who are smart items. It would be nice if we could have some idea of what the campaign is about. RL sensibly points out that there is a lot more to cycling in Holland than cycling paths, but, to be honest, the LCC's 'Go Dutch' page isn't big on detail, and the 'principles' are so general as to be nigh-on hopeless...........

...so it is really, really difficult for people to 'get behind the campaign'

http://lcc.org.uk/pages/key-principles-full
http://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/4097/original.pdf?1319469423


----------



## Red Light (5 Dec 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> The LCC is putting a lot of effort in to this 'Go Dutch' campaign. There are people within the LCC who are smart items. It would be nice if we could have some idea of what the campaign is about. RL sensibly points out that there is a lot more to cycling in Holland than cycling paths, but, to be honest, the LCC's 'Go Dutch' page isn't big on detail, and the 'principles' are so general as to be nigh-on hopeless...........
> 
> ...so it is really, really difficult for people to 'get behind the campaign'
> 
> ...


 
Has anyone from LCC or any of the local campaigns identified which streets they are actually going to go for in this exercise? Or are they still searching for a street where they might have a snowball's chance of doing the drawing?


----------



## stowie (6 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> Has anyone from LCC or any of the local campaigns identified which streets they are actually going to go for in this exercise? Or are they still searching for a street where they might have a snowball's chance of doing the drawing?


 
I believe my local LCC has identified Lea Bridge Road as a major cycling route and a location for going Dutch. What this actually means in practice is not entirely clear. Although if there is a road that could do with civilizing in E17/E10, this may well be a good candidate. It isn't pleasant for cycling, and somewhat torrid for walking and crossing in many locations. It also has had a fair few cycling and pedestrian accidents, which isn't surprising considering it has a reasonable number of shops, is a major cycle commuting road to Hackney and C. London, and the road design allows universal speeding followed shortly by congested junctions.


----------



## gaz (6 Dec 2011)

If we are going to segregate, then we are going to have to take the current space away form something else. Be that buildings, pedestrians, bus lanes or general traffic lanes. I can't see that happening with the current modal share that we have.


----------



## totallyfixed (6 Dec 2011)

Nothing will ever really change until the law is changed. In three countries I have cycled in, Germany, Holland and Denmark if you impede, bully, threaten or hit a cyclist whilst driving a vehicle you are in very big trouble. I will say it again until the law is changed the culture will not.
There is no other every day activity outside cycling where a life can be lost so cheaply, This is where the campaign should start IMO.
BTW StuartG, where did I say changing the law would be easy?


----------



## Red Light (6 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> If we are going to segregate, then we are going to have to take the current space away form something else. Be that buildings, pedestrians, bus lanes or general traffic lanes. I can't see that happening with the current modal share that we have.


 
Even on Blackfriars Bridge where the modal share is parity, you can't take space away from TfL's beloved motor vehicles. Quite the opposite in fact.


----------



## Richard Mann (6 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> Even on Blackfriars Bridge where the modal share is parity, you can't take space away from TfL's beloved motor vehicles. Quite the opposite in fact.


 
You have to wean them off speed (and excess capacity) slowly and steadily. It's quite fiddly and complicated, but if we tell the engineers to slowly chip away at it, they're perfectly capable of doing it. Contrariwise, if we carry on telling them we want less congestion, they'll slowly make the roads more hostile.

The problem with "Go Dutch" is that it assumes there's a magic wand that can be waved that will make things wonderful for cycling, and make the traffic suddenly disappear. While that's partly true (it's called traffic evaporation), it's not completely true. Some of the traffic reappears elsewhere, so it's only tolerable if you've got subsequent plans to suppress traffic in the other places as well. It has to be part of a long-term strategy. To make the politics viable, you have to do it bit by bit, a bit here, a bit there.


----------



## StuartG (7 Dec 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> BTW StuartG, where did I say changing the law would be easy?


You have totally missed the point. I was saying it was impossible to change the law unless and until there is a clear will of the media and the majority to support a change. And there is no sign we are even changing our opinions slowly in that direction.

So I'm saying its even harder than YOU think ... and you are aiming off target.


----------



## style over speed (9 Feb 2012)

After all your speculation (finally) the official launch was tonight, headline sponsor for the campaign is Brompton bikes!



> Cycling on London’s roads must be made safe, enjoyable and convenient for all Londoners, whatever their age or cycling ability.
> This has been achieved in successful cycling nations like the Netherlands, where a quarter of all journeys are taken by bike, with people of all ages and experience having a real choice to cycle.
> Making London's roads _Go Dutch_ will require a new approach from London's leadership, based on a commitment to Equality, Quality and Continuity:


 
You can sign a(nother) petition in support here:
http://petition.lcc.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1745&ea.campaign.id=13331

have a look at (and critique) some plans:
olympic-park
parliament-square
blackfriars

and theres a massive family bike ride / protest planned for 28th April.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Feb 2012)

the commitment to equality doesn't extend to proposing bus lanes at either Blackfriars or Parliament Square. Stone Age stuff.


----------

