# London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes



## gaz (30 Nov 2010)

The results are out. I've had a quick read but I've seen nothing meaningful so far.

http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/pedal-power


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Dec 2010)

_60 per cent of respondents did not feel safer using the cycle superhighways and two-thirds did not feel they were respected by other road users. Greater consistency in the measures along the route would help this situation, such as a uniform width, improvements to junctions and 20 mph speed limits on busy sections. _

I’m not arguing with the results of the Committees research, but it is surprising. CS7 is a bit of a mixed bag, but it has made motorists just that little bit more wary – especially about entering from the left


_In the first few months, TfL has reported a 25 per cent increase in cycle trips on the two pilot cycle superhighways (Merton to the City – CS7 and Barking to Tower Gateway – CS3). These are being used by 5,000 cyclists per day.23 TfL believes that it is reasonable to conclude, at this stage, that this increase is not due to cyclists diverting from parallel routes._

I just don’t believe this. I’d like to believe it, but I wonder what periods they’re referring to. CS7 opened in July.

_The 12 cycle superhighways are expected to cost £166 million._

That’s a lorra, lorra cash. 

_The London Boroughs of Southwark and Merton have commented on a lack of engagement from TfL. They wanted more time provided to develop better routes. London Councils has highlighted TfL’s commitment in the City Charter to work with London Boroughs to learn lessons from the pilot routes before implementing future cycle superhighways.

_Southwark have a point - the route to the west of Elephant and Castle is poor, and the junction with London Road is worse than poor

_TfL is seeking to deliver 66,000 new cycle parking spaces by 2012.105 This is welcome but it may not be enough._

Blimey!
_
TfL told the Committee that it was sometimes “between a rock and a hard place” in terms of the highway options for the pilot routes. If it proved that it had chosen any measures incorrectly or that the traffic was not doing what was anticipated, it could revisit these routes. David Brown of TfL said “if there is something that we have got to look at again we will look at it again. I do not have any problems about that”_

Bollocks. He was prevented from making sense of the Elephant and Castle by Johnson, and you don’t have to be Ms TraffiGeniusPerson to work out that the design CS7 Northbound at Stockwell is crap, and was always going to be crap, and that a two-way system would have been way, way better. As for the junction at the Oval - well that was always going to take more courage than TfL and Johnson were ever going to muster.

Now on to the bike hire.....

_The costs and funding arrangements for the cycle hire scheme remain opaque. TfL has not told the Committee how much Barclays has paid to date for its branding of the scheme. The argument that all details of the relationships between TfL and Serco and Barclays are confidential is not a compelling one. The details of these deals determine how much of the costs of the scheme have to be met from farepayers at a time of huge pressure on TfL’s finances. It is in the public interest for these details to be made available to the Committee. This would be in line with the Mayor’s commitment to transparency about public expenditure.

_It’s odd that the Barclays contribution is a secret. My guess is that it isn’t a great amount.

_The Mayor has already announced that the scheme will be expanded eastward by 2012 but the rationale for this expansion is not clear. The proposal provides for an additional 2,000 bikes and 4,200 docking points, of which 1,500 will be in the existing area. It is not apparent how lessons are being learned from the current scheme and applied, including in relation to the location of more docking points in the existing area._

_Many organisations have made suggestions for other improvements to the cycle hire scheme. A frequent suggestion is linking the scheme to Oystercard. This seems unlikely to happen. TfL has said that it would be expensive. It would also be out of step with its move to introduce contactless payment systems._

_The Committee would like to see a greater consistency in the features on future cycle superhighway routes so they are safer for cyclists. The Mayor and TfL could establish a minimum level of features which should be introduced. This could include: _

· _all the blue cycle lanes will be 2 metres wide and mandatory; _
· _all the advance stop lines will be 5 metres deep; _
· _all parts of the routes which are one-way will be made two-way for cyclists; _
· _all junctions on each route will be improved; _
· _20 mph speed limits will be introduced for all busy sections; and _
· _there will be an MPS Cycle Task Force enforcement campaign for each cycle superhighway when launched. 
_

_By contrast, the Committee has found far less enthusiasm from new cyclists for the cycle superhighways. Many are concerned about safety and a lack of respect from other road users when using the cycle superhighways.





_

The conclusion is that the Bike scheme is costing and is going to cost a lot more...........


----------



## mark barker (1 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> _60 per cent of respondents did not feel safer using the cycle superhighways and two-thirds did not feel they were respected by other road users. _



Total off topic, but that is real pet hate of mine, 60 per cent and two-thirds used in the same sentence.... Arghhh! Who wrote that report? (can't click on the link, not able to open page for some reason)


----------



## sheddy (1 Dec 2010)

Freewheeler had a nice write up today http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

User said:


> I think in reading the London Assembly Transport Committee's report, we must bear in mind who is on the committee and who the chair/deputy chair are.
> 
> Unfortunately, as with a lot of things within the London Assembly, the work of this committee tends to fall victim sometimes to party politics (from all parties, I hasten to add).


I rate Val Shawcross very highly, and she'll know portions of CS7 very well. And, to be fair, CS7 is a bit hit and hope, not to say hit and miss, and big questions were shirked at Stockwell, Oval and the Elephant.

I don't think it's a partisan report. There's criticism over the Barclays deal, but that's entirely warranted. The big point they make is that the potential for the Bike Hire scheme is vast - but that you have to work out how much it's going to cost.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

sheddy said:


> Freewheeler had a nice write up today http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/


it's not is it. The man is a ****ing meanspirited moron. 

(Who has stolen my words and used them out of context without having the decency to ask. ****.)


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2010)

Hmm. Quite a rant. And not a very helpful one either. While there may be legitimate concerns about both hire bikes and CSH, there are very positive aspects to them as well. It is still early days yet for the Boris bikes, so to be slagging them off on the basis of limited modal shift from car is silly. It also misses the point about the role of cycling in TfL's transport strategy, which is to help take the pressure off public transport by taking up shorter trips to as to free up capacity for longer trips, the latter being more likely to shift from car. Despite a lot of negative coverage before the scheme launched, with lots of people seeming to want it to fail, it has since generated a lot of positive coverage of cycling, in particular with pictures of normal looking people riding bikes in normal office clothing. The cost is minuscule compared with building new public transport infrastructure.

While there are a lot more legitimate worries about the CSH, to my mind they represent a great step in establishing the principle that cycle routes need to be fast and direct and therefore to follow the main road corridors. Sending cyclists on illegible fractal routes round the back-streets, onto pavements and on gravelly tow-paths hasn't worked, so at least the CSH are defining the corridors and will hopefully focus future efforts onto improving those routes.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

I think one small disappointment is that the report doesn't really say anything much about the effect on the street. I appreciate that the people who planned CS7 didn't really have much of an ambition beyond the blue paint, but in the Days of Ken TfL were eloquent about the positive effect of cycling on the streets.

So much priority is given to buses and bikes from Clapham North down to Merton that you could say that the main road to Dorking is really no more - no sensible person would drive a car from one end of the other during commuting hours. Vehicle speeds have dropped, and bicycle and bus speeds have increased. I think that pedestrian use and confidence has increased as well, although I've no data to support that. If that were the case then, just as bus lanes gave the most extraordinary lift to cycling, the greatest and most beneficial effect of CSHs might be to aid the recovery of high streets, (which makes the chickening out at Stockwell and Elephant even more sad)

I agree entirely with Jonesy on the establishing of direct routes, although CS7 is really just affirming the choice of the bomb-dodger generation of cyclists. CS12 and CS2 (due to open next year, and up and running for the Olympics) are much the same, but CS2 funks the Bow Flyover, and stops short of Stratford, which rather calls the point of the thing in to question. 

The big test will be the CS9. CS10, and CS11 from Hounslow, Park Royal, and Hendon, due open in 2015. These major arteries are not used by anything like as many cyclists as the CS7 roads, and you can only respect TfL's endeavour. 

Personally I'd love to see one run in from Harrow along the A404, which is a miserable road in so many ways. I reckon that, just as Clapham High Street has benefited from CS7, bits of Harlesden and Wembley would be lifted by the blue paint treatment.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> It is still early days yet for the Boris bikes, so to be slagging them off on the basis of limited modal shift from car is silly.



Silly? Why? I think it is quite important that we see a large shift away from the motor vehicle as a means of urban transport. It's all very well shuffling people from public transport to bikes, but - at least as far as buses are concerned - the volume of motor traffic has a significant impact on journey times. We need to see the use of the car seem unattractive, compared to other modes of urban conveyance - be it walking and cycling, or public transport. 

As it happens, the Boris Bike scheme has failed to get anywhere close to its modest target of shifting people from cars to bikes. Less than 1% of Boris Bike users have switched from cars for their journeys, compared to a target of 5%. Granted, the scheme also aims to take pressure off public transport - but this is, in isolation, a pretty miserable statistic. 




jonesy said:


> While there are a lot more legitimate worries about the CSH, to my mind they represent a great step in establishing the principle that cycle routes need to be fast and direct and therefore to follow the main road corridors. Sending cyclists on illegible fractal routes round the back-streets, onto pavements and on gravelly tow-paths hasn't worked, so at least the CSH are defining the corridors and will hopefully focus future efforts onto improving those routes.



This is the key point. Improving the routes. If people feel safer, we will see people _who have never used a bike before _(and this is what it is all about) switching from cars. 

The nature of the routes so far, and the general hostility of TfL to measures which might impede the flow of motor vehicles, does not fill me with confidence.

Still, we'll see.


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Silly? Why? *I think it is quite important that we see a large shift away from the motor vehicle as a means of urban transport*. It's all very well shuffling people from public transport to bikes, but - at least as far as buses are concerned - the volume of motor traffic has a significant impact on journey times. We need to see the use of the car seem unattractive, compared to other modes of urban conveyance - be it walking and cycling, or public transport.
> 
> As it happens, the Boris Bike scheme has failed to get anywhere close to its modest target of shifting people from cars to bikes. Less than 1% of Boris Bike users have switched from cars for their journeys, compared to a target of 5%. Granted, the scheme also aims to take pressure off public transport - but this is, in isolation, a pretty miserable statistic.
> 
> ...



I agree, but you missed the point. By helping free up capacity on public transport further modal shift from cars is encouraged. And it is early days! It hasn't even been in operation for a full year yet, and still on a restricted set of users. You'd never expect to have any meaningful evaluation of the modal impacts of a transport scheme so soon after its introduction, even if it were fully implemented.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> I agree, but you missed the point. By helping free up capacity on public transport further modal shift from cars is encouraged. And it is early days! It hasn't even been in operation for a full year yet, and still on a restricted set of users. You'd never expect to have any meaningful evaluation of the modal impacts of a transport scheme so soon after its introduction, even if it were fully implemented.



Fair enough. 

Do you know when the next assessment is going to take place? I am sceptical that there will be a significant change, but like I said - we'll see.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Silly? Why? I think it is quite important that we see a large shift away from the motor vehicle as a means of urban transport. It's all very well shuffling people from public transport to bikes, but - at least as far as buses are concerned - the volume of motor traffic has a significant impact on journey times. We need to see the use of the car seem unattractive, compared to other modes of urban conveyance - be it walking and cycling, or public transport.
> 
> As it happens, the Boris Bike scheme has failed to get anywhere close to its modest target of shifting people from cars to bikes. Less than 1% of Boris Bike users have switched from cars for their journeys, compared to a target of 5%. *Granted, the scheme also aims to take pressure off public transport - but this is, in isolation, a pretty miserable statistic.
> *
> ...


I imagine that not you're familiar with the zone in which the hire bikes operate. The private car is very much a minority thing - there are already streets, and some fairly major roads in which bikes outnumber cars. The bulk of motorised traffic is commercial. In isolation it's not so much a miserable statistic as an irrelevant one. And the report makes clear that people who have never cycled in London before are using the hire bikes.

To go back to WalthamForestCrapBlogger - he would rather have seen the same amount of money spent on cycle lanes. This is so silly it beggars belief. You will not get cycle lanes in to the tight street pattern of zone 1, not for any money and certainly not for anything like the money that was spent on the hire bike scheme. The Cable Street route was less than a mile long and cost over a million quid - and that's on an out-of-the way street two miles from the City. Even if it were possible, or even desirable to put a bike lane down (say) the Strand and Fleet Street (and it's neither) it would cost getting on for fifteen million and afford pedestrians and cyclists, commercial vehicle users, taxis and buses the most almighty disruption for months on end. And all to make the lives of pedestrians that much more complicated.

What shines out of the report is that the committee believes that if the costs can be contained the potential for the scheme is vast. Bear in mind that TfL have not sited big racks at railway stations and the payment system has yet to be ironed out. 

I've got to defend TfL on the routes, at least on CS7. They had to do the first two in a rush. Elephant and Castle was, in effect, denied them. Oval is pretty intractable. I think they took the cheap easy and stupid option at Stockwell, but if David Brown is prepared to reconsider junctions perhaps that one will be improved. TfL's record over the past ten years demonstrates that they are perfectly willing to disadvantage the car - the majority of major routes going from Zones 3 and 2 to Zone 1 demonstrates this. TfL is a highly political organisation that bans internal discussion of certain subjects, and David Brown is not a man blessed with imagination, but you cannot deny that there are many intelligent people working in TfL with a real desire to make London a walking and cycling city.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Dec 2010)

I haven't got much time to respond to your comment - back to work soon - but I am interested by this comment - 


dellzeqq said:


> Even if it were possible, or even desirable to put a bike lane down (say) the Strand and Fleet Street (and it's neither) it would cost getting on for fifteen million and afford pedestrians and cyclists, commercial vehicle users, taxis and buses the most almighty disruption for months on end. And all to make the lives of pedestrians that much more complicated.



Are you saying it is not possible to put a bike lane down on Fleet Street?


----------



## CopperBrompton (2 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> The cost is minuscule compared with building new public transport infrastructure.


Indeed: somebody on the Boris Bikes forum calculated that the cost of Crossrail would pay for 1 million Boris Bikes.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Dec 2010)

Trikeman said:


> Indeed: somebody on the Boris Bikes forum calculated that the cost of Crossrail would pay for 1 million Boris Bikes.



It would also pay for a lot of segregated bike lanes.

The relevant comparison for the cost of segregation is not with the Boris Bikes, but with the amount of money spent on other transport infrastructure projects. 

The cost of removing the M4 bus lane is £400,000, for instance.

Pointlessly adding another lane to the M25 is costing £3.4 billion. 

Money is pissed away all the time on road projects, and yet when miniscule amounts (by comparison) are spent on cycling infrastructure, we are expected to weep with gratitude.


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> Do you know when the next assessment is going to take place? I am sceptical that there will be a significant change, but like I said - we'll see.



I don't know what evaluations are planned, but would expect it to take at least a year of full operation for its users to extend significantly beyond the early adopters. The first main group of users will be existing cyclists, but this might save them from having to take a bike on a train, so that leads to wider transport benefits straight away. Bearing in mind Dellzeqq's point about there being limited car trips that start and end within the area currently covered by the hire scheme, the main opportunity for modal shift from car will be for bike + rail for longer distance trips from outside the central area. But that requires drivers to make two changes of behaviour: to start using public transport and to start cycling. That won't happen overnight, it will require people to become familiar with the hire bikes, for word to spread around workplaces, social circles etc, for their use to become accepted as normal. Of course, the scheme could expand to cover a much wider catchment area, so providing a more direct alternative to driving from or between the between the suburbs. And the hire scheme will also interact with other cycling initiatives, so people who start off trying rail + hire bike might get sufficiently into cycling that they'll start riding the whole distance on their own bikes, especially if CSH are successful in making such routes more cycle-able, but this would lead to some users moving away from the hire bikes. So there's a lot of complex travel behaviour to take account of here, and we can't judge the success until a lot more time has passed and we've got a lot more information.


----------



## CopperBrompton (2 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Less than 1% of Boris Bike users have switched from cars for their journeys


You missed the rest of Joneys's post: Boris bikes will always be used for short journeys, thus the shift will be from tube to bike. This frees up tube capacity for longer journeys. Thus the modal shifts will be from tube to bike, and from car to bike.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2010)

WGF - I'm saying that, setting aside the astronomical cost, it's not possible (buses have to pass other buses as the first bus waits at a bus stop) and it's not desirable - it introduces an additional obstacle for pedestrians crossing the road. In fact I would muster as big and as comprehensive an objection to the planning application that I could manage. If you're going to mess with Fleet Street then footpath widening at the widest lenghs of the road would be best, and bus lanes would be excellent. 

As for weeping with gratitude - when I contemplate that rubbish cycle lane at Tavistock Square I weep with frustration that so much money could be put to so poor a use.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> As opposed to the one along Goodmans Yard (I think) which although having no apparent use must at least have been provided for free, possibly by the same people who normally do crop circles when on an awayday to the big city in search of pavements made of gold.


Is that the segregated cycle lane to nowhere off Mansell Street. A complete mystery. I sort or expect to see WalthamStreetBlogBoy riding up and down it every time I pass.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> As for weeping with gratitude - when I contemplate that rubbish cycle lane at Tavistock Square I weep with frustration that so much money could be put to so poor a use.




Unless you think I am suggesting that money should be spent putting in rubbish infrastructure, I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Is that the segregated cycle lane to nowhere off Mansell Street. A complete mystery. I sort or expect to see WalthamStreetBlogBoy riding up and down it every time I pass.



Ditto to the point above.

I would also suggest that you are being slightly unfair to Freewheeler - he is highly critical of poorly designed infrastructure. Look at his blog if you doubt me.


----------



## CopperBrompton (3 Dec 2010)

I haven't seen a cost per bike (other than £300 you're charged if you lose one), but the total costs are £92 million for 6000 bikes. That includes the bikes, docking stations, IT, marketing costs and operational costs.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Ditto to the point above.
> 
> I would also suggest that you are being slightly unfair to Freewheeler - he is highly critical of poorly designed infrastructure. Look at his blog if you doubt me.


I've looked at his blog. His basic thesis is bonkers, he spends most of his time rubbishing the efforts of others and, for good measure, he quotes me selectively and unfairly.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

the Committee's table shows a net cost of £60M for 6000 bikes at the end of 2011. That doesn't take in to account the sponsorship from Barclays, which, as I've said, Johnson isn't telling anybody about, not even his own GLA members!

From then on the intention is to break even. Well, that might happen, or it might not happen, but I think it behoves us to wait and see.

If it does break even and the management of the scheme ensures that further extensions eventually break even then London will have got itself one heck of a bargain. 

I've been cycling around London for forty years. Even fifteen years ago I'd never expect to see another cyclist going round the Elephant and Castle. The Congestion Zone, bus lanes and the hire bike scheme could, with luck and courage, help to transform this city in to a far, far nicer place to live. Even now, as I over take three Barclays Bikes travelling abreast on the Farringdon Road I can scarcely believe how far we've come in the last ten or so years. 

I sometimes ride home from Islington against the morning flow,and somewhere along Kennington Lane, or on the Clapham Road, I just stop and watch the bikes go by, grinning like a loon....


----------



## gaz (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I sometimes ride home from Islington against the morning flow,and somewhere along Kennington Lane, or on the Clapham Road, I just stop and watch the bikes go by, grinning like a loon....



That explains the crazy looking guy on a bike i sometimes see not going anywhere.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> His basic thesis is bonkers



Hmm. He thinks we should broadly follow the Dutch approach to increasing modal share. This approach is proven, with 30-40% of journeys in Dutch cities being made by bike.

Disagree if you like, but that is hardly "bonkers." 

Also - not disputing your claims - where has he selectively quoted you without attribution?


----------



## CopperBrompton (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> the Committee's table shows a net cost of £60M for 6000 bikes at the end of 2011. That doesn't take in to account the sponsorship from Barclays, which, as I've said, Johnson isn't telling anybody about, not even his own GLA members!


Apart from the press release on the TFL website, of course …


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Hmm. He thinks we should broadly follow the Dutch approach to increasing modal share. This approach is proven, with 30-40% of journeys in Dutch cities being made by bike.
> 
> Disagree if you like, but that is hardly "bonkers."
> 
> Also - not disputing your claims - where has he selectively quoted you without attribution?


he thinks we can make divided or segregated cycleways throughout London. I call that double bonkers. Even if it were desirable (and it isn't) it would be physically impossible, and cost zillions. Amsterdam has very few cycleways and lots of bikes. It's about sharing the road, being considerate, and having great public transport.


----------



## CopperBrompton (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> As for the quotation thing - it's on the what's wrong with the CTC page. There are three quotes, and they're partial and taken out of context.


Really? The quotes are partial? Blimey, anyone would think that's how quotes work ...

As for being out of context, I recall one of those threads and they look perfectly in context to me.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> he thinks we can make divided or segregated cycleways throughout London. I call that double bonkers. Even if it were desirable (and it isn't) it would be physically impossible, and cost zillions. Amsterdam has very few cycleways and lots of bikes. It's about sharing the road, being considerate, and having great public transport.



It is not "physically impossible". It may be politically undesirable, and expensive. But that is not the same as physically impossible. 

Amsterdam has plenty of segregated cycleways in areas where traffic volume and speed is high. Look at streetview. Of course, there is no segregation on narrow quiet streets - but that is because traffic volume is low, and (thanks to traffic design) it's actually quite unpleasant to use the car. The Dutch - sensibly - do not segregated everywhere. But the key point - the one that needs to be continually restated - is that the Dutch design streets so that *people feel safe on bikes, and that their journeys are more direct and convenient than by car.*

That is why large numbers of people use them to get about in Holland, and why modal share in London is flatlining.

Simply telling drivers to "share the road" gets us nowhere. You or I might feel approaching comfortable going around Elephant & Castle, or Hyde Park Corner. At least 90% of other adults will not. 

This is the fundamental problem. 


(Not sure where your response to the quotation issue has gone btw - Trikeman has quoted something, but it has disappeared)


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> It is not "physically impossible". It may be politically undesirable, and expensive. But that is not the same as physically impossible.
> 
> Amsterdam has plenty of segregated cycleways in areas where traffic volume and speed is high. Look at streetview. Of course, there is no segregation on narrow quiet streets - but that is because traffic volume is low, and (thanks to traffic design) it's actually quite unpleasant to use the car. The Dutch - sensibly - do not segregated everywhere. But the key point - the one that needs to be continually restated - is that the Dutch design streets so that *people feel safe on bikes, and that their journeys are more direct and convenient than by car.*
> 
> ...


great - you overlay cycleways on a 1:1250 of the City. I'll take a look at the result. I'm not holding my breath.

As for the safety thing - life's moved on. The bomb-dodger generation of cyclists took to London't roads because they were fearful of taking the tube. They did the sensible thing and piled straight down the main roads, ignoring LCN+ which became more or less obsolete overnight, and totally disregarding the DfT advice that roads of 10,000 vpm were not suitable for cycling. They swept down the A24, the A3, the A12 and even the most ardent admirer of CS7 would concede that actually the job was done for TfL by cyclists of all types simply taking to the road. Where once I used to go round the Elephant on my own, now women on shoppers with high heels do the thing without a second thought.

Now, take a look at the people riding bikes in London (not least the hire bikes). They're a broad cross section - by class, gender, age (possibly not by ethnicity). These people have decided to ride a bike. The people who don't have decided not to ride a bike. They may do so in the future as more of the main roads reach a critical mass, but, in the mean time the hire bikes have broadened the image if not the demographic of cycling and their success can only mean that more people associate cycling with the everyday. It's all good and getting better.

Now show me the 1:1250 plan.........because otherwise I really am not interested. It's not wanted, it's not affordable, it's not sensible and the best bit is it's not going to happen. 

As for WalthamForestCrapBlogger - I can't be arsed.


----------



## gaz (3 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> As for the safety thing - life's moved on. The bomb-dodger generation of cyclists took to London't roads because they were fearful of taking the tube. They did the sensible thing and piled straight down the main roads, ignoring LCN+ which became more or less obsolete overnight, and totally disregarding the DfT advice that roads of 10,000 vpm were not suitable for cycling. They swept down the A24, the A3, the A12 and even the most ardent admirer of CS7 would concede that actually the job was done for TfL by cyclists of all types simply taking to the road. Where once I used to go round the Elephant on my own, now women on shoppers with high heels do the thing without a second thought.



And thats a reason why CS7 was built first, it was already a popular route that was continually growing and it's easy to follow with it running along side tube lines and bus routes.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

gaz said:


> And thats a reason why CS7 was built first, it was already a popular route that was continually growing and it's easy to follow with it running along side tube lines and bus routes.


absolutely. It was both an easy hit and an ideal testing ground.

I've read that CS7 has seen a 25% rise in bike traffic. What do you think, Gaz?


----------



## gaz (4 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> absolutely. It was both an easy hit and an ideal testing ground.
> 
> I've read that CS7 has seen a 25% rise in bike traffic. What do you think, Gaz?



On the whole, maybe. But not many people cycled pass tooting and not many took the long/slow route around elephant and castle.
So if you measure it on the whole, you might get an increase, but looking at the busy sections between clapham and say oval, i don't think the numbers would have increased by much. And as they opened it at the end of july, which could be argued is the busiest time for commuting, how can we be sure that the 'increase' isn't just the summer trend.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Dec 2010)

I make you right. The general trend is still up, though - and there are other routes, with greater potential gains to come.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (4 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> great - you overlay cycleways on a 1:1250 of the City. I'll take a look at the result. I'm not holding my breath.



I imagine - based on the direct empirical evidence of continental towns and cities where this approach has been tried and tested since the 1970s - that cycling's modal share will rise to around 30 or 40%. 

Still, keep ignoring that. 



dellzeqq said:


> As for WalthamForestCrapBlogger - I can't be arsed.



I'm not really surprised, given that you seem to rely heavily on anecdotes about how cycling is going "up and up", rather than actual statistics. 


"Sharing the road" and "safety in numbers" has been the mantra for well over a decade, and what has it achieved? A modal share in the outer London boroughs of barely 1%. In some boroughs, the modal share is zero percent. Zero. 

The evidence is in, and has been in for years. The vast majority of people - and I mean the majority, not the odd person you happen to see wearing heels, or the occasional granny - do not want to share the road with heavy flows of fast moving traffic, and no amount of preaching to them is going to change that.


----------



## srw (4 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> "Sharing the road" and "safety in numbers" has been the mantra for well over a decade, and what has it achieved? A modal share in the outer London boroughs of barely 1%. In some boroughs, the modal share is zero percent. Zero.



And in central London, and on the main arterial routes, it's seen a bumper crop.

I've been cycle commuting now from Marylebone to the City for 14 years. At the beginning I was one of only a handful, and no-one used the Marylebone Road. Now cyclists are ten a penny - there are a dozen or more on my train alone - and you can't cross the Marylebone road without getting mown down by a racing snake. Much of that was achieved purely by "safety in numbers" and "share the road". There's one (well-used) stretch of segregated route through Bloomsbury, the congestion charge was a great kick, and so were the tube bombs.

There's your answer for outer London - congestion charge, a few bombs, and sit back and watch.

[edit]
You talk about people not wanting to share the road with heavy flows of fast-moving traffic. Can you point to one bit of London where there is a heavy flow of fast-moving traffic and _no_ realistic alternative?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (4 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> And in central London, and on the main arterial routes, it's seen a bumper crop.
> 
> I've been cycle commuting now from Marylebone to the City for 14 years. At the beginning I was one of only a handful, and no-one used the Marylebone Road. Now cyclists are ten a penny - there are a dozen or more on my train alone - and you can't cross the Marylebone road without getting mown down by a racing snake. Much of that was achieved purely by "safety in numbers" and "share the road".



Again, these are just anecdotes. Where are the figures? I'm not disputing what you say, but we cannot extrapolate from your commute to the pattern of cycling in central London as a whole. 

The most recent figures show that the modal share of cycling in inner London is 3%. This is not anything to get excited about, because it has been _at or about this level for a decade_. Cycling is not on the up and up. It has plateaued. 



srw said:


> You talk about people not wanting to share the road with heavy flows of fast-moving traffic. Can you point to one bit of London where there is a heavy flow of fast-moving traffic and _no_ realistic alternative?



Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you are asking me - what do you mean by "realistic alternative"? The roads I am thinking of are arterial roads like Euston Road.


----------



## gaz (4 Dec 2010)

Do you have a source for that 3%?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (4 Dec 2010)

The 2010 TfL Travel In London Report -

http://www.tfl.gov.u...on_Report_2.pdf

The relevant data on modal share is on pages 70-72.


----------



## srw (4 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you are asking me - what do you mean by "realistic alternative"? The roads I am thinking of are arterial roads like Euston Road.



You use the fact (which I'm not going to argue with) that a lot of people don't want to use fast, busy roads to cycle on as an argument that we should build a complete network of cycle tracks. But every fast, busy road in London has a realistic alternative that is not fast and busy.

To use your example, depending on where you're going you can avoid the Euston Road either by going up through Regent's Park or by going south through Bloomsbury.


----------



## srw (4 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> The 2010 TfL Travel In London Report -
> 
> http://www.tfl.gov.u...on_Report_2.pdf
> 
> The relevant data on modal share is on pages 70-72.





> Cycling has progressively increased its mode share over the
> period.



Page numbered 43 (page 51 of the PDF file). That's referring to the period from 1993 to 2008. And it directly contradicts your assertion that cycling has plateaued

On pages 70 - 72 you're reading too much into very small percentages. You might just as well say that in some outer London boroughs no-one travels by taxi. Which is patently absurd.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (4 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> Page numbered 43 (page 51 of the PDF file). That's referring to the period from 1993 to 2008. And it directly contradicts your assertion that cycling has plateaued



Yes, and when you look at Table 2.4 on p.43, we see that this claim is based on a rise from 1% in 1993, to 2% in 2008. This is far from stratospheric. In fact - given that we are dealing with "small percentages"*, it is negligible. 

Meanwhile here are some modal share figures from across western Europe -







At the rate of increase seen in London, we'll be up - perhaps - to 3% by 2023. I don't really see that as grounds for getting particularly excited in the light of the above table. 




srw said:


> On pages 70 - 72 you're reading too much into very small percentages.



*I think this is called "having your cake and eating it"?


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> I imagine .
> ...........


show me the drawing. The rest is bollocks. Not that you will, because you can't. A lot of people talk this stuff, but walking it is a different thing entirely.

When this nonsense comes up I'm always reminded of my time on the TfL Greenways Committee. Somebody (probably me, in the sense that I contribute to the GLA precept) paid £1.3 million to 'improve' the Wandle Way. Nice for a bit of an afternoon out with the kids, but rubbish as a transport route. Anyway the £1.3 million made it worse, as is the way with spending on cycle facilities. And the Greenways Committee decided to study traffic flows. I suggested that they also survey Garratt Lane which runs parallel and has fifty times the number of cyclists because a) it is a road and b) it is an A-road, so it gets there in a hurry. Cue denial. Cue refusal. Cue my thinking that my time was being wasted.

It's not possible, it's not desirable and it's not going to happen. And do you know why it's not desirable? Because actually cycling in London is going to civilise the very roads that the LCC of yore and WalthamForestCrapBlogBoy so disdain - our major radial routes which are also our high streets. Tooting High Street and Clapham High Street have been civilised by cyclists, pedestrians and bus passengers to such a degree that they've ceased to function as a trunk road. Green Lanes and Mile End Road will follow. While the last devotee of segregation oscillates down some path in a park we'll be owning those high streets. Your pathetic lack of ambition, your purblind suburban fixation with wiggly green lines going nowhere is a thing of the past. It might be nice in some out-of-the-way small town like Groningen that nobody in their right mind would go to without taking the precaution of being lobotomised first, but this is London, pal, and there's a whole city to play for.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (4 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> While the last devotee of segregation oscillates down some path in a park we'll be owning those high streets.



I hate to break this to you, but no - no, you will not be owning those streets. This is because the numbers of people willing to cycle in heavy and/or fast traffic is far too low. 86% of people are afraid to cycle in London because of traffic. Few parents are ever going to let their children cycle to schools along roads they have to share with HGVs, van drivers and taxis. Cycling levels will continue to stagnate while the road environment stays as it is. 

You might "own" the street for the brief periods when there are a large number of 20-45 year old male commuters heading in to and out of work, but the rest of the time, fat chance. 

I suspect - deep down - you are fully aware of this, and your unnecessary diatribes about Holland are a rather desperate attempt to deal with the cognitive dissonance.


----------



## gaz (4 Dec 2010)

So whilst we aren't owning these high streets, what will 'you' be doing to get those 86% of people on a bike?


----------



## srw (4 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Yes, and when you look at Table 2.4 on p.43, we see that this claim is based on a rise from 1% in 1993, to 2% in 2008. This is far from stratospheric. In fact - given that we are dealing with "small percentages"*, it is negligible.


You may call something from a doubling to a quintupling (depending on how percentages have been rounded) negligible. I do not.



> Meanwhile here are some modal share figures from across western Europe -


A fascinating link. And one which is rather more complex than the "bike lane = good" message you seem to be promoting.

Section 1.2 distinguishes between those cities which have in the past had an explicitly pro-car development policy and have seen bike use drop and those that have not. So pro-car policy is bad for bikes. Score one for central London - it's got an anti-car policy now.

Figure 8 explicitly, and clearly, supports the "safety in numbers" argument.

PDF page 15 - Groningen - an anti-car policy has resulted in lots of bikes.
PDF page 16 - Amsterdam - creation and maintenance of a bike network is only part of a raft of measure, headed by increasing bike parking.

Chapter 4 - the measures that the Netherlands thinks are important in encouraging cycling:
1. Town planning
2. Traffic infrastucture (not just bike infrastructure) which improves traffic safety (not bike safety), is direct, comfortable, attractive and cohesive for cycling - and which discourages private car use
3. Bike parking
4. Tackling theft
5. Education

The section on infrastructure is particularly interesting - it highlights that cyclists will tend to prefer quiet mixed roads to dedicated lanes on or near arterial roads, for instance. And that completely separated cycle networks become unpopular because they're perceived not to be safe.


----------



## srw (4 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Cycling levels will continue to stagnate while the road environment stays as it is.



What was that about cognitive dissonance? A somewhat selective reading of the TFL literature, I think.


> I suspect - deep down - you are fully aware of this, and your unnecessary diatribes about Holland are a rather desperate attempt to deal with the cognitive dissonance.



And the Dutch literature, to boot.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (4 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> You may call something from a doubling to a quintupling (depending on how percentages have been rounded) negligible. I do not.



Granted. But you do realise that the percentages could also have been rounded from 1.4 to 1, and from 1.6 to 2? That would not look quite so impressive. 

And - if we do grant that cycling's modal share has doubled - we were working from a very small base in 1993. That was my point about 'small percentages". I certainly don't think it would be wise to suggest that it will go on doubling. 

(Don't get me wrong - I want an increase to happen. I may sound like a grumpy miserable pessimist. It's just that I have heard so much talk about targets that continually fail to be met it is no surprise that I have become a little cynical.)



srw said:


> A fascinating link. And one which is rather more complex than the "bike lane = good" message you seem to be promoting.
> 
> Section 1.2 distinguishes between those cities which have in the past had an explicitly pro-car development policy and have seen bike use drop and those that have not. So pro-car policy is bad for bikes. Score one for central London - it's got an anti-car policy now.



It has one anti-car policy. One. The congestion charge, the logic of which is steadily being eroded by exemptions for taxis, blue badge holders, private hire vehicles, electrics/hybrids, and - from 2011 - vehicles with emissions less than 100g/km. 

What other 'anti-car' policies are there? From where I'm sitting, London roads are entirely geared for the motorist. Cycling - as always - is fitted in around the margins. 



srw said:


> Figure 8 explicitly, and clearly, supports the "safety in numbers" argument.



Does it? If there is a correlation, there is not necessarily causation - or at least, not running the way you want it to. It is not true that safety in Holland and Denmark comes purely from "numbers". The "numbers" have come from safety. Let's not put the cart before the horse.



srw said:


> PDF page 15 - Groningen - an anti-car policy has resulted in lots of bikes.
> PDF page 16 - Amsterdam - creation and maintenance of a bike network is only part of a raft of measure, headed by increasing bike parking.



Yep. All good. Not sure what your beef with me is here. I have never suggested that good infrastructure is the only thing that needs to be done. Secure and plentiful bike parking is something we need, as well as making car journeys more impractical. 



srw said:


> Chapter 4 - the measures that the Netherlands thinks are important in encouraging cycling:
> 1. Town planning
> 2. Traffic infrastucture (not just bike infrastructure) which improves traffic safety (not bike safety), is direct, comfortable, attractive and cohesive for cycling - and which discourages private car use
> 3. Bike parking
> ...



Ditto. This is precisely what I think we should be aiming for. Because it has a proven track record of success.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (4 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> The section on infrastructure is particularly interesting - it highlights that cyclists will tend to prefer quiet mixed roads to dedicated lanes on or near arterial roads, for instance.


 
The quote that most matches this statement is - "More interestingly: cyclists often prefer a quiet residential street to an autonomous bicycle path alongside busy traffic arteries." Is that right?



That's fine. The Dutch don't segregate on quiet residential streets. There is no need, because traffic speeds and volumes are low. Dutch cyclists probably feel equally safe on both these streets as they do on autonomous paths beside busy roads. That's the essential point. If it's busy - segregate. I *certainly* don't think you will find Dutch cyclists suggesting they prefer cycling on a busy arterial road to cycling alongside it on a separated path.




srw said:


> And that completely separated cycle networks become unpopular because they're perceived not to be safe.



Where does it say this?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (4 Dec 2010)

gaz said:


> So whilst we aren't owning these high streets, what will 'you' be doing to get those 86% of people on a bike?




Good question Gaz. I don't think there is an easy answer. I have to go to bed - I'll mull it over tonight and get back to you.

Before I head off. I think a fundamental problem here is that when you say the word "separation" to a UK cyclist, the image that immediately springs to mind is 







And not






A) I don't want crap separation.

B) I don't think separation is the only solution, or the solution everywhere.

C) More people cycling is a good thing.

Hope this is clear.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Dec 2010)

show me the drawing. Putting a picture of some asphalt path from some other town in to the thread is just foolish. Get the 1:1250 map and start overlaying these separated lanes. 

(here's a hint - watch out for pedestrians, junctions, bus stops, crossovers, zebra crossings, deliveries to commercial premises and so on........)


----------



## srw (5 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Granted. But you do realise that the percentages could also have been rounded from 1.4 to 1, and from 1.6 to 2? That would not look quite so impressive.



Here's the LCC in 2008:



> Cycling in London has soared in the past five years by more than 80%. Overall modal share across Greater London remains low at less than 2% of all journeys (including car, tube, rail, taxi, bus and walking) but it is much higher in some parts of London. In the morning peak in Central London the ratio of bikes to private cars is now 1 to 3. In Hackney cycling’s modal share is estimated at more than 10% of journeys. Cycling‘s highest modal share in the UK is in Cambridge with 28% followed by York 19% and Oxford 17%.



http://www.lcc.org.u...asp?PageID=1142

[edit]

Figure 13.3 (PDF page 335/379) of the TFL doc is instructive, too. It shows that between 2000 ad 2003 cyclist numbers were, on average, static, with gradually increasing summer peaks. They then took off in 2003, with continuous increases since. There is no obvious "bomb-dodger" effect in 2005. The summer 2010 peak was more than _two and a half _times the summer 2000 peak.

It is instructive to note that these counts are taken on the road network that TFL is responsible for - that is, the main arterial roads in central and inner London. So even though people say that they are put off by traffic, that is increasingly not the case in practice.

Dellzeqq's challenge is an interesting one. Personally I'd love a network of well-maintained paths with very limited traffic. But it ain't going to happen in London - except in central London, where the congestion charge has effectively created it.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Dec 2010)

the 1 to 3 bike/car figure disguises wide variations. Southwest London radial routes managed by TfL are way up on the rest of London, although there are isolated routes that have lately become very popular - the A206 corridor up from Greenwhich which benefits from a 24 hour bus lane springs to mind, and the A12, again bus-laned.

I suspect that there are specific reasons. One factor we don't give sufficient credit to is the role played by antipodean cyclists who arrived in London, moved to the southwest, and just got on with it. The 7/7 bombings had the effect of widening the demographic, particularly to young women and southwest London is the chosen location for middle class young men and (particularly) women.

I've said that the hire bike scheme has widened the demographic again.

When all is said and done you just have to stand by the side of the road to realise that cycling in London is booming. The overwhelming reason is bus lanes, which afford cyclists a competitive advantage and clearer sight lines in addition to their main purpose, which is to allow buses to move freely. That's a sort of win-win thing, with civic pride, transport efficiency and greater personal mobility running in to one another. 

TfL's task is to somehow recreate the success of the A24/A3 segment around the compass. And that they are absolutely dedicated to doing. 

(still waiting for that drawing........)


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (5 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> Here's the LCC in 2008:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What I find interesting is that Hackney's modal share - so proudly trumpeted here by the LCC - is, in the latest TfL document, back down to 4%. This runs rather counter to the breezy optimism displayed in that article. Explanation?



srw said:


> Figure 13.3 (PDF page 335/379) of the TFL doc is instructive, too. It shows that between 2000 ad 2003 cyclist numbers were, on average, static, with gradually increasing summer peaks. They then took off in 2003, with continuous increases since. There is no obvious "bomb-dodger" effect in 2005. The summer 2010 peak was more than _two and a half _times the summer 2000 peak.
> 
> It is instructive to note that these counts are taken on the road network that TFL is responsible for - that is, the main arterial roads in central and inner London. So even though people say that they are put off by traffic, that is increasingly not the case in practice.



I don't doubt that we are seeing an increase in arterial cycling in at commuting periods. I would suggest that this largely due to a number of commuters pragmatically switching modes, after getting fed up with congestion in outer London, which has increased over the same period. 

But these are very small gains, set alongside the picture of cycling across London as a whole, and it's hard to see how they can be sustained. Increasing numbers of people on bikes means congestion eases - the private car becomes more attractive again. And the appeal of cycling alongside heavy traffic is limited to particular groups - males aged mainly between 25 and 50. Further gains are going to be much harder to achieve. For instance - the results of the survey conducted by TfL show that only 1% of the users of the Cycle Superhighways had started to use their bikes because of it (with the caveat, of course, that the survey respondents were a self-selecting group). 

Take a look at these pictures. 












These are the demographic groups that are barely represented in cycling in London. They will not figure in any future increase in cycling at all, unless they feel safe.

Why don't we start thinking about them, and what they want?



srw said:


> Personally I'd love a network of well-maintained paths with very limited traffic. But it ain't going to happen in London - except in central London, where the congestion charge has effectively created it.



You think central London has "very limited traffic"?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (5 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> (still waiting for that drawing........)




You've been waiting since you last asked me because I have not been online today.





Anyway, you post the map, I'll scribble on it. I don't have many 1:1250 maps of London to hand.


----------



## MacB (5 Dec 2010)

I would question the fear of riding in traffic stats, I'm aware that it's often put up as an example but was under the impression that it was a bit of a red herring stock excuse. In the same way people would like reducing congestion measures etc for others but would like to be one of the select few not impacted by these measures. A lot of the people claiming fear of traffic as a reason still wouldn't cycle if this was addressed. Getting people on bikes is one thing, keeping them on them and enabling replacement of car useage by bike is another entirely.

I note on one of SRWs posts that fear of theft is pretty high up the list of things inhibiting cycling use. Before taking up cycling I wouldn't have given it much thought, now it's my main consideration. Traffic, getting lost, weather, distance, they all pale into insignificance next to this fear. I can see how this has been addressed, in some respects, by the Boris Bikes, but there's a long way to go. For me this is a key difference between leisure and utility cycling and decisions around transport choice. Car drivers are able to assume their car will remain safe and secure in their absence, along with anything stored within, or attached to it. Leisure cyclists are secure in the knowledge that they won't be leaving their bikes unattended or, if they do, it will only be at a pre-determined point. It's utility cyclists that suffer, whether it's commuting, shopping or just generally going about their daily business. The evidence of this is scattered around every station and highstreet, bikes that only look fit for the tip. The net abounds with security information around bikes and making it harder for thieves.

I reckon secure cycle parking facilities would be a huge boost to cycle useage as long as the cost isn't foisted directly onto the cyclists.


----------



## srw (5 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> You've been waiting since you last asked me because I have not been online today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's something to get you started:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=goo...code_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ8gEwAA


----------



## srw (5 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> What I find interesting is that Hackney's modal share - so proudly trumpeted here by the LCC - is, in the latest TfL document, back down to 4%. This runs rather counter to the breezy optimism displayed in that article. Explanation?


It's very difficult to measure, and very few people bother.



> I don't doubt that we are seeing an increase in arterial cycling in at commuting periods. I would suggest that this largely due to a number of commuters pragmatically switching modes, after getting fed up with congestion in outer London, which has increased over the same period.
> 
> But these are very small gains,



Very small gains? You call a factor of 2.5 in 5 years very small?



> the results of the survey conducted by TfL show that only 1% of the users of the Cycle Superhighways had started to use their bikes because of it



Hold on. A moment ago you were hyming the praises of separated and signposted cycle routes, because they'd encourage lots of cycling. What's changed?


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> You've been waiting since you last asked me because I have not been online today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't want you to scribble. I want you to draw it. A 3M wide cycle path at 1:1250 is 2.4mm wide. You go to the library, you get the maps, you draw the parallel lines 2.4mm apart. It's not difficult to draw the lines, but it is impossible to draw the lines without coming up with a scheme that causes a whole lot of inconvenience and stupidity (see list above and add wheelchair accessible kerbs with the proper gradients). 

This is the thing. You people post pictures of streets that look like something you might see in Milton Keynes (where nobody uses the redways) but you have no conception, no understanding, no desire to understand what makes a street in London. None whatsoever. Yours is the kind of abstract adolescent theorising that is the blight of the internet. You talk, but you can't perform. Show me the drawing.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> Very small gains? You call a factor of 2.5 in 5 years very small?


He or she does. Because it's not an instant 100% conversion that would result from an overnight reworking of London.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (5 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> It's very difficult to measure, and very few people bother.




You what? These are TfL statistics, from the same report you are drawing your figures from. When figures for cycling go down, it's because they are hard to measure, but when they go up, they are irrefutable? Is that how this works?


srw said:


> Very small gains? You call a factor of 2.5 in 5 years very small?



No I don't, and only someone dishonest would selectively edit what I have written to make it seem like I do. Would you do me the courtesy of not lopping off the relevant section of my sentence next time? 



srw said:


> Hold on. A moment ago you were hyming the praises of separated and signposted cycle routes, because they'd encourage lots of cycling. What's changed?




In what sense are the Superhighways "separated"? Come on. This is laughable, it really is.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Dec 2010)

I make you right. The LCC's campaign for more cycle parking is a good one, but a lot of employers do nothing to accommodate bikes. Few office buildings have car parks, and, to be fair, space in most offices is at a premium. Hence the popularity of Bromptons, and, also, the hire bike scheme.

And the drawing...........(you can buy the maps from ProMap, but it's cheaper to go to the library and photocopy them)


----------



## jonesy (5 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> ...For instance - the results of the survey conducted by TfL show that only 1% of the users of the Cycle Superhighways had started to use their bikes because of it (with the caveat, of course, that the survey respondents were a self-selecting group).
> ...



Again, as with the Boris Bikes, the CSH aren't even fully completed yet; you can't possibly expect to be able to draw conclusions about their ability to attract new cyclists at such an early stage in their implementation. You are assuming behavioural change takes place overnight, which simply isn't the case with travel behaviour. I'd always expect existing cyclists to be the first users of any new cycling scheme (assuming it is worth using...), potential new users need to be made aware it exists and that it provides them with some benefit, and that will always take time.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (5 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> Again, as with the Boris Bikes, the CSH aren't even fully completed yet; you can't possibly expect to be able to draw conclusions about their ability to attract new cyclists at such an early stage in their implementation.



Of course. I would add, though, that this caution about prediction cuts both ways. We have other people in this thread making claims about the success of the Superhighways based on little more than anecdotes.


----------



## jonesy (5 Dec 2010)

WGF: I noted you quoted the following: 

"Cycling‘s highest modal share in the UK is in Cambridge with 28% followed by York 19% and Oxford 17%."


It is important to note that none of these places have extensive segregated cycle networks; the vast majority of cycle trips take place on normal roads. Indeed, Oxford's main growth in cycle use took place in the late 1970s and 1980s, before there was significant implementation of cycle facilities of any kind. While I can see the attraction of Copenhagen style segregated paths alongside the busiest roads, we are constrained by the practicalities of needing to provide pedestrian space, bus stops, loading bays etc in our urban areas. The busiest cycle route in Oxford is the Cowley Rd, which is also the busiest bus corridor, has lots of shops and cafes needing deliveries etc etc. It is a narrow single carriageway. There simply isn't room for segregated cycle paths, nor indeed for proper width on-road cycle lanes. 


I know you've criticised bad cycle facilities, but unfortunately one of the consequences of telling politicians that segregation is the only way to get people to cycle, is that you end up with poor quality segregation, which is a waste of money and worse than useless for existing cyclists.


----------



## MacB (5 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I make you right. The LCC's campaign for more cycle parking is a good one, but a lot of employers do nothing to accommodate bikes. Few office buildings have car parks, and, to be fair, space in most offices is at a premium. Hence the popularity of Bromptons, and, also, the hire bike scheme.
> 
> And the drawing...........(you can buy the maps from ProMap, but it's cheaper to go to the library and photocopy them)



But it's got a bit chicken and egg Dell, folders and Boris Bikes are only a partial solution at best, they're very poor at addressing issues when it comes to utility and replacing car journeys. As a kid I did everything by bike and it went everywhere with me, yet I never owned a bike lock. I also didn't need to do shopping etc hence why I now own things like racks, panniers and lust after trailers. But I digress...what happens if desires are met for increased cycling and you actually get people out of cars? Forget about whether it's via segregated facility or improvement to shared use. All these new cyclists run smack bang into an epidemic of bike theft. Is it a case of get the people cycling then we'll tackle bike crime?

When I started all I wanted to do was cycle to and from the train station, 7 miles a day, a bike theft on the first day led me to a full commute. But that was a lot to do with my sheer bloody mindedness I could just as easily have gone back to the car. Reading on the net will lead you to a very security concious version of cycling with an acceptance that every so often you'll lose a bike, or a part of one. In fact some forums will positively mock a newbie for being stupid enough to leave their bike in the wrong place or secured in the wrong way.

So new riders need to accept that they sacrifice many of a bikes conveniences in favour of security. It doesn't take much to swing things back in favour of a car in those circumstances.


----------



## srw (5 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> Indeed, Oxford's main growth in cycle use took place in the late 1970s and 1980s, before there was significant implementation of cycle facilities of any kind.



Good spot. Indeed, when I first started commuting in London (1996) I was used to Oxford. London is a positive breeze for cyclists compared with Oxford - the roads are much wider, the traffic speeds considerably slower, the drivers in general more professional, the cyclists considerably less suicidal.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Dec 2010)

here's a little experiment. Since our junior segregationist isn't going to do a drawing, here's one I made earlier. It's probably not perfect, but it only took me fifteen minutes....

Islington Green. Busy road, carrying lots of cyclists. Many of them dodge down Colebrooke Row, but most continue on to the Angel, with many turning right on the Pentonville Road, and some more turning right down Rosebery Avenue. I'm talking morning run here rather than evening.

Start by putting.......2.4 metre lanes either side. We'll colour them pink. Forget the kerbs - let's assume that kerbs have infinite strength and no thickness. Whoops! We've reduced the width of the road to 5 metres - not enough for buses to pass each other.







So let's use 1.8 metres which is a bit crappy, but, again, assume the kerbs are of infinite strength and no thickness. We'll use Wondercrete!






hooray! Buses can pass (but only just), but if one bus is stopped at the bus stop, no other bus can get round it - so the 70 or 80 or 90 passengers on the bus are delayed. Never mind.

So then let's look at the morning cycle lane. And let's make allowance for vehicles to get in to the side streets - including bikes coming northeast on Essex Road and turning right in to St. Peter's Street. We'll colour those bits green 






So, we'll now colour the bus stops in blue (only allowing one bus at a time to turn in - the rest will be vapourised) and and then get really inclusive and allow the pedestrians to cross the road. We'll colour the pedestrian bits in black. Of course they'll ignore this and hop over the kerb, but at least we'll have the satisfaction of making those pesky wheelchair users take a considerable diversion. And, to show really willing we'll have a little bit, a tiny bit of parking for shop deliveries - we'll put that in yellow. Which leaves the cyclists with the pink bits (I'm sorry, but I simply cannot be arsed to do the evening run, which is, believe me, still more complicated)





fantastic! Of course the cyclists are going to ignore the entire thing and go straight down the main carriageway because going round the parked buses and vans is going to be both inconvenient and dangerous...

This is a street of average width, certainly not narrow. It's not even in the centre of town, and it has five bus routes down it -the 341, 76, 38, 56 and 73. Compared to, say, the Farringdon Road, or Rosebery Avenue, it's easypeasy. 

Now - at the moment you have bus lanes. Not all of the way - the road is too narrow to have bus lanes on both sides, but for most of the morning run. And it works beautifully. Which is why peope use it - indeed, it's one of the most popular bits of road in the capital.


----------



## stowie (6 Dec 2010)

Putting lines on maps in-between existing architecture isn't the point. In cities which have succeeded in increasing Cycling modal share above a few percent, they have fundamentally altered the streets to accommodate (even, dare I say it, prioritise) public transport and cycling.

And try looking at say, the deeply unpleasant A11 into Stratford, or the A10 Tottenham Hale Gyratory, or Stratford one way system and tell me that there is no room for segregated cycling. These are multi-lane race-tracks where traffic speeds to the next junction and the inevitable hold-up. Removing a lane from these roads is possible and probably wouldn't even affect traffic flow very much.To get "normal" people cycling (and bear in mind the vast majority of Londoners haven't cycled since childhood) these roads need to be attractive to cycle on. Because they are the main roads, so more direct, and they intersect "quiet" routes anyway. 

Provide cycling infrastructure on these really difficult roads and link up with on-road cycling where the roads have been redesigned to help cyclists (or at least not make their journeys more difficult). Then non-cyclists will start to cycle.

CrapWalthamForest may be pretty aggressive in his opinions on cycling. He may be pretty negative on many initiatives. He may also be a bit unfair on cycling organisations who face the combined apathy of the general population and government to cycling. But it doesn't mean that he doesn't have a point.


----------



## stowie (6 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> WGF: I noted you quoted the following:
> 
> "Cycling‘s highest modal share in the UK is in Cambridge with 28% followed by York 19% and Oxford 17%."
> 
> ...





It is a point. I don't know York, but I would say Oxford and Cambridge have a road system that is very tricky by car, but far easier by public transport, cycle or walking. I remember driving in Oxford centre and simply being herded by the road system around a huge diversion when I could have walked more quickly. So maybe these cities have calmed down the streets in this way and provided incentive to cycle or walk. And of course having huge student population probably helps.

If vehicular cycling is going to attract non-cyclists it needs to be on the cyclists' terms, or at least not completely dominated by vehicles.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> Putting lines on maps in-between existing architecture isn't the point. In cities which have succeeded in increasing Cycling modal share above a few percent, they have fundamentally altered the streets to accommodate (even, dare I say it, prioritise) public transport and cycling.
> 
> And try looking at say, the deeply unpleasant A11 into Stratford, or the A10 Tottenham Hale Gyratory, or Stratford one way system and tell me that there is no room for segregated cycling. These are multi-lane race-tracks where traffic speeds to the next junction and the inevitable hold-up. Removing a lane from these roads is possible and probably wouldn't even affect traffic flow very much.To get "normal" people cycling (and bear in mind the vast majority of Londoners haven't cycled since childhood) these roads need to be attractive to cycle on. Because they are the main roads, so more direct, and they intersect "quiet" routes anyway.
> 
> ...


Stowie, that is a completely exasperating post. The LCC has been pushing town centre redesign for 20 years, for which WalthamForestCrapBlogger gives them no credit whatsoever. There is a cycle/bus lane through the centre of Stratford, and you can thank the LCC for it. There is cycling and bus priority through Shoreditch and you can thank the LCC for that too. There's even cycling priority through the centre of the Vauxhall gyratory, and you can thank the LCC for that. There's also, best yet, the redesign of Brixton town cente in which there is _no separation_, but the traffic is cleverly managed in order to give pedestrians safer, more congenial space - again the LCC can take a bow for that, although they didn't get all they wanted. The LCC would remove the Tottenham gyratory in its entirety and make the high street two way, probably without any separation - just like Brixton.

You have to be careful, though. Crayford, Sutton and Croydon all have pedestrianised centres with ring roads around. Sutton and Croydon allows cycling under certain conditions, but Crayford doesn't - but the main point is that constructing inner ring roads and the associated car parks can act as a trip generator. The key to successful town centre redesign is 'traffic evaporation' and, while Brixton does embody the theory 'traffic evaporation' is not TfL policy.

There are real gains to be made, not just for cyclists, by restricting traffic flow. Lambeth and Merton (and other boroughs besides) have home zones which have restricted entry for cars, reducing through traffic through residential areas.

WFCB isn't interested in the achievements of the LCC - his angle is that London should be somehow re-made in the image of Groningen. That's bonkers. He's proposing precisely the course of action that my little drawing so neatly undermines. That's bonkers. And, as you say, he carps about the LCC in a way that is entirely disreputable.


----------



## srw (6 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> It is a point. I don't know York, but I would say Oxford and Cambridge have a road system that is very tricky by car, but far easier by public transport, cycle or walking. I remember driving in Oxford centre and simply being herded by the road system around a huge diversion when I could have walked more quickly. So maybe these cities have calmed down the streets in this way and provided incentive to cycle or walk. And of course having huge student population probably helps.



In the 1970s and 1980s, when cycling increased so dramatically in Oxford, there was no diversion, and no disincentive to drive. Everything was geared around getting cars through the middle as quickly as possible. The tide turned when the High Street was shut and car parking was made massively more expensive, which happened some time in the middle of the '90s.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Dec 2010)

If you really want modal share to go up in town you've got to do something about the simply dreadful route signage. Too many times on a Boris or my own folder I've set off only to find myself following little blue signs that disappear at, say, a T junction. Useless. Cycling London's shared use infrastructure as a serious alternative to bus or tube, as it is for me for business use, should not require membership of some gnostic sect in order to navigate.

I now take a garmin with me on trips to town!


----------



## jonesy (6 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> If you really want modal share to go up in town you've got to do something about the simply dreadful route signage. Too many times on a Boris or my own folder I've set off only to find myself following little blue signs that disappear at, say, a T junction. Useless. Cycling London's shared use infrastructure as a serious alternative to bus or tube, as it is for me for business use, should not require membership of some gnostic sect in order to navigate.
> 
> I now take a garmin with me on trips to town!



Problems with poor signage are common on the NCN as well. There are some sections near to where I live where I've been a volunteer 'ranger' for several years, where we've finally gave up trying to get the signs improved. The little signs aren't big enough to be visible, especially for on-road sections, but the underlying problem is that a lot of the routes are simply impossible to sign effectively, because they are so complex and lack legibility. If cyclists have to keep leaving the main flow of traffic and take fiddly routes around crossings and junctions, sometimes on road, sometimes on the pavement, and then have to take indirect routes round the back streets, then those sort of routes are always going to be hard to signpost properly. Whereas by following the direct route along the main corridors, the CSH avoid that problem.


----------



## Dan B (6 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> the A10 Tottenham Hale Gyratory [...] multi-lane race-tracks where traffic speeds to the next junction and the inevitable hold-up.


This could be fixed for almost zero outlay by permitting cycles in the southbound contraflow bus lane. Yes, it sucks a bit when you get stuck behind a bus stopped there, but it still beats going the long way around.


----------



## CopperBrompton (6 Dec 2010)

Are cyclists banned from that bus lane, then?


----------



## Dan B (6 Dec 2010)

Trikeman said:


> Are cyclists banned from that bus lane, then?



https://www.cyclechat.net/


----------



## Dan B (6 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> There is cycling and bus priority through Shoreditch and you can thank the LCC for that too.


As a matter of interest, which bit of Shoreditch and what did it look like before its current shape? Are we talking about the northbound bus lane on Shoreditch High St? 

 And while we're talking about my local neck of the woods, anyone know if there are plans for Great Eastern St? It's my least favourite piece of road within three miles of here, and that includes Old St roundabout. Bus lanes in both directions would subdue it nicely


----------



## stowie (7 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Stowie, that is a completely exasperating post. The LCC has been pushing town centre redesign for 20 years, for which WalthamForestCrapBlogger gives them no credit whatsoever. There is a cycle/bus lane through the centre of Stratford, and you can thank the LCC for it. There is cycling and bus priority through Shoreditch and you can thank the LCC for that too. There's even cycling priority through the centre of the Vauxhall gyratory, and you can thank the LCC for that. There's also, best yet, the redesign of Brixton town cente in which there is _no separation_, but the traffic is cleverly managed in order to give pedestrians safer, more congenial space - again the LCC can take a bow for that, although they didn't get all they wanted. The LCC would remove the Tottenham gyratory in its entirety and make the high street two way, probably without any separation - just like Brixton.
> 
> You have to be careful, though. Crayford, Sutton and Croydon all have pedestrianised centres with ring roads around. Sutton and Croydon allows cycling under certain conditions, but Crayford doesn't - but the main point is that constructing inner ring roads and the associated car parks can act as a trip generator. The key to successful town centre redesign is 'traffic evaporation' and, while Brixton does embody the theory 'traffic evaporation' is not TfL policy.
> 
> ...



I am not critical of LCC or CTC (although CTC seems to be having significant issues over what it wants to be). I am member of the LCC. I appreciate they have a herculean task in the face of total apathy about cycling from many local governments and much of the public in general. I am sure that without LCC things would be much worse in London. LCC and CTC are not responsible for implementing bicycle infrastructure and policy, they are merely trying to influence it. I would also say that LCC is there to represent its members who, by definition, already cycle. So for existing cyclists used to the current road conditions changes towards "strict liability" for example are more important than they would be if one was considering how to get people cycling for the first time, where every survey points to perceived danger from traffic being one of the primary reasons for not cycling.

My real ire is reserved for the local government councils and TfL that appear to believe that London is in the grips of a cycling revolution fuelled by a bit of marketing. I see document after document produced by these organisations (at presumably some expense), but on the ground even the most basic provision is badly implemented, or badly maintained, or both. There is a busy junction in Walthamstow I cycle nearly every day where there are cycle lights which have been hooded for over a year because they "interfere" with the motorist phase. They have been like this for over a year, and are not planned to be re-instated until the junction is redesigned, which may be before 2012 but may well be much later depending upon regeneration plans in the area. These are operated by TfL and without them a cyclist has to cross 5 lanes of traffic with no time between motorist phases. I see daily miles of cycle lane painted on the streets by the local council, presumably to meet targets which measure quantity but don't care about quality. I could go on. The LCC and CTC can have some victories, but in the face of the idiocy that appears to be local government cycling policy, I cannot expect member organisations to be the solution.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Boris Bikes are great. I also know that cycling has increased in recent years, but I think that that factors like the recession, congestion and terrorist fears may have had this impact anyway, and outside the Boris Bikes, TfL aren't contributing in the way that their self-publicity clearly thinks.

BTW - which bus lane in Stratford did LCC get implemented? I use the one-way system several times a week, but normally on the station side. The bus lane is a good refuge from the traffic, it is 24hr but not enforced so I do see cars whipping into it to pick up passengers from the station. 

When organisations like TfL purport to promote cycling but actually show that cycling has little consideration in redevelopments such as Tottenham Hale (which is going to be two way again at some stage, but TfL's primary aim seems to increase traffic flow), then they cannot expect people who have never cycled to start cycling in droves, especially outside Zone1/2.


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Dec 2010)

I think that you're being unfair to TfL. They luzzed £140m at LCN+. Now, whatever you think of LCN+ (and I think that it's beside the point, and that the strategy should have been bus lanes on main roads from the off....) they took the LCC at its word. 

I've been at TfL meetings where senior people have been desparate to do what's right by cycling - unfortunately they've been misled by Sustrans in to spending millions on Greenways, but, again, that's a case of TfL taking cycling organisations at their word.

I think you're also being completely unfair to the LCC. They don't see themselves as representing their members, nor have they ever. They see themselves as apostles of cycling in London - representatives of all cyclists, present and future.

Here's the Stratford route. We use it on the FNRttC, and, when Susie and I ride out that way on a Sunday morning, it's a pleasant diversion around it's a pleasing little trip down what might be a nice town centre. The ring road is, of course, a disaster, but that's of the DfT's making, not TfL.


----------



## stowie (8 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I think that you're being unfair to TfL. They luzzed £140m at LCN+. Now, whatever you think of LCN+ (and I think that it's beside the point, and that the strategy should have been bus lanes on main roads from the off....) they took the LCC at its word.
> 
> I've been at TfL meetings where senior people have been desparate to do what's right by cycling - unfortunately they've been misled by Sustrans in to spending millions on Greenways, but, again, that's a case of TfL taking cycling organisations at their word.
> 
> ...



I disagree about being unfair to TfL. I have absolutely no doubt that there are people - quite probably senior people - who want to do the right thing with cycling. But the organisation itself doesn't deliver in so many cases that it points to deep issues within the organisation in regards to cycling.

I know it is only one example, but how can TfL (who control the lights) put in cycle signals and then switch them off indefinitely to leave a major cycle route to a local centre completely cut off by traffic? The local LCC, and local individuals (including me on various occasions) have raised this over the course of 18 months to no avail. 

Then just look at the TfL site on what is being planned for Tottenham Hale Gyratory in 2012-2014. The two way traffic will be better than the situation now, but barely. Crossing the A10 will be made more difficult for pedestrians as a major pedestrian crossing is removed to "ease traffic flow". The alternative is to walk a considerable distance to Monument Way and cross using 5 (yes, FIVE) separate pedestrian crossings at the junction. The cycle facilities are "on road" for confident cyclists and off-road for the more nervous. The off-road cycle paths look disjointed and start and finish in odd locations leaving the cyclist in as worse situation than using the road. This was actually raised as a question on the feedback and TfL first said that the paths are not obvious when looking at the plans (probably because they aren't obvious) and then says that details such as how the paths start and finish will be resolved as the plan progresses. Which doesn't sound like cycling is being given much consideration at all - I hardly think how cyclists access and re-integrate to traffic from a cycle lane as "details". The whole plan sounds like it has been designed around motor traffic and the rest is shoe-horned where possible. 

The stratford route you use - is that Northbound? Are you using the bus contra-flow? I use this route often, but use the terrible bypass - I didn't know there was an alternative, as I thought the bus lane was buses only. It would be interesting to know of a better route that the one way system. Can I add poor signs to my list of gripes about TfL?!


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> I disagree about being unfair to TfL. I have absolutely no doubt that there are people - quite probably senior people - who want to do the right thing with cycling. But the organisation itself doesn't deliver in so many cases that it points to deep issues within the organisation in regards to cycling.
> 
> I know it is only one example....


well, once again, they stumped up £140,000,000 for LCN+. In my view a waste of cash, but they did what cyclists wanted. And, yes, Tottenham Hale. Well here's the rub. The cycle lane is Groningentastic, and illustrates precisely the inherent weakness of the entire segregation case. And, yes, allowing cycles down the bus lane would be ideal.



stowie said:


> I know it is only one example, The stratford route you use - is that Northbound? Are you using the bus contra-flow? I use this route often, but use the terrible bypass - I didn't know there was an alternative, as I thought the bus lane was buses only. It would be interesting to know of a better route that the one way system. Can I add poor signs to my list of gripes about TfL?!


the map is oriented north at the top, so it's northeast-bound. There's a light at the southwest end that allows you across. The FNRttC goes to the 'fast' lane and on to the triangular island, but gentler souls would probably stop on the left hand side of the main road and cross two crossings. As for poor signs - no you can't. I found it easily enough and, as a general rule, signing in London is confusing because London is confusing. There's a case to be made (a la Lucien Kroll) for removing all signs, but that's a different argument.


----------



## stowie (8 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> well, once again, they stumped up £140,000,000 for LCN+. In my view a waste of cash, but they did what cyclists wanted. And, yes, Tottenham Hale. Well here's the rub. The cycle lane is Groningentastic, and illustrates precisely the inherent weakness of the entire segregation case. And, yes, allowing cycles down the bus lane would be ideal.
> 
> the map is oriented north at the top, so it's northeast-bound. There's a light at the southwest end that allows you across. The FNRttC goes to the 'fast' lane and on to the triangular island, but gentler souls would probably stop on the left hand side of the main road and cross two crossings. As for poor signs - no you can't. I found it easily enough and, as a general rule, signing in London is confusing because London is confusing. There's a case to be made (a la Lucien Kroll) for removing all signs, but that's a different argument.



The Netherlands might not put in a cycle lane and leave how to access that cycle lane up to the "details". It is absolutely key to how the cycle lane will work, who can use it and how effective it is. Without this thought out they may as well not bother.

The LCN+ network - well it was useful with the TfL maps for when I started cycling. But it doesn't really help cyclists too much on the ground in my experience, and can be very misleading as it doesn't seem to get updated for road changes (or local councils don't bother to consider LCN when they make roads one-way etc.)

I am astonished at your route around Stratford. I can say, hand on heart, that I went around Stratford on bicycle looking for a route around the one way system when I was a novice. And thought about the bus contra-flow, but it has a clear no-entry sign at the entrance with "except buses" underneath. I couldn't find any indication that cycles could access it. I will try it out next time I cycle around Stratford. Buses cannot overtake cyclists on the contra-flow so I assumed they wouldn't allow cycles in it, as per the Tottenham Hale gyratory.

And £140M seems a lot of money. It certainly seems extravagant based upon the results. But it is peanuts when it comes to London's transport budget. Just altering Tottenham Hale is going to cost £38M. North Circular works are over £100M - even the hyrdogen roll-out plan (delivering 5 hydrogen buses and the maintenance depot for them) is £15M. 

I get the distinct impression that local councils get ring-fenced money for cycling based upon some fairly arbitrary criteria, and not very much analysis of results. So we have Waltham Forest painting on-road cycle lanes everywhere, even though many of them are dangerous and ill-thought out, but seem to be concentrating on measuring the number of miles implemented and not how many people use them.

Cycling seems to suffer from too many organisations with differing agendas chasing too little money. I am resolute my opinion that to get significantly more people cycling - people for whom cycling isn't even an option at the moment - then the roads need to be organised with the needs of cyclists addressed. Vehicular cycling on roads that have concede nothing to the cyclist are only an option for a small proportion of us.


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> The Netherlands might not put in a cycle lane and leave how to access that cycle lane up to the "details". It is absolutely key to how the cycle lane will work, who can use it and how effective it is. Without this thought out they may as well not bother.


I'm not going to go over old ground, but that does need challenging. The details are sorted via consultation, of which we have a great deal in London, and possibly too much. All I can say is that in this instance you and WalthamForestCrapBlogger seem to have got what you wanted - and the problem you face is that it won't work, because it can't work, because the basic strategy is entirely wrong. Be careful what you wish for............ 

As for local councils - most of their infrastructure works are financed by S.106 monies that are neccessarily tied to the development. They're often rubbish, but, there you go, it makes someone feel important.

To sum up. Segregated cycle paths are an anathema because they are socially divisive, expensive, impractical and unwanted. If somebody wants to put forward a design then let them do it - but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## stowie (8 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm not going to go over old ground, but that does need challenging. The details are sorted via consultation, of which we have a great deal in London, and possibly too much. All I can say is that in this instance you and WalthamForestCrapBlogger seem to have got what you wanted - and the problem you face is that it won't work, because it can't work, because the basic strategy is entirely wrong. Be careful what you wish for............
> 
> As for local councils - most of their infrastructure works are financed by S.106 monies that are neccessarily tied to the development. They're often rubbish, but, there you go, it makes someone feel important.
> 
> To sum up. Segregated cycle paths are an anathema because they are socially divisive, expensive, impractical and unwanted. If somebody wants to put forward a design then let them do it - but I'm not holding my breath.



How about Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, New York, Paris, even Rio and Bogotá?

I think that the vehicular cycling advocates ridicule the segregated lane idea by extrapolating to the point it is absurd. Of course segregated lanes aren't going to work everywhere - in fact segregation should only be necessary on a small number of major roads where vehicle flow requirements make vehicular cycling unpalatable to the majority of the population. But without them how on earth do we expect "normal" people to take up cycling if they need to use the A11 Bow Flyover or parts of the North Circular to reach their destination without going miles out of their way?

Vehicular cycling is absolutely necessary on many roads, and surely the aim with these roads should be to design them with consideration to the cyclist as well as (and hopefully in priority over) the convenience of the motorist. And on major trunk roads quicker bicycle alternatives be sought or, if this isn't possible, segregated infrastructure used and _integrated _into the existing road and cycle provision.

I cannot see how we expect "normal" people to cycle without doing this? Maybe we shouldn't worry about this (I am not being facetious, maybe we just cannot get cycling popular outside a small part of the population and therefore we shouldn't bother trying) and accept cycling isn't going to be used as a transport option for most people.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> How about Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, New York, Paris, even Rio and Bogotá?
> 
> I think that the vehicular cycling advocates ridicule the segregated lane idea by extrapolating to the point it is absurd. Of course segregated lanes aren't going to work everywhere - in fact segregation should only be necessary on a small number of major roads where vehicle flow requirements make vehicular cycling unpalatable to the majority of the population. But without them how on earth do we expect "normal" people to take up cycling if they need to use the A11 Bow Flyover or parts of the North Circular to reach their destination without going miles out of their way?
> 
> ...


I really do resent the implication that those of us who think that the roads are the place to be are somehow not interested in seeing more people use them - and by folk who talk a lot but have, in reality, nothing to offer. Show me the drawing. 

And explain why the bomb-dodgers, who came to cycling in fear of their lives, ignored LCN+ and went straight down the main roads.


----------



## ozzage (9 Dec 2010)

I agree with the segregationists on this thread. It's absurd to expect most people to cycle along busy roads alongside buses and taxis. Yeah sure some people do it. I do it myself, although I try to avoid it.

Would I send my mum out in such conditions? No. That's the only question that needs to be answered to know whether cycling has a chance to boom in this country.

I lived for nearly 4 years in Amsterdam, where I "re-learned" to ride after not having ridden since getting my drivers licence nearly fifteen years earlier. Would I have sent my mum out on a bike there? Absolutely. Was it solely due to segregation? No of course not, but that was a bloody big part of it. It's not the quiet residential streets that are the problem, either here or in the Netherlands, it's the main roads! I could ride to the centre of the city and along the main road was a cycle path. Then I entered the old Jordaan area and rode through streets with few cars. No problem.

Only segregation will ever fix the "main road" problem for 90% of the population. Riding on main roads in central London or on the main radials is basically a nightmare for all except the most hardened cyclists. It's not even particularly unsafe, but it FEELS like it, and it's bloody UNPLEASANT!

I don't live on/near a CSH and am not particularly impressed with them, but I think they are a step in the right direction. At least once they are in place and well used then hopefully there will be pressure to improve them and ultimately even segregate them properly. Back-street routes will never be really successful if people use their bike as real transport rather than for leisure, even though it's good to have an alternative.

There is a reason why places with very high cycling rates all have large amounts of dedicated cycle facilities, and are CONTINUING TO ADD MORE. If all the vehicular cycling proponents are right, and segregation is neither necessary nor desirable, then why are those countries continuing to push that barrow? And what makes you think that you know better, given the facts on the ground?


----------



## jonesy (9 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> I agree with the segregationists on this thread. It's absurd to expect most people to cycle along busy roads ...
> T*here is a reason why places with very high cycling rates all have large amounts of dedicated cycle facilities, *and are CONTINUING TO ADD MORE. If all the vehicular cycling proponents are right, and segregation is neither necessary nor desirable, then why are those countries continuing to push that barrow? And what makes you think that you know better, given the facts on the ground?



You've not been paying attention 

Oxford? Cambridge?


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> Would I send my mum out in such conditions? No.


I'd let my mum make her own mind up. 



ozzage said:


> Only segregation will ever fix the "main road" problem for 90% of the population. Riding on main roads in central London or on the main radials is basically a nightmare for all except the most hardened cyclists. It's not even particularly unsafe, but it FEELS like it, and it's bloody UNPLEASANT!


fifty cyclists use Garratt Lane for every one that uses the Wandle Way. Any idea why?

Show me the drawing


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (9 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> And, yes, Tottenham Hale. Well here's the rub. The cycle lane is Groningentastic, and illustrates precisely the inherent weakness of the entire segregation case.



It does no such thing, because the cycle lane is not "Groningentastic".

In fact it's shoot. It's an abomination, and if any Dutch traffic planner had come up with a design like this







they would have been fired on the spot.

And you have the cheek to suggest that this is what we want!


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (9 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> fifty cyclists use Garratt Lane for every one that uses the Wandle Way. Any idea why?



It's certainly not the infrastructure.

This cycle lane on the Wandle Way 







is so brilliantly designed, I'm surprised there aren't a gazillion cyclists in it. In fact, it's *so good*, they've made it bi-directional in one lane! Genius!







And let's not forget that the Wandle Way is direct







continuous







and safe, being that it avoids forcing people to cycle with traffic on busy A roads.







Which kind of defeats the point about this being a segregated route, does it not? Anyway, it looks like someone has helpfully painted a white bicycle in the middle of the busy carriageway.

That'll do the trick.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Dec 2010)

you don't know where the Wandle Way is, do you? Take a look at this





nothing wrong with that - oh - just one thing - nobody's using it. I've cycled the entire length of the Wandle Way all the way down to Beddington, and not seen one cyclist coming the other way. That's got to be at least eight miles - maybe ten. And that was after the £1.3million Sustrans refurb. In fact it's their showpiece path in South London. The one they want to show everybody.

Here's another bit





now it took me two clicks to find these images. I suspect that you looked at them as well......

The path in Tottenham is the way it is because there are pedestrians on a shopping street. Show me the drawing - start with Tottenham Hale, if you like. You're very good at telling us what you don't want. Show me the drawing of what you do want.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (9 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> you don't know where the Wandle Way is, do you?



Err, yes, I do. All my photos are from the route. In fact one is _of _the route. That should give you a clue. 



dellzeqq said:


> nothing wrong with that - oh - just one thing - nobody's using it.



Why is nobody using it? It's because this route is tortuous in the extreme, contains sections where people _do _have to cycle on the A-roads (which, as I have already stated, defeats the point of presenting this as a model of segregation) and, where there is 'infrastructure', is beyond a joke. Let me agree with you - money has been wasted. 

But what is the conclusion that you are drawing here about the absence of people on this route? You seem to be arguing that the lesson is that your average punter does not want to be separated from heavy traffic on A-roads.

If that is what you are arguing, it's absurd logic. It's like me pointing at a shoot bus route near where I live - one that runs three times a day and goes nowhere near anywhere, taking twice as long as travelling by car - and saying buses are clearly an inappropriate means of urban transport, as nobody wants to use them.



dellzeqq said:


> The path in Tottenham is the way it is because there are pedestrians on a shopping street.



"Pedestrians on the pavement" is the reason why the cycle lane gives way at every junction? Are you sure? 

(And are you still maintaining that it is a "Groningentastic" piece of cycle design?)


----------



## stowie (9 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I really do resent the implication that those of us who think that the roads are the place to be are somehow not interested in seeing more people use them - and by folk who talk a lot but have, in reality, nothing to offer. Show me the drawing.
> 
> And explain why the bomb-dodgers, who came to cycling in fear of their lives, ignored LCN+ and went straight down the main roads.



I am implying nothing of the sort! I wondered if possibly there may be conditions of cities or culture in the UK that mean cycling will always be a minority transport option despite any amount of initiatives. 

The bomb-dodgers, like me when I first started, probably didn't know that LCN+ existed, or that TfL had maps. And let's face it LCN+ routes aren't exactly easy to find, and when you do find them they are hardly shining beacons of infrastructure anyway. Why cycle down a narrow side-road that goes the long way and you get close-passed by cars anyway when you can use the main roads and go the short way - often with lower traffic speeds. Also, I remember when I started that the cycle cut-throughs are almost completely unknown to me so I tended to follow the road signs to places - which are on main roads since they are all for cars. And frankly when I followed some LCN+ signs around Hackney and ended up where I started after 1/2 hr, I decided that road signs might be a better option.

_Please _don't take this discussion as some kind of personal attack on your thoughts about cycling - in fact it is anything but, I am very interested in your thoughts because they are so different to mine, and from someone who clearly understands the issues better than I. I believe that cycling won't become anything other than something for a small minority whilst major roads and junctions don't give consideration to cyclists. I am absolutely interested in what you think would help people who have never cycled to give it a go, and how to persuade them to do so. Why, as someone who thinks that the only way to encourage mass cycling is to have good quality infrastructure (including segregation on certain roads) am I so wrong?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (9 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Show me the drawing - start with Tottenham Hale, if you like. You're very good at telling us what you don't want. Show me the drawing of what you do want.



That section of the A10 is either 5 or 6 lanes wide, in the current scheme. 

Take a lane of traffic away. There is your space. It's really that simple. There need be no impingement on the space allocated to pedestrians or buses. 

This is what it is all about. Reallocation of space from motorists, to pedestrians and cyclists. 

Of course this is why cycling has such a high modal share in Oxford and Cambridge (_partly_ why - the other reason is the skewed demographic in these city centres). The space - what space there was - for driving has been taken away. Longwall Street in Oxford is effectively closed to traffic. Broad street is restricted. Queen Street and Cornmarket are pedestrianised. It's lunacy to try and drive into the centre of Oxford unless you absolutely have to.

But what disincentives are there to driving in Greater London?


----------



## jonesy (9 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> That section of the A10 is either 5 or 6 lanes wide, in the current scheme.
> 
> Take a lane of traffic away. There is your space. It's really that simple. There need be no impingement on the space allocated to pedestrians or buses.
> 
> ...




No, that's not true. Not on the main roads- ever seen Cowley Road? It is probably one of the busiest cycling corridors in the UK, entirely on road, very few cycle lanes, shared with buses and all the other traffic. Or Botley Road? Abingdon Road? And far from being closed to traffic, Longwall Street is now the main route for cars that are no longer allowed on the western end of High Street! Cycling is certainly advantageous over driving in Oxford, but that's because of lack of parking spaces, and very slow congested traffic on most of the road network. It isn't because of large scale re-allocation of road space. You should bear in mind that the main growth in cycling occured in the 1970s and 80s, so was before the Oxford Transport Strategy, so predates even the traffic restrictions you may have seen.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (9 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> No, that's not true. Not on the main roads- ever seen Cowley Road? It is probably one of the busiest cycling corridors in the UK, entirely on road, very few cycle lanes, shared with buses and all the other traffic. Or Botley Road? Abingdon Road? And far from being closed to traffic, Longwall Street is now the main route for cars that are no longer allowed on the western end of High Street! Cycling is certainly advantageous over driving in Oxford, but that's because of lack of parking spaces, and very slow congested traffic on most of the road network. It isn't because of large scale re-allocation of road space. You should bear in mind that the main growth in cycling occured in the 1970s and 80s, so was before the Oxford Transport Strategy, so predates even the traffic restrictions you may have seen.



Forgive me, I meant Holywell Street, not Longwall. 

I'm not sure we are disagreeing too much here. I did say - if you read my post - that reallocation of road space is only _part_ of the reason. The demographics of Oxford are surely also very important. Cowley Road and Abingdon Road are the main routes for students in and out of the city centre, back to where many of them live. It would be interesting to see what the modal share is like in - say - late July. Certainly when I was cycling about in Oxford, I seemed (of course, this is just my impression) to be surrounded by other students, and not a broader cross-section of the general public. That is to say, we are dealing with a skewed sample. I'm sure if London was composed of the percentage of students in Oxford, modal share would be far higher.

Equally, I did not argue that there has been large scale re-allocation of road space. I simply mentioned that there is not much space in the city, and stated the names of streets that are closed to traffic (albeit one erroneously!). You have read too much into my words. 

Of course, the net result is the same - it is difficult to drive, and cycling is therefore an attractive alternative.


----------



## CopperBrompton (9 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> But what disincentives are there to driving in Greater London?


Apart from average speeds of 11mph, an average distance between traffic lights of around 200 metres, one-way systems, bus-lanes, no-right-turn restrictions, phenomentally expensive parking and the congestion tax, I can't think of any.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (9 Dec 2010)

Traffic lights, one-way systems and no-right turn restrictions are all measures that are, in effect, inflicted on cyclists for the wider goal of improving vehicular traffic flow. It is odd that you would mention them as something that would push drivers out of their cars onto bikes. 

Point taken on the congestion charge and parking - but I did say Greater London.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (9 Dec 2010)

As an example of the above - try cycling around King's Cross. I used to live on Balfe Street. If I wanted to cycle on to the Euston Road - a few hundred yards away - I had to take a lengthy journey around a huge gyratory, created for the purposes of smoothing traffic flow. 

Of course, remove the one-way system and right-turn restrictions, and the congestion would get much worse. But that's slightly my point.


----------



## stowie (9 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> No, that's not true. Not on the main roads- ever seen Cowley Road? It is probably one of the busiest cycling corridors in the UK, entirely on road, very few cycle lanes, shared with buses and all the other traffic. Or Botley Road? Abingdon Road? And far from being closed to traffic, Longwall Street is now the main route for cars that are no longer allowed on the western end of High Street! Cycling is certainly advantageous over driving in Oxford, but that's because of lack of parking spaces, and very slow congested traffic on most of the road network. It isn't because of large scale re-allocation of road space. You should bear in mind that the main growth in cycling occured in the 1970s and 80s, so was before the Oxford Transport Strategy, so predates even the traffic restrictions you may have seen.




So why is cycling so popular in Oxford then? Surely the population didn't get up on day and collectively decide that cycling might be a jolly idea. If it is down to demographics the lessons for other towns may be limited.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Err, yes, I do. All my photos are from the route. In fact one is _of _the route. That should give you a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that's absolutely untrue. You've never cycled the route. I have. Sure, it takes longer than the road, but not a great deal longer. It's 3M wide and the surface was agonised over - I witnessed the agonising - and it's just what Sustrans wanted. If you're travelling from Hackbridge to Wandsworth, parallel but actually nowhere near A-roads the journey time would be the same. And yet nobody uses it. 

Tottenham Hale. Draw what you want. You're full of what you don't want. Show us what you do want. Get yourself a bit of 1:1250 map and draw what you want.


----------



## stowie (9 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> That section of the A10 is either 5 or 6 lanes wide, in the current scheme.
> 
> Take a lane of traffic away. There is your space. It's really that simple. There need be no impingement on the space allocated to pedestrians or buses.
> 
> ...



The interesting thing about the whole scheme is that one of the key aims is to keep, or even increase, traffic throughput capacity. Which sounds reasonable - the A10 is a key arterial road, until you consider that very long sections of the A10 after the Seven Sisters junction is single lane each way (with a bus lane either side), and then again it is single lane each way (without bus lanes) after Monument way before it turns into Bruce Grove, which is again single lanes. So the current gyratory, and the new plans, allow a large traffic capacity for it's duration before funnelling down into a much smaller road space. Not only does it seem a bit pointless, but surely traffic flow is easier and safer if kept slow and steady as opposed to being allowed to speed for a small section before having to all merge again?

And under the two way scheme, Monument Way and Broad Lane become pretty standard two way roads which aren't forming any part of the A10 arterial road. One would think that maybe traffic volumes would become less of an issue and the 3 lanes in broad lane and Monument way may be able to be used differently.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> The bomb-dodgers, like me when I first started, probably didn't know that LCN+ existed, or that TfL had maps.


they just didn't care. They wanted to get to work, safely, they used the A-roads, and LCN+ effectively died overnight. As one of the board members of the LCC said to me a year or so later - 'we're wondering if TfL will want the money back'.

Here's the thing. We stand on the brink of civilising some of London's major radial routes, which are also our principal high streets. Cyclists of all kinds are wandering down the Clapham Road, heedless (actually unaware) of all the protestations of danger from a few, a very few frustrated segregationists. This is a great time - a time that I for one really didn't expect to see. I think it will get better and better. 

You can stand around saying that however many percent of Londoners are not riding bikes because of the 'danger', or you can join in, and, maybe, work out why a lot of Londoners don't ride bikes. Now, you may be surprised to read this, and you may choose to disbelieve it, but actually I've got a bit of a record of inspiring people to ride bikes. And the reasons they don't ride bikes are far more various and far more complex than you think.


----------



## CopperBrompton (9 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Traffic lights, one-way systems and no-right turn restrictions are all measures that are, in effect, inflicted on cyclists for the wider goal of improving vehicular traffic flow.


As cyclists, we can get around any of the above by getting off our bicycles briefly, often only for a few feet. Motorists, in contrast, have no such escape plan. All of the things I mentioned are substantial deterrents to driving and only minor deterrents to cycling.


----------



## CopperBrompton (9 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> So the current gyratory, and the new plans, allow a large traffic capacity for it's duration before funnelling down into a much smaller road space.


Not really, traffic splits off into four major directions from that gyratory.


----------



## stowie (9 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> that's absolutely untrue. You've never cycled the route. I have. Sure, it takes longer than the road, but not a great deal longer. It's 3M wide and the surface was agonised over - I witnessed the agonising - and it's just what Sustrans wanted. If you're travelling from Hackbridge to Wandsworth, parallel but actually nowhere near A-roads the journey time would be the same. And yet nobody uses it.
> 
> Tottenham Hale. Draw what you want. You're full of what you don't want. Show us what you do want. Get yourself a bit of 1:1250 map and draw what you want.



Why isn't it used then? Surely we cannot assume that people prefer to be dodging in and out of parked cars on what looks like a busy road instead of a nice cycle down this path?

In the wilds of N/NE London, there is the Lea Valley tow path, and the various canal paths that spur off. It isn't particularly well maintained in many places, but in Summer it is hugely popular with commuting cyclists. In the winter it is a bit less popular being as stretches turn into a mudbath and the idea of cycling next to deep canals on dodgy terrain in unlit paths at least makes me think twice.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> *Why isn't it used then? Surely we cannot assume that people prefer to be dodging in and out of parked cars on what looks like a busy road instead of a nice cycle down this path?
> *
> In the wilds of N/NE London, there is the Lea Valley tow path, and the various canal paths that spur off. It isn't particularly well maintained in many places, but in Summer it is hugely popular with commuting cyclists. In the winter it is a bit less popular being as stretches turn into a mudbath and the idea of cycling next to deep canals on dodgy terrain in unlit paths at least makes me think twice.


No. You can't. And we might know why it isn't used if the TfL Greenways committee had, as I suggested, asked the riders going down Garratt Lane why they took the route they did. They declined because the views of cyclists already cycling on the roads were of no interest. They were only interested in the cyclists of the future who were apparently the two people (one of them a friend of mine) who used it as their commute. (And my friend stopped using it after the money was spent, but that's a story of ineptitude on which there can be no disagreement). My own guess, and it's no more than a guess, is that people think that it's 'odd'. 

I highlighted the 'dodging in and out of parked cars' because while it's a reasonable inference it's not actually the case - these days. There's very little car parking on Garratt Lane (which is a tortuous route in itself!) because it's got lengths of bus lane.


----------



## stowie (10 Dec 2010)

Trikeman said:


> Not really, traffic splits off into four major directions from that gyratory.



I have no numbers to back this up, but from observation of travelling the route around 5pm several times a week, the A10 is always completely backed up to Stamford hill going into the gyratory whilst the roads going east - west (Ferry Lane etc.) are clear. I think most of the traffic is going North South in the morning and South - North in the evening. Normally the gyratory itself isn't tailed back and traffic is moving fast (more than the speed limit) in many sections. So I would assume that the actual bottlenecks are the A10 single lane parts outside the gyratory.

On Saturdays and especially Sundays, the gyratory is normally heaving, and often there are tailbacks onto the feeder roads such as Ferry Lane. This is due to motorists driving to the retail park where the car parking is limited and the entrances and exits tight. However much space is allocated to the motorists in the gyratory the problem won't be solved as the issue is too many people taking their car to the retail parks. With the number of buses stopping at Tottenham Hale, the tube station opposite, and some really good quality covered cycle parking, I don't think many of these motorists have an excuse for taking their car to these shops anyway.


----------



## CopperBrompton (10 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> I think most of the traffic is going North South in the morning and South - North in the evening.


You have traffic going up the B153, the A10, the A1055 and the A503.



> too many people taking their car to the retail parks. With the number of buses stopping at Tottenham Hale, the tube station opposite, and some really good quality covered cycle parking, I don't think many of these motorists have an excuse for taking their car to these shops anyway.


People don't need an excuse for their chosen mode of transport.

As it happens, I used to live close to Walthamstow and that was my local retail park. Cycling generally wasn't practical for transporting the sort of shopping you do at a retail park. By public transport, there was a very unreliable bus service to the local tube. Typically, something like a 15 minute wait followed by a 10 minute bus ride, then a tube journey where the combined waiting and travelling time was a further 10 minutes. Total return journey time by public transport: about an hour. Total return journey time by car: about 12 minutes.


----------



## stowie (10 Dec 2010)

Trikeman said:


> You have traffic going up the B153, the A10, the A1055 and the A503.
> 
> 
> People don't need an excuse for their chosen mode of transport.
> ...



Of course everyone has a choice (aside from the large proportion of people in this area without access to a car - in my ward 42% of households don't have a car). What I am saying is that there are other options. I understand that a car may be needed for some purchases, but then when I take the car I accept that it might be a 12 minute journey, or could over an hour. And that parking is a nightmare at weekends. 

I have had some trips to the retail park that from door to being parked up took 90 minutes. Now I either go during a week day if I have to pick up something I cannot carry on the cycle, or cycle there and get them to deliver any heavy objects if necessary. The extra delivery cost is worth keeping my blood pressure down!

And I know that there are roads spurring off the gyratory. My perception is that during the week the bottleneck isn't the gyratory but the A10 North and South of it - the gyratory and other adjoining roads aren't normally tailed back.


----------



## stowie (10 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> No. You can't. And we might know why it isn't used if the TfL Greenways committee had, as I suggested, asked the riders going down Garratt Lane why they took the route they did. They declined because the views of cyclists already cycling on the roads were of no interest. They were only interested in the cyclists of the future who were apparently the two people (one of them a friend of mine) who used it as their commute. (And my friend stopped using it after the money was spent, but that's a story of ineptitude on which there can be no disagreement). My own guess, and it's no more than a guess, is that people think that it's 'odd'.
> 
> I highlighted the 'dodging in and out of parked cars' because while it's a reasonable inference it's not actually the case - these days. There's very little car parking on Garratt Lane (which is a tortuous route in itself!) because it's got lengths of bus lane.



Well, not talking to existing cyclists about why they choose adjacent routes instead of the path before spending a whole load of money on it is madness. Can you really blame me for being highly cynical of TfL and local councils when I hear these?

I bow to your superior knowledge of Garratt Lane (mine is based solely on some streetview shots), but I would say that having the bus lanes may be the reason it is quite popular. Dare I say that surely bus lanes could be considered a successful form of segregation?! They certainly seem popular with all cyclists I talk to and are a great way of negotiating heavy traffic without having to interact too much with it. I would use main roads with good bus lanes any day over LCN+ back streets which are more often than not double parked rat-runs.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> they just didn't care. They wanted to get to work, safely, they used the A-roads, and LCN+ effectively died overnight. As one of the board members of the LCC said to me a year or so later - 'we're wondering if TfL will want the money back'.
> 
> Here's the thing. We stand on the brink of civilising some of London's major radial routes, which are also our principal high streets. Cyclists of all kinds are wandering down the Clapham Road, heedless (actually unaware) of all the protestations of danger from a few, a very few frustrated segregationists. This is a great time - a time that I for one really didn't expect to see. I think it will get better and better.
> 
> You can stand around saying that however many percent of Londoners are not riding bikes because of the 'danger', or you can join in, and, maybe, work out why a lot of Londoners don't ride bikes. Now, you may be surprised to read this, and you may choose to disbelieve it, but actually I've got a bit of a record of inspiring people to ride bikes. And the reasons they don't ride bikes are far more various and far more complex than you think.



he's not wrong. on so many levels. 

I used to cycle through round and accorss clapham in the early 00's. kin awful it was, kin awful. then along came the bomb dodgers, unfortunately a few month after I stopped working in Stockwell/Brixton and hey presto cycling in clapham was normalised. instead of being a rarity cyclists were just part of business as usual. now when I go visit that neck of the woods cycling on the main roads is just "what we do around here" and I enjoy doing it.

once cycling on roads reaches a certain critical mass the segregationalist bubble bursts. sure that mass brings issues/problems of its own, but not ones segregation would solve. most cyclists are drivers, drivers are used to main roads, therefore that is where they will tend to cycle, following the lovely sings telling them where to go, etc., etc.. 

As for safety... I got friends who refuse to drive in London because it si so dangerous and stressful. Dunderheads the lot of them. Highly subjective, just as it is for those who apparently say "I'm not going to cycle on that main road"


----------



## jonesy (10 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> So why is cycling so popular in Oxford then? Surely the population didn't get up on day and collectively decide that cycling might be a jolly idea. If it is down to demographics the lessons for other towns may be limited.




Why is cycling popular in Oxford? For the reasons discussed ealier- it is advantagous over driving, because of limited parking, high levels of congestion etc, a narrow street layout that generally precludes the multi-lane high speed roads favoured by traffic engineers; and more recently there have been signficnat traffic restrictions. Also because the travel to work area is relatively compact so a high proportion of journeys made are within cycleable distance. The student effect is probably signficant, but by no means is the main reason. Cycling modal split is usually measured for travel to *work*, and is 15% in Oxford, over 25% in Cambridge. So that's an awful lot of non-students cycling.


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> Well, not talking to existing cyclists about why they choose adjacent routes instead of the path before spending a whole load of money on it is madness. *Can you really blame me for being highly cynical of TfL and local councils when I hear these?
> *


well.....to be honest, I was shouted down (note the word 'shout') by the Sustrans rep.


----------



## Speshact (10 Dec 2010)

Great thread. My tuppence worth:

a) My teenage daughter won't cycle alone in London and none of her friends do. By contrast a friend's daughter in Holland does so as do all her friends. I'm not convinced that we'll get loads of teenage girls (or maybe even boys) cycling in the traffic and therefore are likely to have fewer adults cycling. 

b) No one I have asked has agreed to send their child to cycle National Cycle Route 4 (A roads in part plus roundabouts etc.) from the Albert Embankment to Gabriels Wharf. All are willing to send them along the parallel trafffic free Thames Path (though wary about them conflicting with pedestrians).

c) Hyde Park, Hyde Park Corner (through the middle rather than round it), Green Park route, thhe route by the Mall - all are wonderfully segregated from traffic, very popular and and used by a volume of cyclists every day that are unlikely to be seen on the wiggly Wandle Trail in a year.

d) Bus Lanes are erstatz cycle lanes. Where they've widened them on CS7 has made a big improvement as you can pass a bus that is stopped while staying in the lane. Let's get more bus drivers to have cycle training and have a 20mph limit for buses in lanes shared with cyclists.

e) Cable Street on CS 3 exemplifies a problem we have that the Netherlands don't. In Holland pedestrians and joggers go straight over a side road at the same time as drivers go straight on. Anyone turning off has to give way to a ped'n/jogger/cyclist coming up to the side road. Here the traffic turning off almost always has priority - resulting in start/stop journeys on segregated routes. I think pro-segregation campaigners have to campaign for this change. I don't know what the downsides are from a DfT perspective but imagine that it might cause motorists to spend more time stationary on the main road thus limiting capacity and smooth traffic flow so unlikely to be popular with petrolheads.

f) I think the easy win is pushing for more and wider bus and cycle lanes, and getting them 24/7 rather than rush hour only (excluding school home times!) Mo - Fri or Mo - Sat. 

g) The centre of London should have no taxis or private cars but loads of Hire Bikes and Hire Mobility Scooters for those who can't walk or ride a bike.

h) While there's the expectation by cycle campaign organisations and the DfT that cyclists are on the road there has to be loads and loads of cycle training especially for kids, strict liability and 20mph except where reasonable for it to be more.

various illustrated posts on the above (though sadly no skilled Dellzeqq drawings) are on my blog http://kenningtonpob.blogspot.com


----------



## stowie (10 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> well.....to be honest, I was shouted down (note the word 'shout') by the Sustrans rep.



Who presumably had an agenda. I still think TfL should be big enough to be able to work out what data will need collecting to analyse how money should be spent.

Mind you I have just looked at the Sustrans website for the Wandle Trail and the map shows why people might not bother with this part of the Wandle Trail. It starts off on the A217, veers right down a side road to the Park, winds it way down the park to the back of what looks like housing where it does a strange route (because of one way streets?) around the housing estate to land up back on the A217. I know why I wouldn't use it - I wouldn't be bothered to faff about like this when I could just stay on the road.


----------



## ozzage (10 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> As for weeping with gratitude - when I contemplate that rubbish cycle lane at Tavistock Square I weep with frustration that so much money could be put to so poor a use.



The same route that is so well used and loved by the sort of people who don't post on cycling forums that it's barely passable due to the mass of bikes!!

I still prefer to cycle on it than on the road and feel myself relaxing when I reach it, even though it desperately needs to be wider and feels like being in a canyon because of the high straight curbing. It doesn't even matter if such cycle paths are actually MORE DANGEROUS than being on the road. As long as it feels safer then more people will be inclined to use them and as well all know, overall safety will increase with the increase in numbers.

I think that facility is an excellent example of the problems in the cycle campaigning. Many cyclists find the Tavistock path fantastic and will go out of their way to use it. And yet you find "old hands" on forums calling for it to be ripped out completely.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Dec 2010)

I've never heard anybody call for it to be ripped out (why waste twice the money), and I've hardly ever seen anybody using it. I just despair when I look at it - it chips away at a lovely street at the expense of pedestrians, and it cost a mint of money.

I do think that the cost of these things is important. It behoves cyclists to think of the people that pay for this stuff. £7M on CSH7 and CSH3 is a lot of money, and it's to be hoped that Londoners think it well spent, but £140M on LCN+, £1M on Cable Street, £1.3M on the Wandle Way (now re-christened the Wandle Trail ffs) is money could have been spent better elsewhere, or not spent at all.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Dec 2010)

Speshact said:


> Great thread. My tuppence worth:
> 
> a) My teenage daughter won't cycle alone in London and none of her friends do. By contrast a friend's daughter in Holland does so as do all her friends. I'm not convinced that we'll get loads of teenage girls (or maybe even boys) cycling in the traffic and therefore are likely to have fewer adults cycling.


mine goes out all the time. Without lights. Despite my remonstrations. She's not alone - when her mates comes round the house is covered in ***** bikes



Speshact said:


> b) No one I have asked has agreed to send their child to cycle National Cycle Route 4 (A roads in part plus roundabouts etc.) from the Albert Embankment to Gabriels Wharf. All are willing to send them along the parallel trafffic free Thames Path (though wary about them conflicting with pedestrians).


In fairness to Sustrans NCN4 is fine. But, then again, I don't 'send' any child out. If she wants advice, she can have it. If she wants company she can have it. But, by the time she was fourteen she was making her own decisions - as I was at her age in an era in which traffic was far less well regulated.



Speshact said:


> c) Hyde Park, Hyde Park Corner (through the middle rather than round it), Green Park route, thhe route by the Mall - all are wonderfully segregated from traffic, very popular and and used by a volume of cyclists every day that are unlikely to be seen on the wiggly Wandle Trail in a year.


agreed. Park Lane is a monstrous road, particularly northbound - and Hyde Park is a joy.



Speshact said:


> d) Bus Lanes are erstatz cycle lanes. Where they've widened them on CS7 has made a big improvement as you can pass a bus that is stopped while staying in the lane. Let's get more bus drivers to have cycle training and have a 20mph limit for buses in lanes shared with cyclists.
> f) I think the easy win is pushing for more and wider bus and cycle lanes, and getting them 24/7 rather than rush hour only (excluding school home times!) Mo - Fri or Mo - Sat.


bus lanes are better than cycle lanes - they have a greater capacity. One of the real frustrations of dealing with the TfL Olympics committee was that they could not get their heads around the idea of capacity. Having a three metre wide path going across a park to a destination that will see 250,000 visitors a day (!) isn't much of a contribution. CS7 through the Oval, Clapham North and Clapham Common southbound is a full bus lane, capable of taking far more bikes than a 3 metre path, and at certain times of the day it is approaching capacity for bikes! That, my friends, is a problem that we'd never thought we'd have! TfL is completely up for 24 hour bus lanes - the A200? down to Greenwich is 24 hours (which is just fantastic for the FNRttC) and Nine Elms is, I think, 24 hours despite there being no real 'bus need'. Indeed, whisper this.....the entire Nine Elms bus lane inbound is actually there because TfL thought it would be good for cyclists. The buses are a pretext.

All bus drivers on TfL routes get training, by the way. Going to other towns (I'm thinking of Manchester and Ipswich in particular) is a bit of a shock.




Speshact said:


> e) Cable Street on CS 3 exemplifies a problem we have that the Netherlands don't. In Holland pedestrians and joggers go straight over a side road at the same time as drivers go straight on. Anyone turning off has to give way to a ped'n/jogger/cyclist coming up to the side road. Here the traffic turning off almost always has priority - resulting in start/stop journeys on segregated routes. I think pro-segregation campaigners have to campaign for this change. I don't know what the downsides are from a DfT perspective but imagine that it might cause motorists to spend more time stationary on the main road thus limiting capacity and smooth traffic flow so unlikely to be popular with petrolheads.


Cable Street is a dead end. Let's move on. Let's look to the experiment in Kensington, in which kerbs and signals are ripped out. http://www.cyclingwe...ing-safety.html 




Speshact said:


> g) The centre of London should have no taxis or private cars but loads of Hire Bikes and Hire Mobility Scooters for those who can't walk or ride a bike.
> various illustrated posts on the above (though sadly no skilled Dellzeqq drawings) are on my blog http://kenningtonpob.blogspot.com


I really don't have a problem with people driving cars, but there's many a way to make neighbourhoods more pleasant, and they're a good deal cheaper than cycle lanes. 'Home Zones' which squeeze out through traffic reduce traffic noise, speed and the concomitant risk. That's not spending money on cycling, it's spending money on people - far more worthwhile.

Nice blog, by the way. Now if only Susie would let me have a Cargo bike....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> The same route that is so well used and loved by the sort of people who don't post on cycling forums that it's barely passable due to the mass of bikes!!



yet the same "mass" of people are generally conspicuous by the absence when I've ridden around there but fair play to you I tend to be riding off peak.

Those that I've seen use it, well let's say their road craft leaves a lot to be desired, they also seem to love rlj'ing, kerb hopping, pavement riding and riding on the wrong side of the two way cycle lane and playing chicken with people like me coming the other way. They lose btw.

I'll give free reign to my fascist tendencies and say I'm not entirely sure that these particular people are those who should determine policy for cycling infrastructure.....


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I've never heard anybody call for it to be ripped out (why waste twice the money), and I've hardly ever seen anybody using it.


Eh? It's jam-packed with cyclists every day I've seen it!


----------



## ozzage (13 Dec 2010)

Go there during peak time and it's over-capacity. It's such a start... widen it, extend it west (yeah it'll have some corners) and connect it to Hyde Park please... and then south and east to the city...


----------



## Dan B (13 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> Go there during peak time and it's over-capacity.


That doesn't tally with my experience, but the only time I've been there at peak hours it was about 2 degrees C. But nevertheless, I'm not surprised. It's about a foot wide in each direction and all the cyclists are perforce proceeding at the pace of the slowest boris biker in front of them


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> Go there during peak time and it's over-capacity. It's such a start... widen it, extend it west (yeah it'll have some corners) and connect it to Hyde Park please... and then south and east to the city...


show us the drawing..........


----------



## gaz (13 Dec 2010)

If you went in the summer before it was opened it was busy. It's not that much busier now.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (14 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> show us the drawing..........



How about a concrete example?

Here's an arterial road in Waltham Forest that is having two metres of road and pavement space reallocated. 

For parking. 

Cost - £450,000.


----------



## sheddy (14 Dec 2010)

and when in Copenhagen - http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-plans-super-highways--for-bikes-2151395.html

_"The jammed bike paths will be widened up to four metres (yards) on either side of the road, which will itself will be reserved for buses only"_


----------



## srw (14 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> The same route that is so well used and loved by the sort of people who don't post on cycling forums that it's barely passable due to the mass of bikes!!
> 
> I still prefer to cycle on it than on the road and feel myself relaxing when I reach it, even though it desperately needs to be wider and feels like being in a canyon because of the high straight curbing. It doesn't even matter if such cycle paths are actually MORE DANGEROUS than being on the road. As long as it feels safer then more people will be inclined to use them and as well all know, overall safety will increase with the increase in numbers.
> 
> I think that facility is an excellent example of the problems in the cycle campaigning. Many cyclists find the Tavistock path fantastic and will go out of their way to use it. And yet you find "old hands" on forums calling for it to be ripped out completely.



[We're arguing the toss about the Tavistock Square bike lane. Yet again.]

I use it going West-East because it's there, and because I was using that route for my commute long before it was there. Going East-West I tend to use it, simply because Tavistock Street is now so narrow (because of the kerb in the middle) and tends to have such a long queue of traffic that it's easier to cut across to join the bike lane than it is to stay in the road.

I certainly wouldn't call it "fantastic" - far too narrow, far too few points to hop off into the road, far too many point of conflict between bikes, pedestrians and motorised traffic. As others have pointed out, if it didn't exist it wouldn't be necessary to invent it. The congestion charge has more-or-less taken away it's raison d'etre.

It's always very busy between 8am and 9am and pretty busy between 5pm and 7pm - those of you who haven't seen it used might like to take an early or late ride for once, and join those of us who actually do some work!

The Tavistock Square bike lane is linked to another one on the right hand side of (one-way) Maple Street, a bit further west. It was pretty inoffensive, providing a neat way for cyclists to overtake other traffic and get to the TCR without thinking too hard. And then some muppet spotted that there was a conflict at the Fitzroy Street junction between bikes in the bike lane and cars turning right from Maple Street. And decided that the answer was a special bike lane phase on the traffic lights. I have never seen _anyone_ waiting at that phase. The law-abiding among us take to the main carriageway to use the "car" phase. Those who don't mind a spot of RLJing keep to the bike lane and skip straight through the red light. It's daft.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (14 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> The Tavistock Square bike lane is linked to another one on the right hand side of (one-way) Maple Street, a bit further west. It was pretty inoffensive, providing a neat way for cyclists to overtake other traffic and get to the TCR without thinking too hard. And then some muppet spotted that there was a conflict at the Fitzroy Street junction between bikes in the bike lane and cars turning right from Maple Street. And decided that the answer was a special bike lane phase on the traffic lights. I have never seen _anyone_ waiting at that phase. The law-abiding among us take to the main carriageway to use the "car" phase. Those who don't mind a spot of RLJing keep to the bike lane and skip straight through the red light. It's daft.



Yep, that's stupid. The issue seems to stem from the fact that the bike lane has been placed - counterintuitively - on the right side of the road along Maple Street, putting cyclists in a position where (right-turning) motorists will probably not expect them.

There doesn't appear to be any real reason why it's on that side, rather than on the left. Not sure what the thinking is there.

I've actually just been walking along Howland Street, where the segregated lane runs (sensibly) on the left. It seemed pretty busy - probably because the "traffic lane" was clogged with traffic. At a rough count, I'd say about 20:1 ratio using the segregated lane, versus the traffic lane - negotiating the traffic was easier.


----------



## srw (14 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> There doesn't appear to be any real reason why it's on that side, rather than on the left. Not sure what the thinking is there.



Think "integrated segregated cycle system" and you're there. The Maple Street route is part of a route which emanates from Clipstone Street. And the road configuration means that a right-hand-side route is essential.



> I've actually just been walking along Howland Street, where the segregated lane runs (sensibly) on the left. It seemed pretty busy - probably because the "traffic lane" was clogged with traffic. At a rough count, I'd say about 20:1 ratio using the segregated lane, versus the traffic lane - negotiating the traffic was easier.



Because that's a one-way street there's plenty of room to zip around the cycle lane onto the main carriageway. And it makes sense to do so, because unusually the cycle-only phase on the traffic lights has priority over the rest of the traffic, so it's easy to get a head start on everyone else. The other night I scalped a roadie on a Boris Bike just there.


----------



## stowie (15 Dec 2010)

This debate is really thought provoking for me. It is good to have one's preconceptions challenged at times.

I do not consider myself a segregationist. Vehicular cycling is extensively used even in places such as Holland or Denmark. I believe in the Netherlands that cycle paths have been around a long time (initially put in because of the appalling upkeep of the roads). We simply don't have this legacy of infrastructure. Putting it in quickly is a massive leap from where we are now.

On the other hand I don't think that vehicular cycling is suitable for all roads, or the answer for everything. The UK had a lamentable record of putting in urban "motorways" which carried on until even the 1990's. Look at the A11 out of Bow, or the A12 link road through Leytonstone. The A11 is used by cyclists including me, because we have to. It is mostly deeply unpleasant. The A12 link road is even worse, the road is out of bounds for cycles and cuts into two urban areas where the crossing over the A12 (with some exceptions like the Green Man Roundabout) are designed solely with the car in mind. Vehicular cycling in these conditions is sometimes not just taxing, it is impossible and illegal, and these road networks act as barriers to cycling. To aid permeability on these pretty hostile roads is essential.

I think that much of our road network can be tamed and reclaimed by vehicular cyclists. But significant portions simply can't. And town planning has geared towards the car for so many decades that I cannot see how we can alter transport use without remodelling at least some of the roads. I don't mean segregation - I am talking about making the road system smoother for cycles, putting in infrastructure to aid permeability and convenient and safe passage of cyclists through junctions. 

The problem with schemes like the Tottenham Hale revamp is that they put in whatever cycle "provision" that can fit around the central road scheme, which is itself completely designed for motor transport. No thought is given to the vehicular cyclist (even ASLs are only to be fitted in where they "can") - because presumably they think anyone cycling on the road is "confident" and the less confident will use the cycle "paths" provided. But even a cursory look at the paths makes one realise how utterly shoot they are. I often go around this one way system from Ferry Lane using the cycle path counter to the system to get to Chestnut Road which is closed to all traffic except cycles and leads to the A10 above the gyratory. If I wish to do this using the cycle paths on the plan, I will need to use eight separate crossings and cross seven side roads where presumably I will need to give way. This is just ludicrous. If this is the best that planners can come up with then I understand the view that we are better without any cycle provision.

I am just someone who cycles. I don't care if this is on cycle paths, roads or anything else, as long as the route is convenient, direct, safe and, if at all possible, pleasant. I am delighted that certain roads in London which were a nightmare for cyclists previously are being taken back by vehicular cyclists as our volumes increase. I just think that it would be quite jolly if this process could be helped by transport planners - whether that is helping vehicular cyclists by taming the roads, or by providing top quality infrastructure where this would allow cyclists to take advantage of the superb permeability of their transport.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (15 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> Think "integrated segregated cycle system" and you're there. The Maple Street route is part of a route which emanates from Clipstone Street. And the road configuration means that a right-hand-side route is essential.



Not sure how this works.

There is no cycle lane on Clipstone Street. And thus there is no reason why cyclists entering Maple Street from Clipstone Street should not stay to the left.

Can you explain what you mean?


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> How about a concrete example?
> 
> Here's an arterial road in Waltham Forest that is having two metres of road and pavement space reallocated.
> 
> ...


1. Arterial Road? That? Be sensible. 
2. Parking doesn't have to be continuous
3. So you'd spend £450,000 of other people's money for a bit of cycle path on one side of a suburban street? Apart from the fact that it's a waste - scale it up. We're talking hundreds of millions, billions even.
4. Show us the drawing


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Yep, that's stupid. The issue seems to stem from the fact that the bike lane has been placed - counterintuitively - on the right side of the road along Maple Street, putting cyclists in a position where (right-turning) motorists will probably not expect them.
> 
> There doesn't appear to be any real reason why it's on that side, rather than on the left. Not sure what the thinking is there.
> 
> I've actually just been walking along Howland Street, where the segregated lane runs (sensibly) on the left. It seemed pretty busy - probably because the "traffic lane" was clogged with traffic. At a rough count, I'd say about 20:1 ratio using the segregated lane, versus the traffic lane - negotiating the traffic was easier.


You're wrong about the ratio. I was there yesterday. Again, show us the drawing...........


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Dec 2010)

Stowie - people occupied houses and climbed trees in a vain attempt to prevent the A12 link being built, and nobody would pretend that it's fun to cycle on (although at certain times of the day you'd be the fastest thing on the road). 

But, equally, cyclists have taken to the A11 like ducks to water and it's due to become a CSH. Where TfL are failing is that they don't intend to take the CSH through the Bow Flyover to Stratford, and, if you feel like making the point about the junction to them you won't be the only one. (This weekend I'll be leading my CTC section over the flyover, as I do the FNRttC, but it's not universally likd.

We've done Tottenham Hale to death. There are plenty of examples of cycles being allowed on contraflow bus lanes, and this should be one of them. I'd make the entire street two-way, with bus lanes on both sides, and frequent pedestrian crossings, but we can all wish for stuff....


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (15 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> You're wrong about the ratio. I was there yesterday. Again, show us the drawing...........



Eh? You what? Because _you_ were there yesterday, the number of cyclists I counted - over a period of about ten minutes from quarter past six - using that segregated lane, versus the road, is wrong?

I mean, I could have stood there for about an hour to get a better sample size. But I saw what I saw. Don't say I'm wrong.


----------



## CopperBrompton (15 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Eh? You what? Because _you_ were there yesterday, the number of cyclists I counted - over a period of about ten minutes from quarter past six - using that segregated lane, versus the road, is wrong?


There are certain P&Lers who habitually mistake their own perceptions/beliefs and opinions for facts.


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Eh? You what? Because _you_ were there yesterday, the number of cyclists I counted - over a period of about ten minutes from quarter past six - using that segregated lane, versus the road, is wrong?
> 
> I mean, I could have stood there for about an hour to get a better sample size. But I saw what I saw. Don't say I'm wrong.


fine. You had a good day. Now show me the drawing.


----------



## ozzage (15 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> show us the drawing..........



Are you claiming that you can't put segregated cycle paths through BLOOMSBURY? Which has massively wide roads all over the place. You just need to reclaim some lanes and remove a lot of parking and make a few roads one-way to give enough width to the paths. The only arguments against it are cost and traffic flows. Not trivial, obviously, but it's about political will not technical limitation. You could have a fully segregated "super-highway" from Hyde Park to the existing Tavistock/Torrington path (which could itself be much widened with a one-way limitation for cars on that street).


I'm not a transport planner and I'm not going to spend five hours doing a drawing for some random guy on the internet but in that area street width is the least of your problems. We're not talking about Covent Garden here!


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Dec 2010)

show us the drawing........

and, as for spending five hours, I'd have thought that you'd have done it to convince yourself, if nothing else. To have something to refer to when promoting segregated paths. No? Oh well..........

And there are more arguments against than cost and traffic flows - many more. Reading this thread from the beginning might bring some to your attention, but, supposing that you're too busy wrestling with a 1:1250 scale map here's a few

1. The very streets that most need cyclists are our busy high streets, where there is no room, and no need for cycle paths (see diagram of Islington Green above)
2. Segregation is uncivilised - it inconveniences pedestrians and slices up public space. 
3. Nobody, other than a few eccentrics, wants it

I see you're back to the one-way thing. TfL is busy correcting the mistakes of the 1970s and getting rid of one-way streets. They're uncivilised, they increase car speeds, and nobody, other than motorvehicle drivers intent on driving straight through an area, wants them. 

The one thing you have to get hold of is this....it's not going to happen. We're going to have calmed areas, home zones, more bus lanes, more buses, more shared surfaces and it's all going to make London an even more wonderful city than it is now - but cycle lanes, they're not happening. And if someone proposes a cycle lane in my neck of the woods I'll be down the Town Hall objecting with the rest of them.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> I'm not a transport planner and I'm not going to spend five hours doing a drawing for *some random guy on the internet* but in that area street width is the least of your problems. We're not talking about Covent Garden here!




somebody tell politely tell ozzage who the 'random guy on the internet' is and what he has done for cycling on a local, regional, and national level please.

know thine enemy, ozzage, know thine enemy.


----------



## stowie (15 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> show us the drawing........
> 
> And there are more arguments against than cost and traffic flows - many more. Reading this thread from the beginning might bring some to your attention, but, supposing that you're too busy wrestling with a 1:1250 scale map here's a few
> 
> ...



Survey after survey indicates that many cyclists (and people who don't cycle currently) have proximity to fast traffic as a key issue that limits / stops them cycling. OK, so they may only _*think *_they want segregation from traffic (when in fact what they want is much slower traffic that gives them priority or at least consideration on the roads). The report that kicked off this thread said itself had this as an issue. The TfL report into outer London cycling has fear of traffic as a key issue as well.

I understand that a fear of traffic is different to wanting segregation. But it is easy how the two can be linked. Coupled with the fact that when you look at countries with high modal share, they nearly always have segregation on major roads, and it is easy to see how one can join the dots.

Who knows - maybe if TfL magically put in an entire cycling network along the lines of Amsterdam then non-cyclists would still find reasons to use their car instead. From the conversations on this thread, it seems to me that there are a couple of key things in all cities and towns with high modal share

1) By design or for historical reasons, driving is much more difficult and long-winded than other transport modes
2) That most, if not all, have benefited from road planning that accommodates cycling. I am not talking about segregation per-se, but the raft of road designs (two way cycling, permeability, reducing vehicle speed and density by cutting off rat-runs, strict liability etc.) that can help make cycling convenient and feel safer.

Maybe people (like me) think they want at least some segregation on certain roads because they think it is the only way to create pleasant cycling on these routes. If something else other than segregation on these routes has the this effect then, frankly I don't care what it is. And I think that there is a difference between major inner roads and central London where cycling is becoming of such density that the "critical mass" may be reached, and outer London where, even in places such as Newham and Waltham Forest (high density, lowish car ownership) it is difficult to see evidence in the statistics of this happening.


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> 1) By design or for historical reasons, driving is much more difficult and long-winded than other transport modes
> 2) That most, if not all, have benefited from road planning that accommodates cycling. I am not talking about segregation per-se, but the raft of road designs (two way cycling, permeability, reducing vehicle speed and density by cutting off rat-runs, strict liability etc.) that can help make cycling convenient and feel safer.


here we agree entirely. The virtue of homezones (sadly the brainchild of my least favourite NMP ever, but you can't win them all...) is that they cut through traffic, cut speeds, cut crime, cut accidents, and instill a greater sense of place. As well as making life more congenial for cyclists. And, lest we forget, not costing much.

And strict liability would be a wonderful thing.

I think we have to get ourselves in perspective. Cycling in and of itself isn't interesting to people who aren't cycling. It's what cycling contributes that is interesting. We can't pretend that it's ever going to do the job of the bus, but what it can do is to make streets friendlier, cheerier, safer, quieter places. It can help to regenerate local shopping (I'd add a whopping tax on car spaces to your list, Stowie). It can give youngsters cheap mobility. 

All of this is good, but suggesting that we inconvenience the rest of humanity at an exorbitant cost is misguided.


----------



## stowie (15 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> 1. Arterial Road? That? Be sensible.
> 2. Parking doesn't have to be continuous
> 3. So you'd spend £450,000 of other people's money for a bit of cycle path on one side of a suburban street? Apart from the fact that it's a waste - scale it up. We're talking hundreds of millions, billions even.
> 4. Show us the drawing



Wood Street in E17 is a cycling horror story. An abomination. A plague upon cycling happiness. 

Aside from that....

It is probably only going to get worse with the changes.

The issue is that the Street is too narrow and curvy to allow cars to overtake cyclists easily, but wide enough so that motorists think they should. And it has obstructive car parking (illegal and legal) most of the time, with sudden pinch points for pavement build outs and pedestrian refuges. And there are two schools on the road, and it is a small shopping area. And finally, the council, in their infinite wisdom stupidity have put in an on-road cycle lane that is about as narrow as my handlebars and runs right next to (and quite often under) long rows of parked cars. Thus re-enforcing the belief with motorists that they should be able to pass. I think it was Gaz that had a video of a horrid overtake into a pinch point on this road.

Wood Street could be designed with a segregated cycle lane - but frankly I don't really see the point as the road itself should, and could, be made friendly to on-road cycling. In some countries the street would be closed to private motor traffic and the whole thing made into a lovely pedestrian / cycling area with maybe a low-speed bus route. But that isn't going to happen here. To make it more cycling friendly the road needs to be 20mph with the sight-lines and road design making sure it is kept below this. Traffic is normally stuffed at the junction anyway (or slowed down by filtering into single car gaps in-between the parking), so it wouldn't slow down journey time at all. I think that some other countries can designate roads where it is illegal to overtake a cyclist (how this is enforced is beyond me) but a road like this where the benefits of an overtake are minuscule / none would certainly benefit from this if it would be adhered to.

Wood Street shopping area is slowly dying. The council, in a desperate attempt to resuscitate it are thinking that adding some (presumably 1/2 hour free) parking spaces then people will suddenly decide to drive there instead of continuing onto the large supermarkets up past the A406, or the retail parks in Tottenham Hale, Edmonton et al. with their free parking. What is needed is for the local shopping area to become more pleasant to shop in to attract local people who can walk (or cycle) there. Shop owners and the council believe that making it easier for motorists to park will change things, when the shops' catchment area doesn't require this.


----------



## stowie (15 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> here we agree entirely. The virtue of homezones (sadly the brainchild of my least favourite NMP ever, but you can't win them all...) is that they cut through traffic, cut speeds, cut crime, cut accidents, and instill a greater sense of place. As well as making life more congenial for cyclists. And, lest we forget, not costing much.
> 
> And strict liability would be a wonderful thing.
> 
> ...



I know there was that little incident in the economy involving the banks but are you saying that cycling uptake _isn't _the most important issue facing the UK today? 

And I did think that if we argued long enough on this thread we would eventually find something to agree on.






And here is another thing - the home zone idea is great. And, as you say, the real beauty of this scheme is that it helps cyclists whilst principally helping make the residents' lives nicer. My little one-way street it is a bit of a cut through. Traffic speeds are low in summer and much higher in winter, because in the good weather the kids play out on the pavement and road and motorists see this and take it really slowly. In winter they have no such psychological push. Putting in home zones around here would be fantastic and hopefully act as that push (alternatively I guess we could force our kids to play outside despite the weather).

I do think us cyclists can get the issues out of proportion, but it is interesting to me that my area has some really surprisingly low car ownership stats. In my ward 44% of households haven't got a car - and that doesn't include families like mine where my wife cannot drive and I use other transport methods in the local area. And my ward is actually a little higher than many. That means that a very large proportion of the residents in Walthamstow and Leyton don't benefit from the hundreds of thousands of pounds (probably millions) spent on extra parking, one way streets and all the other things that are implemented to keep private cars moving. So my question is often not why the council are or aren't spending money on cycling provision but why they spend so much money on car provision?


----------



## jonesy (15 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> Survey after survey indicates that many cyclists (and people who don't cycle currently) have proximity to fast traffic ...
> 
> 1) By design or for historical reasons, driving is much more difficult and long-winded than other transport modes
> 2) That most, if not all, have benefited from road planning that accommodates cycling. *I am not talking about segregation per-se, but the raft of road designs (two way cycling, permeability, reducing vehicle speed and density by cutting off rat-runs, strict liability etc.) that can help make cycling convenient and feel safer.*
> ...



What are you describing is basically the 'hiercharchy of provision' which has been the basis of good practice in cycle infrastructure guidance since the National Cycling Strategy.

See:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/engineering-planning/design-principles/

The hiercharacy doesn't say segregation is what you should automatically do, nor does it say it is wrong, it puts it into its appropriate context alongside other measures that should also be considered, and should generally be chosen before segregation. For all the reasons dellzeqq has given.


----------



## stowie (15 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Stowie - people occupied houses and climbed trees in a vain attempt to prevent the A12 link being built, and nobody would pretend that it's fun to cycle on (although at certain times of the day you'd be the fastest thing on the road).
> 
> But, equally, cyclists have taken to the A11 like ducks to water and it's due to become a CSH. Where TfL are failing is that they don't intend to take the CSH through the Bow Flyover to Stratford, and, if you feel like making the point about the junction to them you won't be the only one. (This weekend I'll be leading my CTC section over the flyover, as I do the FNRttC, but it's not universally likd.
> 
> We've done Tottenham Hale to death. There are plenty of examples of cycles being allowed on contraflow bus lanes, and this should be one of them. I'd make the entire street two-way, with bus lanes on both sides, and frequent pedestrian crossings, but we can all wish for stuff....



Not only would it be deeply unpleasant to cycle on the A12 link road (never tried, but I can use my imagination), it is actually illegal. Check out street view at the Green Man junction Leytonstone if you don't believe me. Or the Leyton junction next to the Olympics.

The A11 isn't too bad until before Bow flyover, and then it becomes diabolical (in my humble opinion). And it is much worse at the moment since the bus lane into Stratford is closed for road-works so one has the task of either fighting through traffic in the busy times or trying to prevent close passes by maintaining as primary position as one dares when the traffic is light. And, call me cynical, but the reason the CSH will stop at Bow is that the bow flyover is a problem that will require significant cash and / or reduction in road capacity for cars if anything is going to help cyclists on this stretch. Still, there is a consultation for extension, which sounds promising that TfL at are least looking at it.


----------



## stowie (15 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> What are you describing is basically the 'hiercharchy of provision' which has been the basis of good practice in cycle infrastructure guidance since the National Cycling Strategy.
> 
> See:
> http://www.dft.gov.u...ign-principles/
> ...



Yes! No fundamental objection to segregated cycle lanes, but a policy that enhances on-road cycle facilities in priority where possible. It just doesn't seem to be adopted by local councils when they re-model roads. 

As an aside, check out the link to the "necessary evils" section in the link you provided. It is a pdf which cautions against some bits of poor infrastructure. It made me chuckle that one photograph was of a cycle "plug" that they don't recommend, but said that councils often use this type of provision to comply with DfT regulations that don't allow an "except cycles" notice under a no-entry sign. Yet the next photograph highlighting good practice (in Holland) has _exactly _this sign arrangement to allow contra-flow cycling. Are the DfT advising councils to ignore their own regulations? How about the DfT amending this daft rule in the first place!


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> Not only would it be deeply unpleasant to cycle on the A12 link road (never tried, but I can use my imagination), it is actually illegal. Check out street view at the Green Man junction Leytonstone if you don't believe me. Or the Leyton junction next to the Olympics.
> 
> The A11 isn't too bad until before Bow flyover, and then it becomes diabolical (in my humble opinion). And it is much worse at the moment since the bus lane into Stratford is closed for road-works so one has the task of either fighting through traffic in the busy times or trying to prevent close passes by maintaining as primary position as one dares when the traffic is light. And, call me cynical, but the reason the CSH will stop at Bow is that the bow flyover is a problem that will require significant cash and / or reduction in road capacity for cars if anything is going to help cyclists on this stretch. Still, there is a consultation for extension, which sounds promising that TfL at are least looking at it.


not only do I believe you, Stowie, I've cycled past the signs saying 'no cycling'. And I was, by a stretch, the fastest thing on the road - despite my advanced years.

And, yes, we agree entirely about Stratford. The CSH's (sorry) funk some big choices which is why we await the west London CSH's with some uncertainty. I don't personally think that capacity is the problem at the roundabout, because it's the northbound on-ramp that causes the problems. I'd have thought a first step would be consideration of the kind of junction we have under the A20 at Kidbrooke, or the A406 at Ilford (but upside down, if you see what I mean) 

Wood Street is a mess (I've not been down it for a long time) but it's not an arterial road. It's one of those roads which is just the wrong width. Ken wanted to simply cut out parking on streets like Wood Street, but Johnson is of the opposite persuasion. Either way the design of the parking scheme is pretty silly, but I'm not sure that you can lay it at the door of TfL. It's a B-road. Is it on the TfL Road Network?


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2010)

stowie said:


> Yes! No fundamental objection to segregated cycle lanes, but a policy that enhances on-road cycle facilities in priority where possible. It just doesn't seem to be adopted by local councils when they re-model roads.
> 
> As an aside, check out the link to the "necessary evils" section in the link you provided. It is a pdf which cautions against some bits of poor infrastructure. It made me chuckle that one photograph was of a cycle "plug" that they don't recommend, but said that councils often use this type of provision to comply with DfT regulations that don't allow an "except cycles" notice under a no-entry sign. Yet the next photograph highlighting good practice (in Holland) has _exactly _this sign arrangement to allow contra-flow cycling. Are the DfT advising councils to ignore their own regulations? How about the DfT amending this daft rule in the first place!


it may be a daft rule, but there are plenty of 'except cycles' signs in London, at turns, and entries in to minor streets.


----------



## stowie (16 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> not only do I believe you, Stowie, I've cycled past the signs saying 'no cycling'. And I was, by a stretch, the fastest thing on the road - despite my advanced years.
> 
> And, yes, we agree entirely about Stratford. The CSH's (sorry) funk some big choices which is why we await the west London CSH's with some uncertainty. I don't personally think that capacity is the problem at the roundabout, because it's the northbound on-ramp that causes the problems. I'd have thought a first step would be consideration of the kind of junction we have under the A20 at Kidbrooke, or the A406 at Ilford (but upside down, if you see what I mean)
> 
> Wood Street is a mess (I've not been down it for a long time) but it's not an arterial road. It's one of those roads which is just the wrong width. Ken wanted to simply cut out parking on streets like Wood Street, but Johnson is of the opposite persuasion. Either way the design of the parking scheme is pretty silly, but I'm not sure that you can lay it at the door of TfL. It's a B-road. Is it on the TfL Road Network?



I drive on the A12 Link Road (and Blackwall Tunnel) regularly. I have no problem believing that you were the fastest thing on the road - this link road is stationary nearly every day at rush hour. Last year I was in a terrible traffic jam on this road where the fastest thing was actually a gentleman who clearly had enjoyed a very large quantity of alcohol and had presumably taken a wrong turn on his amble home. I would never cycle on this road because, even when it is jammed, the traffic jams can clear and form very quickly, and I would be concerned about being stuck on this road if traffic was travelling at the excessive speeds it does when the road is clear (another road crying out for average speed cams). So kudos to you for cycling this road, but I think you may be only a small select group willing to do so!

And I don't think Wood Street has anything to do with TfL (although on the maps it is classed as a major road). I drove down the road only today, and the fundamental issue isn't with parking, it is with people like the idiot in front of me who was determined to try to break the 30mph speed limit wherever he could, thus meaning he had to slam on the brakes multiple times as he conflicted with oncoming traffic going around parked cars. On one occasion he actually spent a considerable amount of time trying to squeeze past a bus when it would have been far quicker for him to have waited. Either the road is remodelled to try to prevent such stupidity, or the government start banning idiots from having driving licenses. Don't think the latter will happen...

You have provoked me into thinking that I should make contact with my local LCC, even if only to get an understanding of their take on things.

Finally, I know FreeWheeler may not be your number one blogger, but today he has a piece on Leytonstone High Road, and the plans that were made when the link road being considered that major redevelopment would happen to restrict / ban private cars and regenerate the area. As Freewheeler points out absolutely none of this happened.


----------



## ozzage (17 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> I certainly wouldn't call it "fantastic" - far too narrow, far too few points to hop off into the road, far too many point of conflict between bikes, pedestrians and motorised traffic. As others have pointed out, if it didn't exist it wouldn't be necessary to invent it.



I wouldn't call it fantastic either, but with a bit of work it could be! I stil prefer it to the road, except when it's overly jam packed because of the width. I still use it then because, as you say, it's faster than being amongst the cars. That's half the point of segregation! Overtaking the cars without having to weave or filter.



> I have never seen _anyone_ waiting at that phase. The law-abiding among us take to the main carriageway to use the "car" phase. Those who don't mind a spot of RLJing keep to the bike lane and skip straight through the red light. It's daft.



I wait there... usually 

To be honest, I don't use it very often. But I have used it during peak times several times as well as off-peak, including not long ago when it was completely dug up and a nightmare, and saw how busy it was every single time.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Dec 2010)

I'm still waiting for the drawing........


----------



## ozzage (17 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> show us the drawing........
> 
> and, as for spending five hours, I'd have thought that you'd have done it to convince yourself, if nothing else. To have something to refer to when promoting segregated paths. No? Oh well..........
> 
> ...



I don't need to draw a picture to know that New Cavendish Street could have cycle paths. Ditto for many other major roads in the area. Equivalent streets in the Netherlands would have cycle paths. End of. You would need to remove lanes/parking, obviously (as I said). (BTW I didn't say anything about Upper Street)

Where we need cycle paths are where cyclists need to get somewhere in a direct manner. I don't care about "where we need more cyclists". We need more cyclists where-ever they want to cycle, and that's where we should put in provisions to help them. It doesn't matter about the first 1/2 mile of your trip through 20mph zones and traffic calmed streets (which is how it is where I live - it differs for others obviously). Of course that stuff is also necessary and you'll get no argument from me - ditto re homezones etc. The the problem is getting between the first bit and the last bit. ie the several miles in the middle. In somewhere like the Netherlands, you ride to the cycle path if you don't live right near one, and then you start the long leg of your journey. The fact that it's missing is our biggest problem.

One-way systems. I'm not talking about major roads. The more gyratories ripped out the better. But where a direct cycling route can be found along medium-sized roads then converting to one-way can liberate space for cycle facilities.

Lastly... segregation is uncivilised? And yet leading cycling countries continue to install and improve segregated facilities where-ever possible. If it's all true that you're some cycling big-wig, then I'm sure you've done fact-finding missions etc abroad. Did you honestly come back thinking "terrible all this segregation everywhere. Don't know how they cope!" I find it hard to believe to be honest. Do you really find a city like Amsterdam uncivilised (and yes the very centre doesn't have many cycle paths, because they've removed the cars, but there are PLENTY of separate cycle paths all over the city along with plenty of one-way streets)

Edit: you must live on this forum!


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> I don't need to draw a picture to know that New Cavendish Street could have cycle paths. Ditto for many other major roads in the area. Equivalent streets in the Netherlands would have cycle paths. End of. You would need to remove lanes/parking, obviously (as I said). (BTW I didn't say anything about Upper Street)


show us the drawing. You're full of what you don't want - show us what you do want. By the way NCW is probably going to go two-way with shared surfaces, which will be wonderful. And putting segregated paths in a Georgian street would be a disgrace 



ozzage said:


> Where we need cycle paths are where cyclists need to get somewhere in a direct manner. I don't care about "where we need more cyclists". We need more cyclists where-ever they want to cycle, and that's where we should put in provisions to help them. !


why? Why do we need more cyclists? I have an idea, but I seriously doubt if you do. 


ozzage said:


> Lastly... segregation is uncivilised? !


it is indeed. Civilisation is about people getting on together in towns and creating a culture that is open to all


----------



## ozzage (17 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> show us the drawing. You're full of what you don't want - show us what you do want. By the way NCW is probably going to go two-way with shared surfaces, which will be wonderful. And putting segregated paths in a Georgian street would be a disgrace
> 
> why? Why do we need more cyclists? I have an idea, but I seriously doubt if you do.



haha Georgian streets. Do you honestly find a bike path uglier than a wide street with cars parked all down it and ugly painted lines down the side!?? And you're a cycling campaigner. You're fine for CARS to have their own lanes, but not for BIKES. You think that BIKE LANES are ugly and spoil a Georgian Street but CAR LANES full of large humps of metal are not???? My god.

Presumably you want more cyclists due to "safety in numbers". I do too. But that's a nice (and valuable) effect of getting people to cycle, it's not the way to do it. Cycling is already safe. And yet people don't do it because it doesn't SEEM safe. You have to negotiate buses and cars and taxis. You have to be on your guard. You have to make decisions about whether you can fit or not. Can I make it to the front before the lights change? Is that bus stopping there? Is it pulling out? etc etc etc... These things are the problem. They make cycling unpleasant for most people.

Riding primary doesn't help any of this. Cycle training just scares normal people off and makes it seem like some extreme sport. Sure, having more cyclists helps, but most people still aren't going to cycle amongst buses, taxis, white vans and all the rest. NEVER. NEVER EVER. This idea has failed, and now cities all over the world are investing in proper cycling facilities, at the same time as those which already have such facilities continue to improve them.

Are you're apparently obsessed with trying to prove that cycling facilities won't fit on roads which are clearly wide enough. And stating in absolute terms that countries such as DK and NL are wrong in their approach, which IS, even if you don't like it, to continue to implement and improve segregated facilities on major roads.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> haha Georgian streets. Do you honestly find a bike path uglier than a wide street with cars parked all down it and ugly painted lines down the side!?? And you're a cycling campaigner. You're fine for CARS to have their own lanes, but not for BIKES. You think that BIKE LANES are ugly and spoil a Georgian Street but CAR LANES full of large humps of metal are not???? My god.
> 
> Presumably you want more cyclists due to "safety in numbers". I do too. But that's a nice (and valuable) effect of getting people to cycle, it's not the way to do it. Cycling is already safe. And yet people don't do it because it doesn't SEEM safe. You have to negotiate buses and cars and taxis. You have to be on your guard. You have to make decisions about whether you can fit or not. Can I make it to the front before the lights change? Is that bus stopping there? Is it pulling out? etc etc etc... These things are the problem. They make cycling unpleasant for most people.
> 
> ...


you presume a lot of things. No I don't think that a bike path is uglier, than a wide street with parked cars - it's simply that slicing up public space is inherently uncivilised. Which is why the shared surface experiment is such a wonderful thing..

And you presume I want more cyclists due to 'safety in numbers'. While there is safety in numbers, again, you presume in error - but what's really telling is that you don't, or won't say why you think there being more cyclists is a good thing. I suspect you haven't thought it through.... 

And I make no judgement of the Netherlands. I don't care about the Netherlands. I simply state the obvious - cycle lanes in cities such as London would cost a fortune, are not practicable and thoroughly undesirable.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Dec 2010)

...oh, and, lest we forget, are not going to happen


----------



## ozzage (17 Dec 2010)

I didn't realise you were asking why I wanted more cyclists. I want more cyclists because I believe it makes a civilised city. Because it's clean. Because it makes people fitter, and happier. Because it leaves our streets slower, and friendlier, and more personal. You didn't mention why you do though... do tell!

I'm not opposed to shared space. Shared space on long roads used for actual transport purposes are impractical, though. Shared space on a shopping street or at a "destination", great! Really. I go out of my way and ride to Exhibition Road sometimes just to check the progress because I'm all in favour of such schemes. However, you can't have shared space everywhere where people actually need to chew up some distance with some speed.

If you are opposed to segregation simply due to believing that it's impossible, then I can accept that, although I don't agree. Times have changed and ARE changing all over the world and will change in the UK too eventually. If you're opposed because you believe that cycling on the road is the best way and people just need to be convinced, then I couldn't disagree more. Not that it matters anyway


----------



## jonesy (17 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> ... but most people still aren't going to cycle amongst buses, taxis, white vans and all the rest. NEVER. NEVER EVER. ...



Like they don't in Oxford and Cambridge you mean? Never, never never? I don't know how many times it has to be pointed out that Oxford and Cambridge have very little segregated provision, and even less that is useful...



That said, I visited Copenhagen a couple of times this year, and must confess that my usual sceptism towards segregation was challenged. They really have made segregation work there. However, dellzeqq's "show us the drawing" is still the question that has to be answered, otherwise we end up with expensive farcilities that we are better off without. London's streets aren't directly comparable to Copenhagen, it is a much bigger city with a vastly greater level of inward commuting from a much wider catchment area. The one aspect of Copenhagen's segregated lanes that I didn't think worked well was the bus stops- stuck between the busy cycle lane and the main carriageway, bus users are at risk of being run over by cyclists and I can't imagine anyone with limited mobility likes the arrangement at all. Copenhagen doesn't have anything like the level of bus use of London, and there are far fewer buses. And local deliveries must be very difficult to manage. You simply can't dismiss the practical difficulties by saying "they do it in Europe so it must work". Let's look at other elements of the Hierarchy first, segregation isn't the only tool in the box. And the Hierarchy is based on Dutch guidance, so clearly they don't think segregation is the first or best option either.


----------



## ozzage (18 Dec 2010)

If we can get 30% modal share we'll need FAR fewer buses too  By the same token, we have a mega-tube-system unlike either Copenhagen OR Amsterdam which takes the majority of the load and doesn't take up any cycling space. I don't think it should be underestimated what an incredibly huge difference it would make to London's transport system if we had "Amsterdam" levels of cycling. We would need, quite simply, far less road space for motorised vehicles (although actually that would have to be a cause, not an effect). Point taken anyway - London is massive and has a massive population and we're a LONG way off having a modal share while will dent public transport usage in any meaningful way.

One problem is that everything here is seen as a new problem. Take banning lorries (I know you didn't mention this). Everybody points out the issues with it without realising that these issues have been solved in other cities before and those lessons can be learned. Obviously it's more difficult to do it that way, but in some places it's viewed as being worth the annoyance for the benefits that it brings. It's the same with bike paths. NL has spent years finding ways to restructure things so that bike paths will fit and cars are made to suffer, and the people love it. We just sit here and say "nope, roads too narrow" and it's complete bollocks. This stuff has all been done before. Of course things aren't identical here but go in with the right people with the right experience and the right brief and budget, and it's possible to create an environment with a similar effect.

Ultimately this needs wholesale change of attitude to free up enough space but we can start with one route at a time. In some places like Gronigen they ripped out entire major road systems to turn the city centre into virtually a car free environment. Not doable in London in any sort of short or medium term, but shows what is possible with the right political will. Surely ripping out some parking and a few traffic lanes isn't completely unthinkable.

re Oxford and Cambridge, I've never cycled nor spent time in either. When I look at the Cambridge Cycling Campaign website they seem to be promoting the installation of segregated cycle paths, so I guess they see value in them and believe that they help. I have no personal experience to fall back on but certainly the CCC website looks "pro-facilities". I know that Oxford is renowned for it's narrow on-street cycle lanes which don't count as segregation for me, to be honest, but aren't VC. To be honest it's hard for me to comment on those two cities.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2010)

we're never going to need fewer buses. Cities like Bologna, with lots of cyclists (and no cycle lanes to speak of, just a medieval street grid) have buses stored for rainy days.

And that, my segregationist friend is the bottom line. The saving grace of urban transport is not the bike. It's the bus. Cycling does have the potential to make London a more civilised place, but it's scarcely been realised so far, least of all in Tavistock Square, because London's cyclists are, well, Londoners. Cyclists do slow traffic, as we see on CS7, but they do it by virtue of having a bus lane to congregate in. All in all, though, while cycling is a cheap hit for transport planners, it's not the big item, which is intraurban rail (which costs a fortune) and buses (which cost far less, except when the egregrious Johnson gets his dopey hands on them). 

Buses that are regular, predictable, comfortable, clean and full of people (as was my bus home last night at one o'clock in the morning), buses that are democratic, vessels of civic pride have transformed London since Ken (God bless him and all his works) worked out that they worked for us. The GLA spent £140M on LCN+ and nobody used it, and then, whoosh, all of a sudden bus lanes on main roads were full of bikes, ridden, very often, by people who were taking to the bike out of fear after 7/7. TfL will continue, despite opposition from the Mayor, to protect neighbourhoods from the car, and bikes will gain a competitive advantage in the suburbs in the way they've gained it in zones 1 and 2, but the future of commuting cycling in London is in bus lanes, and as an adjunct to a wonderful bus service.

Which is just as well, because one of the inconvenient truths that we are going to get our heads around is that in a few years time CS7 will be at capacity - it is close to it now in parts during the evening rush hour. The LCC (or, at least, the hippy wing of the LCC) and Sustrans haven't got hold of the idea yet that traffic volumes in London are so great that you cannot take bikes on paths and make a difference - you need to have broad lanes on direct routes to do that. Hence, for all its faults, CS7, and, maybe, in five or ten years time, CS7(2) going down the A23, with remodelled junctions and gated side streets to limit hand turns for motor vehicles and, in doing so, create home zones. 

You pedal round and round Tavistock Square all you want. The rest of us have fatter fish to fry.


----------



## CopperBrompton (18 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> buses that are democratic


That would be an interesting experiment. "All those in favour of that annoying bloke eating a big Mac being thrown off the bus, say Aye."



> the future of commuting cycling in London is in bus lanes


Which would of course be vastly improved if they didn't have these annoying buses in them ...


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2010)

..and so, having journeyed to work, and awaiting the return of the Men of Steel, having given thanks to the Ken the God of all Bus Lanes for having the 38 and 73 buses keep the tarmac free of ice (I imagine that Tavistock Square's hommage to Groningen is like a skating rink right now) I return to the theme......

...of the 73 and 38 buses. Sometime earlier this year I watched those two lines start out from Victoria. One 73 bendybus (God bless bendybuses and all who ride in them) pulled out from Victoria every three minutes - full to the gunwales. One 38 bendybus (ditto) pulled out every three minutes. That's almost 100 bus passengers a minute on just two lines. Now, I know a thing or two about getting cyclists out of Victoria Station - in fact I probably know as much as anybody on the subject. There is no way you're going to get 100 Bromptonistes a minute out of Victoria station. And I am telling you that Victoria is not Centraal station - there is nowhere that you are going to store the number of bikes that you would need to put those hundred folk a minute on bikes. 

Some things bikes do brilliantly. People find their potential in cycling, they find an inner peace, they find the beauty of nature and the wonder of cities. Bicycles are (almost) democratic, they're aids to conversation, and they can play a part in making cities more congenial. They can bolster local high street and corner shop trade rather than hypermarket trade. They give kids independence. Rumour has it they're cheap. They require little or no public investment. But mass transit in 9 million people cities - they help, certainly, and could help London a great deal more than they do now, but they're not the biggest, quickest fix, which is always going to be trains and buses delivering people within walking distance of their destination. And here's the saddest thing. A congenial city is, among other things, a city that allows my mum, (or a seven year old) to cross the road when and where she wants. How do cycle lanes do that? They don't. They just make it more difficult. How do cycle lanes help small shops in high streets - they don't - they cut off the frontage. How do cycle lanes help wheelchair users? I leave that one to you.

Stowie mentioned two things that really could do with expanding on. Strict liability insurance is, potentially, the biggest thing for cycling you can imagine. In 1970s Vancouver the state owned monopoly car insurance company told drivers they wouldn't be covered if they hit a pedestrian. Result - pedestrians stepped off the kerb with the air of seaside promenaders. vehiclle speeds dropped to 25mph on broad suburban streets and cyclists multiplied like rabbits in a city in which the climate is rubbish (I remember it raining every day in August). So - strict liability insurance could change our streets for the better, reduce speed, reduce injuries, and cost, in aggregate, nothing at all.

The other point he made was about Hyde Park. There's no question that the paths parallel to Park Lane are a good thing. The question is - what's the potential of paths across parks? I'm pretty gloomy about them. I accept that they give cyclists a competitive advantage, I accept that they increase permeability, and that they offer another layer of oversight which may deter crime. On the other hand - some of us who campaigned for the path across Tooting Common back in the 80s have to recognise the resentment that's caused by cyclists effectively cutting the common in half - as we have to recognise that the small number of cyclists on canal towpaths are not neccessarily an ornament. I suspect that circumstances alter cases. The path across Clapham Common, which affords cyclists a safe and convenient route from Streatham, Balham, Clapham and points south to Chelsea Bridge seems to work well, but then it's not as well used as one would imagine it could be. The general point is that there is a heirarchy of provision and that pedestrians, not cyclists, are at the top of that heirarchy.

And - the steel men are here, the carpenters are here, the sparks is here!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Dec 2010)

Can I just say one, or maybe two things.....

All who vociferously advocate urbane Dutch and Danish models for us in urban Blightly. Are you going to adopt their model wholesale....? Riding in normal clothes, upright bikes, no more lycra, hardly a drop bar in sight, hipsters on fixed looked at askance, going considerably slower, etc., etc.. No? Thought not.

So ask a different question. Why do johnny and joanna foreigner, with their enviable modal share, ride in a 'style' that is as utterly, UTTERLY, different to the great mass of riders in London as it is possible to adopt? And 'infrastructure is not the answer.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Can I just say one, or maybe two things.....
> 
> All who vociferously advocate urbane Dutch and Danish models for us in urban Blightly. Are you going to adopt their model wholesale....? Riding in normal clothes, upright bikes, no more lycra, hardly a drop bar in sight, hipsters on fixed looked at askance, going considerably slower, etc., etc.. No? Thought not.
> 
> So ask a different question. Why do johnny and joanna foreigner, with their enviable modal share, ride in a 'style' that is as utterly, UTTERLY, different to the great mass of riders in London as it is possible to adopt? And 'infrastructure is not the answer.



I'd love to be able to cycle in a slower and more relaxed fashion in normal clothes, for day-to-day activities. It's a pain in the arse having to change in and out of cycling clobber. The problem is I feel safer on the roads if I can keep my pace up - negotiating with traffic becomes easier - and that of course necessitates lycra, dropped bars, and so on. 

I wouldn't say I am a "vociferous" advocate of the Dutch and Danish model. I fact, I would say that we are in great danger of overstating the differences between "vehicularists" and "segregationists" - it's sad but inevitable, I think.

We all want to see more people cycling - especially people who don't ride at all. We all want to see streets that are safer and more civilised for pedestrians and cyclists. And there's a very large overlap of agreement in the methods that should be employed, certainly on quieter streets, where segregation should not be at all necessary - I'm thinking of things like lower speed limits, restricted access for cars, more shared space, and so on. 

At the other extreme, an area where the case for segregation is - I think! - unanswerable is along major A and B roads between towns. I avoid these like the plague because they are so deeply unpleasant to cycle along. I am never going to cycle on the A281 between Horsham and Guildford ever again, unless there are major changes. Likewise the A29. Too many near death experiences. There is no margin at the side, and the speed differential is so great, it's frankly terrifying. Look at the KSI locations for cyclists - such a large number are on busy "rural" A and B roads, out of all proportion with the number of cyclists using them.


----------



## srw (18 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> haha Georgian streets. Do you honestly find a bike path uglier than a wide street with cars parked all down it and ugly painted lines down the side!?? And you're a cycling campaigner. You're fine for CARS to have their own lanes, but not for BIKES. You think that BIKE LANES are ugly and spoil a Georgian Street but CAR LANES full of large humps of metal are not???? My god.



Hold on just one moment. How do you get a BIKE LANE without creating a CAR LANE next door to it?


----------



## srw (18 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> I'd love to be able to cycle in a slower and more relaxed fashion in normal clothes, for day-to-day activities. It's a pain in the arse having to change in and out of cycling clobber. The problem is I feel safer on the roads if I can keep my pace up - negotiating with traffic becomes easier - and that of course necessitates lycra, dropped bars, and so on.



No it doesn't. Trust me on that. One of the joys of the Boris Bike is that I've realised that cycling through London is just as fun, and just as safe, on a slow, heavy bike in a suit as it is on a Brompton in lycra. 



> At the other extreme, an area where the case for segregation is - I think! - unanswerable is along major A and B roads between towns. I avoid these like the plague because they are so deeply unpleasant to cycle along. I am never going to cycle on the A281 between Horsham and Guildford ever again, unless there are major changes.



The minor route via Ewhurst is actually shorter than the A281 or the B2126. You won't get cars doing silly speeds along that, and I happen to know quite well (we used to have a training centre in Ewhurst) that it's very quiet outside peak times. In that context, the case for separation falls over - segregated routes over 20 hilly miles are terribly expensive (just think of all the re-landscaping!) and there are viable alternatives.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> Hold on just one moment. How do you get a BIKE LANE without creating a CAR LANE next door to it?


bollocks. I wish I'd said that. You are the Whistler to my impoverished Wilde


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2010)

I will concede that there are primary routes in the countryside that could really do with an enlarged (and swept) hard shoulder. The short section of the A12 that doesn't have the old Roman road running parallel comes to mind. (I'm not sure that there isn't a seperate cycle path to the side that's overgrown). And the A281 isn't fun to ride on unless you're a sad middle-aged man desperately trying to prove something - but, as srw says, it's a heck of an ask to put a lane to even just one side when there's a decent route to the east.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> I'd love to be able to cycle in a slower and more relaxed fashion in normal clothes, for day-to-day activities. It's a pain in the arse having to change in and out of cycling clobber. The problem is I feel safer on the roads if I can keep my pace up - negotiating with traffic becomes easier - and that of course necessitates lycra, dropped bars, and so on.



Ride a boris bike. for day-to-day activities. it's what I do when work takes me to London. no chance of wearing lycra I have to dress for the destination, usually a meeting at which I'm representing my employers, not the journey. Sometimes I take my Strida. No question of keeping up the pace on that. Personally I think arse up heads down is a dreadful riding position for commuting, and I'm a big fan of cross top levers as a result.



> I wouldn't say I am a "vociferous" advocate of the Dutch and Danish model. I fact, I would say that we are in great danger of overstating the differences between "vehicularists" and "segregationists" - it's sad but inevitable, I think.



This is the interwebs. It ain't real life. debate gets polarised because people like to take a pose on things.

I'm not really in either camp. I just ride where I'm allowed to do so, if a cycle path works for me I'll ride on the path, if it doesn't I won't. So few of them do work for me on so many levels.



> We all want to see more people cycling - especially people who don't ride at all. We all want to see streets that are safer and more civilised for pedestrians and cyclists. And there's a very large overlap of agreement in the methods that should be employed, certainly on quieter streets, where segregation should not be at all necessary - I'm thinking of things like lower speed limits, restricted access for cars, more shared space, and so on.



20's plenty et al. Yep we agree



> At the other extreme, an area where the case for segregation is - I think! - unanswerable is along major A and B roads between towns. I avoid these like the plague because they are so deeply unpleasant to cycle along. I am never going to cycle on the A281 between Horsham and Guildford ever again, unless there are major changes. Likewise the A29. Too many near death experiences. There is no margin at the side, and the speed differential is so great, it's frankly terrifying. Look at the KSI locations for cyclists - such a large number are on busy "rural" A and B roads, out of all proportion with the number of cyclists using them.



But each one of those major roads has a network of delightful country lanes enabling you to avoid them if you choose. So no need for segregation or special infrastructure. I have so many choices on how to get to Guildford I rarely ride the same way twice. Ditto going south west down the A29 corridor. Ditto going to Brighton. That said I've ridden both A281 and A29 and A272 (and - how mad am I - A24 Horsham to Worthing in fog) and whilst the experiences were less pleasant than lane-ing it I'd not describe them as terrifying. Certainly not as terrifying as my regular encounter with a double mini roundabout on the A272 in Haywards Heath that I tackle twice every weekday. Cycling in Haywards Heath, where there is zero safety in numbers, and only crazy people ride bikes, is the most terrifying thing I ever do on two wheels. Luckily my workplace is on the outskirts.

My local campaign group has problems convincing people that the new Crawley-Horsham cycle route, on lanes and surfaced tracks, is a worthwhile option as local people prefer to ride straight down the A264 dual carriageway. It's faster, has more favourable gradients, is more direct, and they feel, safer than the lanes, and I admit when I need to get to Crawley in a hurry I go that way, with lights blazing. The leisure cyclists love the new route, the utility cyclists stick with the main road. Me? I take my folder or another bike on the train as I live 100m from Horsham station.

So maybe the issue is not vehicularist vs segregationist but vehicularist vs segregationist vs utility-ist vs leisure-ist?

Me? I'm for a Free Galilee.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> And *the A281 isn't fun to ride on unless you're a sad middle-aged man desperately trying to prove something* - but, as srw says, it's a heck of an ask to put a lane to even just one side when there's a decent route to the east.



So that's why I ride on it. Dang.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2010)

actually I adore the A29. Sorry. But, again, the A272 is not for me. And the B2139 up to the hill above Arundel isn't good. So I go a different, shorter way. 

In towns there's usually plenty of options if you don't fancy the major roads, but, again, it looks as if the major radial roads in London are coming our way.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> actually I adore the A29. Sorry. But, again, the A272 is not for me. And the B2139 up to the hill above Arundel isn't good. So I go a different, shorter way.
> 
> In towns there's usually plenty of options if you don't fancy the major roads, but, again, it looks as if the major radial roads in London are coming our way.



Actually in some of the towns I frequent around here you have very little in the way of options. Horsham, Haywards Heath and Chichester all leap to mind, Chi, in fact, is a disaster darling. Crawley is quite good; thanks to a splendid CTC RtR volunteer and an active cycle forum and sympathetic council. Guildford leaves a bit to be desired too.


----------



## ozzage (18 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> Hold on just one moment. How do you get a BIKE LANE without creating a CAR LANE next door to it?



You don't need a road to make bike paths so I assume you're being pedantic about the words I used, but I'm not sure what your point is. Honestly. I didn't say anything about not have car lanes, so what are you on about?


----------



## ozzage (18 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> All who vociferously advocate urbane Dutch and Danish models for us in urban Blightly. Are you going to adopt their model wholesale....? Riding in normal clothes, upright bikes, no more lycra, hardly a drop bar in sight, hipsters on fixed looked at askance, going considerably slower, etc., etc.. No? Thought not.



Yes! No lycra. Fewer road bikes. Normal clothes. That's EXACTLY what I want to see. None of it is necessary unless you're doing very long distances, and people need to realise that the cycling "uniform" just further alienates non-cyclists and makes it seem like an activity for "freaks" not "normal" people. I know you won't agree, but I don't care because I've experienced the other side and from that perspective it all looks so ridiculous here with bright colours and arse in air.

You also might be surprised how fast you get from point to point in NL, due to the direct routes and priority measures.


----------



## ozzage (18 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> Read about Daniel Cadden. That is the natural consequence of separation. I believe that it actually is the law for some or all separate cycle lanes in Holland, although as in everything else I may be wrong.



True that some are mandatory, but in 3 1/2 years I never heard a single complaint about that. There the paths work, and improve the experience so much that people would think you're mad if you then CHOSE to ride on the road.


----------



## ozzage (18 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> You are not picking up the point about creating a car lane though. A road is a road is a road, open to all classes of user. Once you create a separate cycle lane you are implicitly creating a car lane out of the remainder of the road, with the idea that this belongs to car drivers and not to cyclists or pedestrians.



ahh sorry now I understand your point.

Yes that's what I want. Next to major roads. That's segregation. I don't want it mandatory and would actively campaign against that, but to be quietly honest I don't care that much, because I don't care about lycra-clad road bikers who are worried about their speed. They'll keep riding anyway, even if they don't like it. I care far more about the rest population who remain opposed and are silent because currently they don't care.

Not going to be a popular viewpoint on this forum, I'm sure .


----------



## Ticktockmy (18 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> At the other extreme, an area where the case for segregation is - I think! - unanswerable is along major A and B roads between towns. I avoid these like the plague because they are so deeply unpleasant to cycle along. I am never going to cycle on the A281 between Horsham and Guildford ever again, unless there are major changes. Likewise the A29. Too many near death experiences. There is no margin at the side, and the speed differential is so great, it's frankly terrifying. Look at the KSI locations for cyclists - such a large number are on busy "rural" A and B roads, out of all proportion with the number of cyclists using them.



There is a cycleroute all the way from Guildford to Christ hospital then B roads into Horsham, but the route over Baynards tunnel can be a bit of a huff and puff well it is for this old fellow:-), and of course not so fast a the road route out throught Cranliegh and Ewhurst.


----------



## jonesy (18 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> If we can get 30% modal share we'll need FAR fewer buses too  By the same token, *we have a mega-tube-system unlike either Copenhagen OR Amsterdam which takes the majority of the load* and doesn't take up any cycling space. *I don't think it should be underestimated what an incredibly huge difference it would make to London's transport system if we had "Amsterdam" levels of cycling. * We would need, quite simply, far less road space for motorised vehicles (although actually that would have to be a cause, not an effect). Point taken anyway - London is massive and has a massive population and we're a LONG way off having a modal share while will dent public transport usage in any meaningful way.



I don't think you can have looked at the figures...
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Travel-in-London-report-1.pdf

Can you identify the group of trips that can be readily transferred to cycling? Distance matters a great deal here, and London has large commute distances than most places.



> One problem is that everything here is seen as a new problem. Take banning lorries (I know you didn't mention this). Everybody points out the issues with it without realising that these issues have been solved in other cities before and those lessons can be learned. Obviously it's more difficult to do it that way, but in some places it's viewed as being worth the annoyance for the benefits that it brings. It's the same with bike paths. NL has spent years finding ways to restructure things so that bike paths will fit and cars are made to suffer, and the people love it. We just sit here and say "nope, roads too narrow" and it's complete bollocks. This stuff has all been done before. Of course things aren't identical here but go in with the right people with the right experience and the right brief and budget, and it's possible to create an environment with a similar effect.
> 
> Ultimately this needs wholesale change of attitude to free up enough space but we can start with one route at a time. In some places like Gronigen they ripped out entire major road systems to turn the city centre into virtually a car free environment. Not doable in London in any sort of short or medium term, but shows what is possible with the right political will. Surely ripping out some parking and a few traffic lanes isn't completely unthinkable.
> 
> r*e Oxford and Cambridge, I've never cycled nor spent time in either.* When I look at the Cambridge Cycling Campaign website they seem to be promoting the installation of segregated cycle paths, so I guess they see value in them and believe that they help. I have no personal experience to fall back on but certainly the CCC website looks "pro-facilities". I know that Oxford is renowned for it's narrow on-street cycle lanes which don't count as segregation for me, to be honest, but aren't VC. To be honest it's hard for me to comment on those two cities.



Well as you are so insistent that we can learn from European cities with high levels of cycling, would it not be appropriate also to see what is going on in British cities with high levels of cycling? Because, for the nth time of repetition, the vast majority of cycling in both cities takes place on the road, with the cars, buses, white vans etc, the sort of thing you said will NEVER happen. Furthermore, while there have been efforts, mixed, to introduce cycling specific facilities over the years, the growth in cycling, which occurred in Oxford in the late 70s and early 80s, pre-dates it. And both cities have high levels of bus use as well. 

There are many other factors that affect cycle use; clearly segregation is neither a necessary condition (e.g. Oxford) nor sufficient (Milton Keynes), so we really have to understand what actually makes a difference, and what is most appropriate under different circumstances. Hence approaches like the previously mentioned Hierarchy of provision. Segregation at all costs has given us the crappiest bits of the NCN and LCN, wasted loads of money and political support for cycling, and very often made things worse for existing cyclists than they were before.


----------



## stowie (18 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Stowie mentioned two things that really could do with expanding on. Strict liability insurance is, potentially, the biggest thing for cycling you can imagine. In 1970s Vancouver the state owned monopoly car insurance company told drivers they wouldn't be covered if they hit a pedestrian. Result - pedestrians stepped off the kerb with the air of seaside promenaders. vehiclle speeds dropped to 25mph on broad suburban streets and cyclists multiplied like rabbits in a city in which the climate is rubbish (I remember it raining every day in August). So - strict liability insurance could change our streets for the better, reduce speed, reduce injuries, and cost, in aggregate, nothing at all.
> 
> The other point he made was about Hyde Park. There's no question that the paths parallel to Park Lane are a good thing. The question is - what's the potential of paths across parks? I'm pretty gloomy about them. I accept that they give cyclists a competitive advantage, I accept that they increase permeability, and that they offer another layer of oversight which may deter crime. On the other hand - some of us who campaigned for the path across Tooting Common back in the 80s have to recognise the resentment that's caused by cyclists effectively cutting the common in half - as we have to recognise that the small number of cyclists on canal towpaths are not neccessarily an ornament. I suspect that circumstances alter cases. The path across Clapham Common, which affords cyclists a safe and convenient route from Streatham, Balham, Clapham and points south to Chelsea Bridge seems to work well, but then it's not as well used as one would imagine it could be. The general point is that there is a heirarchy of provision and that pedestrians, not cyclists, are at the top of that heirarchy.
> 
> And - the steel men are here, the carpenters are here, the sparks is here!



I think Strict Liability (I hate that term, completely incorrect, more a presumption of liability for civil matters) is a great idea. In actual fact, I think it is more than a great idea, I think it is absolutely critical - especially when one considers the incredible comments coming from judges from time to time on cycling matters. But I don't think it would increase modal share or change drivers' behaviour. Most bad driving isn't because the driver feels they haven't got to worry about their no-claims bonus - it stems from ignorance of their actions and a misplaced sense of ownership of the roads. Most drivers don't want to hurt or kill cyclists, they are simply unaware of the consequences of their actions. On the flip side, the Daily Wail hysteria about cyclists acting with impunity and hurling themselves under the cars of hapless motorists when they feel like some more cash is utterly ludicrous - again most people wouldn't think that maiming themselves for some compensation is a particularly good deal.

The Vancouver insurance, if the modal share is actually causal and not simply a correlation, is significantly different anyway. From your description, instead of the insurance paying out, the motorist was told "hit a pedestrian and you are on your own". Completely liable for court costs and compensation. That, as a motorist, would make _me _think twice (on top of the fact that one would never want the injury of a fellow human on one's conscience).

I didn't mention about Hyde Park - I think that was another poster. But I did mention about the towpaths, and you are right, I don't think cyclists are entirely accepted on these paths (not least because they are pretty narrow and sometimes in a poor state of repair). But on the Lea Valley Tow Path and the surrounding canals, I can assure you that in the summer they are pretty busy with cyclists - both for commuting and leisure. They are also rather wonderful - an incredible way to get in and out of the city without the bother of traffic (and also a great excuse to enjoy the wonderful Victoria Park!)


----------



## srw (18 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> There are many other factors that affect cycle use; clearly segregation is neither a necessary condition (e.g. Oxford) nor sufficient (Milton Keynes), so we really have to understand what actually makes a difference,



People in Oxford are civilised, svelte, intelligent, all-round good eggs. People in MK are numpties.

More seriously, I think it's clear from Oxford, Cambridge and London that having a large population of relatively young people with relatively little money and filthily expensive and inconvenient parking makes people look to solutions other than driving. That may be buses, tubes or cycling.


----------



## jonesy (18 Dec 2010)

srw said:


> People in Oxford are civilised, svelte, intelligent, all-round good eggs. People in MK are numpties.
> 
> More seriously, I think it's clear from Oxford, Cambridge and London that having a large population of relatively young people with relatively little money and filthily expensive and inconvenient parking makes people look to solutions other than driving. That may be buses, tubes or cycling.



Again, let's not overstate the student effect. Cycling has a large modal share for travel to work in both cities. And it certainly isn't just low paid employees who cycle either. I'd fully agree on car parking being a motivating factor, as is traffic congestion. Travel distances is another. MK is very low density, travel distances are much greater, so cycling is not competitive with driving, whereas in Oxford and Cambridge there are a lot of people living within easy cycle distance of where they work, and they can cycle there directly, without having massive inner ring-roads, gyratories etc to cope with. But they still do it on very busy roads with all the other traffic, and that's what ozzage was saying will never happen.


----------



## srw (18 Dec 2010)

Perhaps I should have said "relatively young, and young-at-heart". I haven't been around Oxford for yonks, but my recollection is that there was a definite bias towards the younger end of the age spectrum, and a noticeable decline in cycling outside term. It's the sort of place where someone settles at the age of 20-not-very-much as a poverty-stricken postgraduate. If you get in the habit of cycling then you never lose it. Certainly I got into the habit of commuting in London as a 26-year-old recent student, because the £600 a year I would save by not buying a tube extension to my season ticket was going to pay for a lot of Brompton. Having got into that habit I never really lost it.

Completely anecdotally, I'd say that the relatively young (say [carefully picking an age that isn't at all biassed by his own] those under 41) are over-represented in London commutes these days. There particularly seems to be an over-representation among 20-something women, often on sit-up-and-beg bikes in ordinary clothes. Unless I'm just getting middle-aged and happen to notice 20-something women disproportionately.

I'm not sure I buy the distance thing. MK is basically a flat, featureless 3-mile by 3-mile square, with the centre at the centre (as it were). Oxford is about the same size, but with large segments taken out because of Port Meadow in the river - and, importantly, the residential areas tend to be further out, and there are one or two fairly stiff hills. Cambridge is flat, featureless and small, but I gather the nearby villages are also pretty important residential areas.


----------



## jonesy (18 Dec 2010)

Yes, cycling does drop off outside term time. Nonetheless, the modal share for cycling to work is around 15%, that is very high for the UK and, by definition, is not students.

I'd agree that cyclists tend to be younger, but from my experience there is a broader range of age, and more equal gender split, than in London. And cycling in Oxford is much more likely to be undertaken in normal clothing than in London, though as numbers of cyclists increase in London, and Boris bikes take off, I think we can reasonably expect a more representative demographic. 

Regarding travel distances, I didn't think there is much debate that MK has a very low urban density. Oxford's residential areas aren't further out at all: there are very large populations just the other side of the Plain around Cowley Rd and up to Headington; as well as along the nearer parts of Botley, around Abingdon Road, and Jericho. The housing is just packed in more, you don't get terraced housing in MK. You have far more people within a ten minute ride of Carfax tower than you do within a ten minute ride of whatever best defines the centre of Milton Keynes- from my recollection of nearly 20 years, the centre is very spread out, vast expanses of car parking and very little housing nearby.


----------



## CopperBrompton (18 Dec 2010)

I'm not familiar with Oxford, but in Cambridge it's definitely not just students, but people of all ages including well into their 80s. I can't recall ever seeing anyone cycling in Cambridge wearing Lycra.

London is a bit different, where there's a definite Lycra clad Roadie component, but even here I would say the majority of cyclists are wearing normal clothing.


----------



## ozzage (21 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> I don't think you can have looked at the figures...
> http://www.tfl.gov.u...on-report-1.pdf
> 
> Can you identify the group of trips that can be readily transferred to cycling? Distance matters a great deal here, and London has large commute distances than most places.



The logical thing to aim for is to move people from using private vehicles on shorter trips to bike. This is also the best possible outcome obviously. NR and tube are going to have less transfer to cycling than buses, as buses are used more often for shorter trips than both NR and the underground. All I said was that more cycling = less buses and I stand by that. More cycling also = far fewer cars as well! The overall point is, as I stated, that we could have far fewer motorised vehicles on the road with levels of cycling as seen somewhere like Amsterdam. Surely nobody would argue with that?

I was incorrect that the tube takes the majority of the load, however by distance it is equal to bus use so I wasn't far off and it doesn't change my argument. The fact is, that the tube takes up a massive load so the population differential has less effect (still huge!) than it would have otherwise.



> Well as you are so insistent that we can learn from European cities with high levels of cycling, would it not be appropriate also to see what is going on in British cities with high levels of cycling? Because, for the nth time of repetition, the vast majority of cycling in both cities takes place on the road, with the cars, buses, white vans etc, the sort of thing you said will NEVER happen. Furthermore, while there have been efforts, mixed, to introduce cycling specific facilities over the years, the growth in cycling, which occurred in Oxford in the late 70s and early 80s, pre-dates it. And both cities have high levels of bus use as well.



On one hand it's fair to say that I should be familiar with Cambridge and Oxford, but by the same token by the arguments put forward by many people (I don't necessarily mean in this thread) it's clear that most of those opposed to segregation have never cycled in a city where it's done properly. 


That aside, I've spent a few hours looking at the map here http://www.camcycle..../resources/map/ and Google Earth to try to get a feel for the facilities in Cambridge. Now OK I can't go back in time and see what was there in the 70s, and I can only base things on what i can see in Streetview and on the satellite view, but what I saw is a quite highly developed network of routes.

These are very often on quiet roads and have a surprising number of off-road routes (either shared path alongside the roads or truly off-road through green space) as well. Clearly there are routes on A and B roads as well but I found a surprising number of cycle lanes, both mandatory and advisory on these routes (far better than you would see on equivalent streets in London, in my opinion), and as I mentioned before a clear indication that the CCC is working towards MORE segregation (eg latest newsletter re getting rid of parking in the cycle lane along Gilbert Road which is surely a precursor to making it mandatory). I would definitely NOT say that Cambridge is proof of vehicular cycling being successful, at least not from what I saw from the air and on street view. It's full of paths!!

I definitely saw gaps in the paths etc but I get the distinct impression that while the CCC promotes on-road cycling, they firmly believe that segregation is necessary in high traffic environments for the city to go to the next level.

Am I completely wrong? Can somebody here can give an informed and objective response to that?

I'm interested in the way you phrased the question. Do you believe that we have nothing to learn from European cities which have over 40% modal share? If they were other British cities would you be happy to apply the lessons in London?

Edit: By paths above I also mean lanes.


----------



## ozzage (21 Dec 2010)

I had trouble quoting this in the msg above for some reason, so added here:


> There are many other factors that affect cycle use; clearly segregation is neither a necessary condition (e.g. Oxford) nor sufficient (Milton Keynes), so we really have to understand what actually makes a difference, and what is most appropriate under different circumstances. Hence approaches like the previously mentioned Hierarchy of provision. Segregation at all costs has given us the crappiest bits of the NCN and LCN, wasted loads of money and political support for cycling, and very often made things worse for existing cyclists than they were before.



I don't think anybody has asked for segregation at all costs. I certainly don't. The hierarchy makes sense in theory but mostly just means that they have an excuse to do virtually nothing. Bear in mind too that the crappiest bits of those networks are sometimes highly valued by casual cyclists. Not always, obviously, because much of it really IS complete garbage, but I often see criticism of exactly the type of facilities (shared pavements for example) which could encourage new people to cycle.


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Dec 2010)

Shared pavements are just ghastly. 

It doesn't hurt to see ourselves as others see us from time to time. I remember discussing the Regents Canal towpath on the Greenways committee. Cyclists whizz along, scaring the living daylights out of walkers. The Ramblers made a case for getting cyclists off the towpath. They were right.

There's a real shortfall in Ozzages reasoning. He or she sees motorised traffic as a given, and that we (cyclists and pedestrians) should retreat from the streets, leaving the car to roam unfettered. The entire thrust of urban planning should be to limit and moderate motorised traffic.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> The entire thrust of urban planning should be to limit and moderate motorised traffic.




Please can you get elected...

...except that statement probably makes you unelectable in a country where 3/4's of the voters own cars.


----------



## CopperBrompton (21 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> It doesn't hurt to see ourselves as others see us from time to time. I remember discussing the Regents Canal towpath on the Greenways committee. Cyclists whizz along, scaring the living daylights out of walkers. The Ramblers made a case for getting cyclists off the towpath. They were right.


There are a minority of cyclists who don't give way to pedestrians on shared paths, and do, as you say, cycle much too fast in close proximity to pedestrians. Ironically, I think it is very often the same cyclists as those who would complain about drivers who do the same to them.

In both cases, it is the minority giving the majority a bad name.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (21 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> It doesn't hurt to see ourselves as others see us from time to time. I remember discussing the Regents Canal towpath on the Greenways committee. Cyclists whizz along, scaring the living daylights out of walkers. The Ramblers made a case for getting cyclists off the towpath.



They scare the daylights out of other cyclists too! Some of the chumps on that path have sped past me so fast I've had a major wobble - I'd rather have been on foot.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (21 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> There's a real shortfall in Ozzages reasoning. He or she sees motorised traffic as a given, and that we (cyclists and pedestrians) should retreat from the streets, leaving the car to roam unfettered. The entire thrust of urban planning should be to limit and moderate motorised traffic.



If I am permitted to speak for him/her, I don't think that is fair to Ozzage. Certainly, from my perspective, if there is to be segregation (certainly not everywhere), I don't think it should be a "retreat", or about making the roads "unfettered" for cars. 

If you look at the history of segregation in Dutch urban centres, it has involved the _reallocation _of space that was once used for cars - be it parking, or extra lanes of vehicular traffic. Space has been taken away from the car. 

Importantly, it's not about taking the bicycle away from the road, it's about making some (or all!) of the road specifically for the bike and/or pedestrians.

(Of course, with piss-poor planning and weak political will, we end up with the former, rather than the latter - and this is a major problem)._
_
And finally - to restate my position - segregation is only a part of the broader strategy that we all agree on - to limit and moderate traffic. On most suburban roads, there is no need for segregation, provided there are lower speed limits, more limited vehicular access, measures like shared space, and so on.


----------



## ozzage (21 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Shared pavements are just ghastly.
> 
> It doesn't hurt to see ourselves as others see us from time to time. I remember discussing the Regents Canal towpath on the Greenways committee. Cyclists whizz along, scaring the living daylights out of walkers. The Ramblers made a case for getting cyclists off the towpath. They were right.
> 
> There's a real shortfall in Ozzages reasoning. He or she sees motorised traffic as a given, and that we (cyclists and pedestrians) should retreat from the streets, leaving the car to roam unfettered. The entire thrust of urban planning should be to limit and moderate motorised traffic.



You misrepresent me. I want to see space taken from vehicles and allocated to others more worthy 

I don't WANT to share with cars, unless they are moving very slowly and carefully through what is primarily MY space. I don't see the road as my domain in the same that I don't as a pedestrian. I want the road to be made much smaller and to have my own domain, like in NL etc.

I find that cyclists often have some strange sense of inferiority in this discussion, where they fear that they won't be seen as equals to the cars. I'm not equal, I'm better, and I deserve my own space. Let the cars have nasty traffic-calmed indirect routes and have to squeeze in gaps to slow them down. Don't let THEM share MY space. If you don't understand that line of thinking, then you don't understand how it truly IS in NL and I'm not surprised that you're opposed.

I'm obviously not a fan of shared pavements where a decent alternative exists, but I'd much rather see this:

http://maps.google.c...,112.42,,0,2.82

than be forced to ride on the road.

edit: and I bet the two guys in that shot wouldn't be scaring peds on tow paths either...


----------



## ozzage (21 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> How do you intend to manage the intersections between your domain and their domain? Side roads cross roads etc.



Have you been to NL? Have you read Hembrow's blog? Do you find his arguments at all compelling?

It's irrelevant anyway for this discussion. Despite the higher risk of collisions at intersections with segregation, particularly when badly designed, cycling can still be an extremely safe activity. We don't primarily need to make cycling safer, we need to make it SEEM safer.

That will get more people cycling, which will end up increasing safety FAR more than any intersection design decisions will. So in the end, you'll have both.

It's all about perceived safety (and enjoyment, which is directly related).


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Dec 2010)

with the avg. traffic speeds in Zone 1 in London so slow, due to all the buses, taxis and commercial vehicles and never ending sets of traffic lights, I find the roads there some of the safest places in England in which I cycle. Which is a compelling arguement for less segregation not more.


----------



## Dan B (21 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> On my way to work this morning I incurred the wrath of a Royal Mail lorry driver by overtaking another cyclist and thus being out of the cycle lane. When I caught up with her at the lights and asked what the problem was she told me that I should stay in the cycle lane and not be in the road.
> 
> Until you can address that attitude I would much rather remove all existing cycle lanes than go any further down the path of segregation.



Perhaps it's partly a problem of semantics. I propose that we paint bicycles (and, if you like, pedestrians) on _all_ the road carriageways and rename them "cycle priority lanes" to which motorised vehicles are admitted only on sufferance. Technically that's still segregation, but the balance of power is clearly shifted


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (21 Dec 2010)

coruskate said:


> Perhaps it's partly a problem of semantics. I propose that we paint bicycles (and, if you like, pedestrians) on _all_ the road carriageways and rename them "cycle priority lanes" to which motorised vehicles are admitted only on sufferance. Technically that's still segregation, but the balance of power is clearly shifted.



Yes, that's a good idea. I suppose this kind of thinking lay behind the cycle lane in Poole - the one that met with such derision from the gutter press, despite being a well-designed layout. It shows the space cyclists should have, and to which motorists should enter into only when it is safe to do so.


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> You misrepresent me. I want to see space taken from vehicles and allocated to others more worthy
> 
> I don't WANT to share with cars, unless they are moving very slowly and carefully through what is primarily MY space. I don't see the road as my domain in the same that I don't as a pedestrian. I want the road to be made much smaller and to have my own domain, like in NL etc.
> 
> ...


that's an extraordinarily contradictory contribution. You seem to be purveying a sense of inferiority to beat the band. While the rest of us are swanning down the roads you want to hide away. 

It's time you came up with a drawing. You keep on showing is pictures of Dutch suburbia, or rural roads, but, in case you haven't worked this out, we're not convinced. Show us a drawing of......Farringdon Road (which has a brilliant bus lane northwards), or Clapham High Street.


----------



## ozzage (21 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> Are you really suggesting that it would be a good idea to make cycling less safe so long as people think that it is safer?



None of this is rocket science. The biggest barrier to cycling is perceived safety. It's not real safety. Cycling is already safe. However cycling has to be PERCEIVED to be safer to encourage uptake. 

The biggest overall factor towards ACTUAL safety is number of cyclists. You probably don't disagree with that either, as it's well documented and often used as an argument by those claiming segregation is unnecessary.

So what's the logical conclusion of that? Measures to increase numbers of cyclists are the most important to increase safety. A measure that increases cycling numbers a lot, with a small increase in risk, will still lead to an overall REDUCTION in risk.

The idea is not complicated, and it's not new either.

Now if you don't think that segregation will increase cyclist numbers, then the argument falls apart, and I can accept that viewpoint. But the logic (and it's not MY logic) is sound.


----------



## jonesy (21 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> *The logical thing to aim for is to move people from using private vehicles on shorter trips to bike. * This is also the best possible outcome obviously. NR and tube are going to have less transfer to cycling than buses, as buses are used more often for shorter trips than both NR and the underground. All I said was that more cycling = less buses and I stand by that. More cycling also = far fewer cars as well! The overall point is, as I stated, that we could have far fewer motorised vehicles on the road with levels of cycling as seen somewhere like Amsterdam. Surely nobody would argue with that?



I quite agree and, as was discussed earlier in this thread, TfL's strategy is to target those shorter length trips, including those made by public transport, as shifting them onto bicycles will help free up capacity for the longer distance trips. However, having agreed that cycling has to be targeted at shorter trips, you can only get an Amsterdam or Copenhagen modal share for cycling if a sufficient proportion of trips is of cycleable distance. But London has greater commuting distances so, apart from the train + bike, the proportion of trips that could in principle be shifted to cycling is therefore smaller.



> I was incorrect that the tube takes the majority of the load, however by distance it is equal to bus use so I wasn't far off and it doesn't change my argument. The fact is, that the tube takes up a massive load so the population differential has less effect (still huge!) than it would have otherwise.


Well, being 'equal to' is very different from the 'vast majority', isn't it! The point I hope you've realised is that buses are an essential part of London's public transport system, far more so than is the case in Copenhagen, and those buses, their stops and their disembarking passengers, have to be taken into account if you want to start building Copenhagen style segregated cycle paths.



> On one hand it's fair to say that I should be familiar with Cambridge and Oxford, but by the same token by the arguments put forward by many people (I don't necessarily mean in this thread) it's clear that most of those opposed to segregation have never cycled in a city where it's done properly.
> 
> 
> That aside, I've spent a few hours looking at the map here http://www.camcycle..../resources/map/ and Google Earth to try to get a feel for the facilities in Cambridge. Now OK I can't go back in time and see what was there in the 70s, and I can only base things on what i can see in Streetview and on the satellite view, but what I saw is a quite highly developed network of routes.
> ...


Again, the 'paths' followed the growth in cycling, not the other way around. Also, cycle lanes aren't 'paths', and they certainly aren't segregation, even if mandatory. There isn't anything like Copenhagen segregation. I'd add that completely off-road paths across parks etc are in a different category, like the Hyde Park route, they can be very attractive, and can be advantageous over the road because they can offer short cuts. But routes across parks, like routes on old railway lines and towpaths, can only be built where there are parks, towpaths and disused railway lines, so they aren't that helpful as a model for what we should do everywhere else, where the road corridor is the most direct and convenient route.



> I'm interested in the way you phrased the question. * Do you believe that we have nothing to learn from European cities which have over 40% modal share?* If they were other British cities would you be happy to apply the lessons in London?
> 
> Edit: By paths above I also mean lanes.




Of course not, but in learning from other cities we have to understand the differences so we can know what is transferable and what isn't. Hence my comments on differences in bus use and journey distances for example.


Noting your edit- but they are fundamentally different, and sit a very different level in the Hierarchy! It really is important to be precise about these things, not least because I fear it is lack of clarity on the part of cyclists in expressing what they want that has helped contribute to the failings of the schemes that councils so often put in.


----------



## jonesy (21 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> ....
> 
> It's irrelevant anyway for this discussion. Despite the higher risk of collisions at intersections with segregation, particularly when badly designed, cycling can still be an extremely safe activity. We don't primarily need to make cycling safer, we need to make it SEEM safer.
> 
> ...



No, no no!

While I'd agree that there is an important difference between real and perceived safety; that doesn't make crappy segregation OK. For a start you've missed a fundamental factor that affects people's willingness to cycle or not: whether it is advantageous to cycle in comparison with other modes. Look at the places where people cycle in large numbers, it is places where there are constraints on driving and cycling is competitive in journey time. But as soon as you tell cyclists they should come off the road where they can go at a decent speed, and instead jostle for space with pedestrians on the pavement, and give way at every side road, then the added delay undermines that time advantage over driving. 

How does sending a very strong message to drivers that cycling is a slow mode that takes place on the pavement, and gives way to cars, encourage anyone in those cars to join the cyclists? Plus it undermines our right to use the road and creates conflict where none existed before. I have the misfortune of cycling to work on a route that has a pavement path along some of it. As a consequence, every few weeks I get hooted at, passed dangerously, shouted at etc by people who are outraged that I continue to ride on the road. Given that the shouting and hooting drivers must only be the tip of the iceberg, there must be many many more who say nothing but still feel cross, or at least puzzled, as to why a cyclist would ride on the road. This is a problem that only exists because of crappy segregation, and the idea that existing cyclists should be happy about it because somehow this unwanted facility is going to attract new cyclists to join me in critical mass just doesn't stack up. If you want to learn lessons from Europe then the most important one is that if you are going to segregate, do it properly, with priority, or not at all.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> None of this is rocket science. The biggest barrier to cycling is perceived safety. It's not real safety.



Sorry but that's tosh. The perceived lack of safety is what people most often give as the reason, aka excuse, when asked why they don't cycle. Rather like I cite my bad knee whenever my wife wants to go for a walk in the country. It's a convenient, vaguely credible at first glance, excuse. Nothing more nothing less.

No one is ever going to say I don't cycle because I perceive cyclists as social underlings of the plebeian classes and I'm a fat lazy tosser who has been utterly indoctrinated by a consumer society that equates car ownership and use with freedom. In most people's experience cycling is what you do until you can operate a motor vehicle and operating and owning said motor is a life goal for most. Must be or why so many new cars on the roads every year?

The biggest barrier to cycling is society's view of the motor car. ime/imo anyway.


----------



## slowmotion (22 Dec 2010)

You have probably seen this many times before, but here is a gentle clip about how cycling grew in Holland. Make of it as you wish.



View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HgLqts3qJs


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Dec 2010)

competitive advantage is key. One of the joys of the Cycling Superhighways is that they give times to various points along the route - times that are eminently achievable. While CS7 journey times are not quite as quick as Northern Line times they're not far off - and the cyclist has the advantage of a flying start from his or her front door, and a flying finish to their place of work. They're a good deal better than rush hour car times, particularly through Tooting and Clapham. If people work out that they can get from home to work ten or fifteen minutes faster on a bike they're going to go for it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> *competitive advantage is key.* One of the joys of the Cycling Superhighways is that they give times to various points along the route - times that are eminently achievable. While CS7 journey times are not quite as quick as Northern Line times they're not far off - and the cyclist has the advantage of a flying start from his or her front door, and a flying finish to their place of work. They're a good deal better than rush hour car times, particularly through Tooting and Clapham. If people work out that they can get from home to work ten or fifteen minutes faster on a bike they're going to go for it.




that is the key, absolutely. If you can demonstrate that it offers an advantage to time- or cash- poor people when the safety excuse will be disguarded.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> If they believe it that is. You run in to that "Ah but you must be very fit though because you do all that cycling" thing, where people just don't believe that they could do it just as easily. At which point it takes superhuman modesty to explain that one is in fact a completely unexceptional middle-aged man who is only a bit fitter than the average bear by virtue of the cycling.


fair do's - but have you compared the posted times on CS7 with your own? They are pretty modest. I'm not talking Brompton modest, I'm talking sit up and beg bike with a small dog in the basket modest. And the hordes of cyclists trundling down CS7 are so various that the myth of the ubercyclist is, one hopes, receding.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (22 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> While I'd agree that there is an important difference between real and perceived safety; that doesn't make crappy segregation OK. For a start you've missed a fundamental factor that affects people's willingness to cycle or not: whether it is advantageous to cycle in comparison with other modes. Look at the places where people cycle in large numbers, it is places where there are constraints on driving and cycling is competitive in journey time. But as soon as you tell cyclists they should come off the road where they can go at a decent speed, and instead jostle for space with pedestrians on the pavement, and give way at every side road, then the added delay undermines that time advantage over driving.



I can agree with this 100%.

Poorly thought-out, inferior infrastructure is worse than no infrastructure at all.

Likewise shite on-road cycle lanes should be taken out immediately. This one in my town







is an absolute disgrace and - AFAIK - the council were advised to remove it in 2009. It's still there though. I'm going to write to them. 


Edit - I also agree entirely about competitive advantage.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Dec 2010)

I'm no expert here, but this is how it appears to me. For eighteen months I have traded a motor commute of 10 miles round trip for a bike one. The bike trip is at least ten minutes faster ( London W14 to SW8 ) each way compared to the motor, and often a lot more. I no longer care about the weather. As long as there is no ice, I really do prefer to ride it. (The motor option would cost me nothing at all, BTW). It is more fun than driving, and a whole shed load more fun than public transport.

My non-bike friends all say that it is insanely dangerous to ride a bike in London traffic, and they may well have a point. If they go to gyms, walk, play sports or whatever, they are probably quite fit, so the "healthy lifestyle" argument for bikes just doesn't cut the mustard with them. 

My chances of being killed or seriously injured in a motor on that commute are about zero due to low traffic speeds. On the bike, a whole lot more. (OK, no evidence, but common-sense and experience tells me how close I have come to something that could have been quite nasty) That is the reason why more people don't cycle in cities, I gently suggest....real danger, actually.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> I can agree with this 100%.
> 
> Poorly thought-out, inferior infrastructure is worse than no infrastructure at all.
> 
> ...



Kings Road in Horsham? Let it be. It does no harm and no one, well hardly anyone, uses it. Our local cycling forum, of which I am secretary, have had lengthy discussions with WSCC about the provision in Horsham. I feel campaigning to make them remove stuff, and thus have to admit their mistakes, whist satisfying if succesful, is not the way forward. 

Fancy joining the Horsham Cycling Forum then?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (23 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Kings Road in Horsham? Let it be. It does no harm and no one, well hardly anyone, uses it. Our local cycling forum, of which I am secretary, have had lengthy discussions with WSCC about the provision in Horsham. I feel campaigning to make them remove stuff, and thus have to admit their mistakes, whist satisfying if succesful, is not the way forward.
> 
> Fancy joining the Horsham Cycling Forum then?



King's Road - that's the one.

I disagree about it not doing any harm. I cycle there fairly regularly, and am often subjected to close overtakes from morons who think I should "be in the cycle lane." When I move out of the lane approaching the roundabout at the southern end, to prevent myself being left-hooked, I was recently honked and shouted at by someone asking me "How much room do you want!?!?" because I had the temerity to remove myself from a 50cm wide cycle lane. It also regularly puts (inexperienced) cyclists right in the door zone, or intimidates people into cycling there.

It would cost very little to remove it - and, I could be wrong, the council said they would. I have to do some digging to find the document.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (23 Dec 2010)

Let me know about the Cycling Forum, btw. 

I remember seeing something in the County Times, but I wasn't aware anything had become of it!


----------



## Ravenbait (23 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Sorry but that's tosh. The perceived lack of safety is what people most often give as the reason, aka excuse, when asked why they don't cycle. Rather like I cite my bad knee whenever my wife wants to go for a walk in the country. It's a convenient, vaguely credible at first glance, excuse. Nothing more nothing less.



Absolutely. In my previous life of active campaigning I've done a few "Why don't you cycle?" surveys, to which the most memorable response (after the usual bewildered, blinky-eyed, hadn't even considered the option stare) was "My boyfriend says it's too dangerous for a girl by herself."

The safety in numbers argument is also tosh taken out of context. There are only two methods by which safety in numbers can be effective:

(1) So many people cycle that drivers perceive cyclists to be part of their own peer group, because they are cyclists too, which will only make a difference if the cyclists are on the road where it matters that drivers identify them as part of their own peer group; or

(2) Selective inattention blindness is no longer a problem because drivers see so many cyclists on the road with them that they expect to see them. Again, this is only going to be effective when cyclists share space with drivers.

The increased safety of cyclists when there are more cyclists is down to changes in driver behaviour, not cyclist behaviour. I think John Franklin's study on the Milton Keynes Redways is enlightening when considering the absolute effects of total segregation on cyclist safety in a typical UK city (http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/redway.html).

Also, anyone who chooses to ignore the needs and safety of existing cyclists, the ones who are already out there making a difference by adding their weight to the numbers, because they're lycra-clad or cycle too fast or don't matter because they'll do it anyway: I once had a very public argument with a speaker at a Cycle Scotland conference who was saying this very thing. The reason that view wouldn't be terribly well-received on this forum is that most of us are the people who are already cycling anyway and such a view would imply we're the ones who don't matter. If we don't matter, then I would suggest seeking our agreement is an exercise in pointlessness.

Sam


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Let me know about the Cycling Forum, btw.
> 
> I remember seeing something in the County Times, but I wasn't aware anything had become of it!




PM your email and I'll send you a copy of our response to WSCC's local transport plan consulation. We are now in discussion with HDC over

a) allowing cycling on all the paths in the park (about which an announcement is imminent; the signage is ready, etc., etc..)

and

b) converting the western side of the 'Riverside Walk' route (Warnham Road to Denne Road) into a 'Riverside Ride'

The ultimate idea, accepted by both HDC and WSCC, being that the park becomes the hub of network of town centre cycle routes (vehicular and segregated as deliverable; we are pragmatists) with spokes radiating to a circular Riverside Ride around the outer edges of the town.

So quite a bit has come of it. For not a lot of effort.

Do you ever ride with Horsham Cycling on a Sunday?

We need to get you on a FNRttC next year.... or have you done one.... Brighton or Bognor are both easy ones to do (and ride home from)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Dec 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> King's Road - that's the one.
> 
> I disagree about it not doing any harm. I cycle there fairly regularly, and am often subjected to close overtakes from morons who think I should "be in the cycle lane." When I move out of the lane approaching the roundabout at the southern end, to prevent myself being left-hooked, I was recently honked and shouted at by someone asking me "How much room do you want!?!?" because I had the temerity to remove myself from a 50cm wide cycle lane. It also regularly puts (inexperienced) cyclists right in the door zone, or intimidates people into cycling there.
> 
> It would cost very little to remove it - and, I could be wrong, the council said they would. I have to do some digging to find the document.




Let's agree to difer on the basis that our experiences are very different

a) I've not had what you describe happen to me in Horsham for years (But I am a well built 6' 2" ex rugby player and I ride very assertively so maybe peeps think twice) anywhere than on Albion Way. (When I twatted the aggressive little Hosham gobshite who got out of his poxy repmobile to berate and then assault me at the Bishopric lights.) Kings Road? I go primary and flat out all the way up or down, and no one ever overtakes me over the iron bridge before the station either. Nor do they honk.

b) I'd rather what little money is currently available is not wasted by WSCC highways removing stuff

and 

c) I work in Haywards Heath. This made me change my mind 180 degrees about the 'poor infrasturcture is worse than no infrastructure'. No infrastructure causes drivers to assume cyclists have no place on the roads. Even poor infrastructure has a role in remind them we are there. Haywards Heath is a truly awful place to cycle in.


----------



## jonesy (29 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> ...
> 
> c) I work in Haywards Heath. This made me change my mind 180 degrees about the 'poor infrasturcture is worse than no infrastructure'. *No infrastructure causes drivers to assume cyclists have no place on the road*s. Even poor infrastructure has a role in remind them we are there. Haywards Heath is a truly awful place to cycle in.



But this is where I have to disagree, it is poor segregated infrastructure that makes drivers think cyclists have no place on the road. No infrastructure at all doesn't send this message. As I've said before, the majority of confrontations I've had with drivers over the last few years (I don't have many) have been because the driver thought I should be on the 'cycle path'. So those are conflicts that wouldn't have occurred if the crappy shared use pavement hadn't existed, and wouldn't happen again if it were removed. You have a reasonable concern about not wasting money, but the opportunity to remove things at low cost does occur, e.g. when surfaces are repaired, or utility work is carried out, so having a list of counter-productive infrastructure ready to be removed when the opportunity does arise is entirely reasonable.


----------



## ozzage (30 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Sorry but that's tosh. The perceived lack of safety is what people most often give as the reason, aka excuse, when asked why they don't cycle. Rather like I cite my bad knee whenever my wife wants to go for a walk in the country. It's a convenient, vaguely credible at first glance, excuse. Nothing more nothing less.



OK so now we get to the bit where seasoned people who do cycle claim to know better why people don't cycle, than those who err.. DON'T! Nothing worse than pesky statistics which don't coincide with your world view...

Just apply a common sense rule for a minute. Is it conceivable, that for _very many_ people, cycling on road would seem like a dangerous activity? Surely even the most hardened cyclist would accept the truth in that? If that's true, then might it not be a large factor in why one might not choose to cycle? Not the only reason, for sure, but that was never the claim.

Anyway, I've just a pleasant Christmas week away in a part of Germany covered in shared-use paths (next to roads) which has a nicely high modal share. Not sure of the numbers, but outside extreme weather periods like now there's heaps of cyclists all going to the shops, visiting people, just living their lives on bikes as they should. It's nice to be reminded that despite all the doom-sayers, even shared use can work fine when neither bike or pedestrian numbers are too high and cyclists aren't as speed-obsessed as here. It's a very pleasant place to cycle! You guys would probably hate it!


----------



## ozzage (30 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> On my way to work this morning I incurred the wrath of a Royal Mail lorry driver by overtaking another cyclist and thus being out of the cycle lane. When I caught up with her at the lights and asked what the problem was she told me that I should stay in the cycle lane and not be in the road.
> 
> Until you can address that attitude I would much rather remove all existing cycle lanes than go any further down the path of segregation.



Wouldn't happen if you were on a segregated cycle path, would it


----------



## ozzage (30 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> This all sounds like a load of old bollocks. The whole rational behind the safety in numbers concept is that those numbers are in the same space as the cars. It is the idea that the car driver gets a repeated message "cyclists here on this road, I need to watch for them" with each one that passes them, that gives the benefit. You could load up your separate cycle path with any number of cyclist, who between them have taken a bus of the roads, and your average motorist will just see the slightly clearer road. Unfortunately that allows him to carry slightly greater speed into the corner where he hits a cyclist going straight on on the path. What was the net benefit again?




With respect, that is not the "whole rational". The safety in numbers argument is used all over the world, including in places with segregated infrastructure, not just by vehicular cyclists in places like the UK.

Cyclists always need to interact with other vehicles and also with pedestrians. This might be a shared use path, a slow-speed on-road environment or where segregated facilities intersect with roads at crossings etc. All of those environments benefit from having more cyclists as all other users are more used to finding bikes there.


----------



## ozzage (30 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> competitive advantage is key. One of the joys of the Cycling Superhighways is that they give times to various points along the route - times that are eminently achievable. While CS7 journey times are not quite as quick as Northern Line times they're not far off - and the cyclist has the advantage of a flying start from his or her front door, and a flying finish to their place of work. They're a good deal better than rush hour car times, particularly through Tooting and Clapham. If people work out that they can get from home to work ten or fifteen minutes faster on a bike they're going to go for it.



I agree 100% with this, and have tried to iterate this in my posts as well. Direct routes are a big factor in making cycling attractive. You need to make it (seem) safe, and you need to make it efficient. With those two things you'll have success.

Here's a related link I saw a while back. You might find this interesting.

http://www.youtube.c...u/0/PJhGSxDb5wQ


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> I agree 100% with this, and have tried to iterate this in my posts as well. *Direct routes are a big factor in making cycling attractive.* You need to make it (seem) safe, and you need to make it efficient. With those two things you'll have success.
> 
> Here's a related link I saw a while back. You might find this interesting.
> 
> http://www.youtube.c...u/0/PJhGSxDb5wQ


show us the drawing............


----------



## ozzage (30 Dec 2010)

jonesy said:


> Well, being 'equal to' is very different from the 'vast majority', isn't it! The point I hope you've realised is that buses are an essential part of London's public transport system, far more so than is the case in Copenhagen, and those buses, their stops and their disembarking passengers, have to be taken into account if you want to start building Copenhagen style segregated cycle paths.



So... buses are far more an important part of the transport system which has a <2% cycling modal share, than of one with 35%. You'd almost wonder if there's a link, wouldn't you...

Do you also claim that with a 40% cycling modal share that London wouldn't see a significantly reduced load on the public transport system, including buses, as was semi-claimed earlier?



> Again, the 'paths' followed the growth in cycling, not the other way around. Also, cycle lanes aren't 'paths', and they certainly aren't segregation, even if mandatory. There isn't anything like Copenhagen segregation. I'd add that completely off-road paths across parks etc are in a different category, like the Hyde Park route, they can be very attractive, and can be advantageous over the road because they can offer short cuts. But routes across parks, like routes on old railway lines and towpaths, can only be built where there are parks, towpaths and disused railway lines, so they aren't that helpful as a model for what we should do everywhere else, where the road corridor is the most direct and convenient route.



OK so cycling was growing brilliantly without lanes or paths, so they decided to then add something which costs money but at the same time actually reduces safety and wasn't necessary anyway. Seems somewhat counter-intuitive to me. Perhaps you can explain further why/how this came about.

Once they started adding those lanes, what happened to cycling? My problem with this is: what you're claiming doesn't make sense. If adding the lanes and other paths wasn't necessary to grow numbers, then why did they do it? It's expensive, it takes parking away, it takes road-space away.



> Of course not, but in learning from other cities we have to understand the differences so we can know what is transferable and what isn't. Hence my comments on differences in bus use and journey distances for example.
> 
> Noting your edit- but they are fundamentally different, and sit a very different level in the Hierarchy! It really is important to be precise about these things, not least because I fear it is lack of clarity on the part of cyclists in expressing what they want that has helped contribute to the failings of the schemes that councils so often put in.



I agree that not everything is transferable and we need to pick and choose, but it's time we started doing a lot more choosing and a lot less rejecting.

And finally, as my lunch break seems to be getting a little out of hand, I leave you all with this

http://www.montrealg...2475/story.html


----------



## ozzage (30 Dec 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> show us the drawing............



Yawn. You are too caught up in details. Do you honestly think the reason we don't have bike paths in London is because the streets are too narrow? It's purely because cars are prioritised over bikes!

Check out the youtube link above. It also covers this topic a bit.


----------



## srw (30 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> Yawn. You are too caught up in details. Do you honestly think the reason we don't have bike paths in London is because the streets are too narrow?




Yes. One of many. Where's the segregated bike path going to go down Oxford Street?


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Dec 2010)

ozzage said:


> Yawn. You are too caught up in details. Do you honestly think the reason we don't have bike paths in London is because the streets are too narrow? It's purely because cars are prioritised over bikes!
> 
> Check out the youtube link above. It also covers this topic a bit.


you're completely incapable of working through the complexities. Show me the drawing. 

And, yes, buses do make a greater contribution to London's transport needs than bikes - and here's the thing....they're actually more efficient in spatial terms. And that's without dumbass bike lanes.


----------



## jonesy (1 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> So... buses are far more an important part of the transport system which has a <2% cycling modal share, than of one with 35%. You'd almost wonder if there's a link, wouldn't you...
> 
> Do you also claim that with a 40% cycling modal share that London wouldn't see a significantly reduced load on the public transport system, including buses, as was semi-claimed earlier?



You are continuing to ignore some rather fundamental factors that affect modal choice, in particular travel distances. London is bigger than Copenhagen and Amsterdam. Commuting distances are greater. Buses are used for longer distance trips than cycling. You can't have 40% modal share for cycling unless 40% of trips are within reasonable cycling distance, i.e. cycling is comparable in journey time. So, to go alongside dellzeqq's "show us the drawing" challenge, here's another one for you: "show us the trips".




> OK so cycling was growing brilliantly without lanes or paths, so they decided to then add something which costs money but at the same time actually reduces safety and wasn't necessary anyway. Seems somewhat counter-intuitive to me. Perhaps you can explain further why/how this came about.
> 
> Once they started adding those lanes, what happened to cycling? My problem with this is: what you're claiming doesn't make sense. If adding the lanes and other paths wasn't necessary to grow numbers, then why did they do it? It's expensive, it takes parking away, it takes road-space away.



EH? Since when is it assumed that everything a local authority does is the rational thing, or the most cost-effective thing? Why do I have to justify measures I don't think are necessary? There are plenty of reasons why ineffective cycling infrastructure is installed, and one of those is that people like you keep demanding it!

In any case, I didn't say that all the cycling infrastructure installed in Oxford or Cambridge is pointless. Some of it is beneficial, but you've still missed the fundamental point, which is that the main growth in cycling took place before it, demonstrating that separate provision is not a necessary condition for getting more people to cycle. Once you've grasped the significance of that then you'll start to understand that modal choice is rather more complex than you think it is.


----------



## stowie (2 Jan 2011)

jonesy said:


> You are continuing to ignore some rather fundamental factors that affect modal choice, in particular travel distances. London is bigger than Copenhagen and Amsterdam. Commuting distances are greater. Buses are used for longer distance trips than cycling. You can't have 40% modal share for cycling unless 40% of trips are within reasonable cycling distance, i.e. cycling is comparable in journey time. So, to go alongside dellzeqq's "show us the drawing" challenge, here's another one for you: "show us the trips".
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Modal share in London will absolutely be skewed by the size of the city and the large variety of transport options. This still doesn't detract from the fact that the average car journey in London is 7 miles with a very significant proportion being below 5 miles. Although London is big, many journeys, especially those by car, are local.

I also think modal share can be somewhat of a red herring for London due to the factors above. I would think understanding the numbers of adults who cycle at certain frequencies (every day, once a week etc.) would be interesting. Stats can be spun anyway you like. Hence the TfL promoters using percentage increase in cycling modal share to show cycling increase, whilst detractors use modal share. Both are flawed to use as the only measure.


----------



## ozzage (2 Jan 2011)

jonesy said:


> You are continuing to ignore some rather fundamental factors that affect modal choice, in particular travel distances. London is bigger than Copenhagen and Amsterdam. Commuting distances are greater. Buses are used for longer distance trips than cycling. You can't have 40% modal share for cycling unless 40% of trips are within reasonable cycling distance, i.e. cycling is comparable in journey time. So, to go alongside dellzeqq's "show us the drawing" challenge, here's another one for you: "show us the trips".



Bus trip length in London, 2009

Under 1 mile 5%
Under 2 miles 27%
Under 5 miles 76%
Under 10 miles 96%

76% are under five miles. I'm not really sure what your point is. Sounds like a perfect potential market to convert to cycling to me.


http://www.google.co...Oc1nsFnhgdbFfPg




> EH? Since when is it assumed that everything a local authority does is the rational thing, or the most cost-effective thing? Why do I have to justify measures I don't think are necessary? There are plenty of reasons why ineffective cycling infrastructure is installed, and one of those is that people like you keep demanding it!
> 
> In any case, I didn't say that all the cycling infrastructure installed in Oxford or Cambridge is pointless. Some of it is beneficial, but you've still missed the fundamental point, which is that the main growth in cycling took place before it, demonstrating that separate provision is not a necessary condition for getting more people to cycle. Once you've grasped the significance of that then you'll start to understand that modal choice is rather more complex than you think it is.



It simply doesn't make sense, what you're saying. So a whole bunch of people started cycling when there were no facilities. Then they, for some reason, demanded facilities despite these cyclists actually hating them (as all "real" cyclists who have experienced the joy of on-road cycling do). The local authority decided, despite the apparent evidence AGAINST such facilites, to spend the money and annoy the local car owners. I'm sorry, but I'd like to see good figures on this, including demographic info about the people cycling, alongside a timeline of the the development of cycling facilities.

I CAN believe that Cambridge had higher cycling rates than other places before the facilities were installed, as it seemed to never completely lose its old cycling culture like most places did. Beyond that, well let's see the numbers.


----------



## ozzage (2 Jan 2011)

srw said:


> Yes. One of many. Where's the segregated bike path going to go down Oxford Street?



No chance, obviously, in its current state. I believe that's what is called a "straw-man argument".

Oxford Street is complicated. It's horrible. It needs to be pedestrianised. But the buses...


----------



## ozzage (2 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> And would anyone have cleared the snow and ice from this segregated path?
> 
> 
> I should make it clear that I am working on the assumption that the little green man with his tongue sticking out is a way of communicating that, in implying that you support an attack on my right to be on the road, you are only joking. If I have got this wrong, please let me know. I will then rethink my response as appropriate.



In (some) other countries, yes they would have cleared them!

Anyway yes it was somewhat facetious, but it does amuse me when people use examples of cyclists conflicting with vehicles as an argument _against _segregation!! I do know what you mean, and I do support your right to ride on the road, but to be honest I wouldn't care that much about it if we could get some minimum enforceable standards for infrastructure.


----------



## ozzage (2 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> you're completely incapable of working through the complexities. Show me the drawing.
> 
> And, yes, buses do make a greater contribution to London's transport needs than bikes - and here's the thing....they're actually more efficient in spatial terms. And that's without dumbass bike lanes.



Clearly they make a greater contribution. Hardly anybody rides bikes and we're firmly on track to keep it that way.

Sadly they also don't go door-to-door, they pollute, they get stuck in traffic, they significantly increase maintenance required on the roads and require heavy subsiding (more than half a billion pounds in London, if I recall correctly) to be affordable for normal people!

It sounds like you think it's better to have more people in "efficient" buses than riding on bikes.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Jan 2011)

> it is the concept of segregation that is causing the problem.




Not really. What's causing the problem is the attitude of morons who think they own the road. Let's not get confused.


In fact, this kind of argument is a direct parallel to the one that suggests gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt because of the abuse and bullying their children might receive. That is - an eminently reasonable course of action is ruled out because of the potential unpleasant response to it by idiots.  


There are arguments against segregation. The idea that we should take into account the opinions and attitudes of troglodytes is not one of them.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Jan 2011)

GregCollins said:


> PM your email and I'll send you a copy of our response to WSCC's local transport plan consulation. We are now in discussion with HDC over
> 
> a) allowing cycling on all the paths in the park (about which an announcement is imminent; the signage is ready, etc., etc..)
> 
> ...



Those sound like good ideas. I've tried to use your profile to email you, but I get an error message - "[#10314] Sorry, you are not permitted to send an email via this board." Not sure why that is.



GregCollins said:


> Do you ever ride with Horsham Cycling on a Sunday?
> 
> We need to get you on a FNRttC next year.... or have you done one.... Brighton or Bognor are both easy ones to do (and ride home from)



I have done a couple of London to Brighton runs - the official organized ones - but, no, I haven't done an FNRttC. 

WRT cycling on a Sunday, I'm not much of an early riser on a Sunday, tbh! I do ride around here for pleasure quite a lot, though - plenty of good routes, especially north towards Betchworth, and south towards Steyning.


----------



## srw (2 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> It simply doesn't make sense, what you're saying. So a whole bunch of people started cycling when there were no facilities. Then they, for some reason, demanded facilities despite these cyclists actually hating them (as all "real" cyclists who have experienced the joy of on-road cycling do). The local authority decided, despite the apparent evidence AGAINST such facilites, to spend the money and annoy the local car owners.



Do I detect a _Bombus terrestris - _capitulary covering interface situation? 

This paragraph, even though meant facetiously, accurately reflects the observations of many people.

On the subject of buses, you might try reading (critically) the cyclox website.


> Oxford also, critically, has excellent bus services (a bus every few minutes on all the main corridors), which has allowed traffic to be reduced substantially over the years.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...



That doesn't seem too bad an option to me, and it's very similar to central London (zone 1) after the congestion charge.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> I am not in the slightest bit confused. Partial segregation encourages some people to believe that they own the rest of the road.



You are responding to an argument I am not making. Read my post again.

I am disagreeing with your characterization of segregation as "the problem", rather than the attitude and behaviour of the people who think they own the road. I am not suggesting that this attitude does not exist, or that segregation does not encourage it.

My response is to deal with that attitude, not bend to it.

Would you suggest that - if a woman wearing a short skirt is harassed my a man - that her short skirt is "the problem", rather than the behaviour of the man?

Or, to return to the example I gave above, if a child with gay parents is bullied, that gay adoption is "the problem", rather than the bullying?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Its not like for like though. In your two examples there is a moral argument not to bend . For the segregation there is not, at least not on that precise point.



A) Is there that much of a difference between a "get off my road attitude" (your words) and playground bullying? Especially when the former can, and does, manifest itself in dangerous driving? I don't see why cyclists should have to put up with abusive attitudes, any more than women who choose to wear shorter skirts should. 


B) The "get off my road attitude" is merely a variant on the "get out of my way attitude" that exists even in places where there is no segregation. It is a pre-existing attitude. I don't see how hostility to cyclists is going to be ameliorated, let alone prevented, by the failure to provide segregation.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> We have not at any stage been in disagreement about the root problem.



Really? I happen to think that "the root problem" is the unpleasant and abusive attitude of some motorists towards cyclists, regardless of whether they happen to be on the road or not (because even the most ardent "segregationist" will not want segregation everywhere. Take a look at Holland, where cyclists still share the majority of roads with drivers).

And yet while agreeing with me, you think that 



> it is the concept of segregation that is causing the problem.



No. Just no. 

(Nice use of the word "apartheid" by the way. That's deliciously and needlessly provocative




)

EDIT - "motorists" changed to "some motorists"


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> If however you think that any form of road apartheid will help, then at that point we do disagree.



I would add that if you think I am suggesting segregation - in and of itself - as a cure for hostility towards cyclists, you are mistaken.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Just putting matters into focus. Do you think that it is incorrect?




I do think it is a little "off" that you have chosen to use a word that is innately associated with racism, instead of using the word that is in common usage.

Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Obviously not, or I wouldn't have used it.



Not "obviously" at all, because it is entirely possible for you to simultaneously consider it "off" and still write it.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> Clearly they make a greater contribution. Hardly anybody rides bikes and we're firmly on track to keep it that way.
> 
> Sadly they also don't go door-to-door, they pollute, they get stuck in traffic, they significantly increase maintenance required on the roads and require heavy subsiding (more than half a billion pounds in London, if I recall correctly) to be affordable for normal people!
> 
> ...


it is. That may not be what you want to hear, but buses move people more efficiently than bikes.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Not really. What's causing the problem is the attitude of morons who think they own the road. Let's not get confused.
> 
> 
> In fact, this kind of argument is a direct parallel to the one that suggests gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt because of the abuse and bullying their children might receive. That is - an eminently reasonable course of action is ruled out because of the potential unpleasant response to it by idiots.
> ...


so people who don't want segregation are troglodytes? And morons?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> so people who don't want segregation are troglodytes? And morons?



No, I am certainly not saying that! 

I thought I was referring quite explicitly to the minority of motorists who think you or I should "get off the road".


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Jan 2011)

fair enough. I misunderstood.

To return to a theme. One of the mistakes we make is to believe that if you give over a bit of tarmac to cyclists then that tarmac will carry an infinite number of bikes. CS7 is showing us that, in truth, a modest number of cyclists are capable of holding each other up. Yes - cycle congestion is here!


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> fair enough. I misunderstood.
> 
> To return to a theme. One of the mistakes we make is to believe that if you give over a bit of tarmac to cyclists then that tarmac will carry an infinite number of bikes. CS7 is showing us that, in truth, a modest number of cyclists are capable of holding each other up. Yes - cycle congestion is here!



No problem. 

To return to your bus point, I certainly think buses are more efficient space-wise than bicycles - provided they are sufficiently full. Not sure about energy though. A typical double decker is well over 10 tonnes - hard to see how the energy required to shift that when laden with 80 passengers stacks up against the energy required to shift 80 bikes.

I suppose it depends whether we are concerned with alleviating congestion, or being energy efficient.


----------



## jonesy (2 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> Bus trip length in London, 2009
> 
> Under 1 mile 5%
> Under 2 miles 27%
> ...



And as has been pointed out more than once already in this discussion, one of the reasons TfL wants to increase cycling is to shift the shorter trips from public transport so as to provide greater capacity for shifting longer distance car trips to public transport. 51% of cycle trips are less than 2 miles, 83% less than 5 miles; whereas 73% of bus trips are above 2 miles. While there is certainly a large overlap between bus trips and cycle use, bus travel provides a more practicable alternative for the longer distance trips. And even for those trips within cycling distance, there will be a large number that will remain by bus, because not everyone is able to cycle, or wants to, even if conditions are ideal, and not every short trip is suitable for cycling. So, even without further modal shift to bus for longer trips, the figures you quote actually show that a very large proportion of bus trips aren't actually so easy to move to cycling. If the objective is to reduce car travel, then *both *bus use and cycle use need to increase, and that means any proposals for cycling provision have to allow for there being lots of buses, just as any infrastructure for buses should allow for cycling. 





> *It simply doesn't make sense, what you're saying. So a whole bunch of people started cycling when there were no facilities.* Then they, for some reason, demanded facilities despite these cyclists actually hating them (as all "real" cyclists who have experienced the joy of on-road cycling do). The local authority decided, despite the apparent evidence AGAINST such facilites, to spend the money and annoy the local car owners. I'm sorry, but I'd like to see good figures on this, including demographic info about the people cycling, alongside a timeline of the the development of cycling facilities.
> 
> I CAN believe that Cambridge had higher cycling rates than other places before the facilities were installed, as it seemed to never completely lose its old cycling culture like most places did. Beyond that, well let's see the numbers.



Yes, they did. If you believe it for Cambridge then why not for Oxford? It is simply a fact I'm afraid- cycling had a high modal share in the 1980s, with very little cycling infrastructure around and most of the cycling still takes place on the road. Indeed, there is very little cycling 'infrastructure' as such, mostly on road cycle lanes which, as has been pointed out before, are a very different thing from segregation. And on many stretches of the busiest cycling streets there are no cycle lanes at all. I suggest you visit. And if you do, you can take a look at Cowley Road and, as Dell would put it, "show us the drawing" of where the segregated lane could go.


----------



## jonesy (2 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Was it cyclists who demanded separate facilities? It might have been for all I know but I have always thought that they arose from lobbying by the motor industry with a view to keeping us out of the way, hence my use of the word apartheid.



Well, clearly there are lots of reasons why local authorities make mistakes, and I'm unclear why ozzage thinks I'm somehow to be held to account for them; however, very often, yes, poor quality cycling infrastructure is installed in response to demands from cyclists. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is simply that cyclists aren't, for the most part, transport planners or highway engineers; while the people who design and install the infrastructure aren't cyclists. So some cyclists might say, with the best intentions, that they want cycle lanes, but there isn't space for adequate width lanes, so dangerously narrow ones are installed, when none at all would have been better. People like ozzage insist we have to have segregation when there isn't space or resources to do it properly, so we get crappy lines painted on the pavement, conflict with pedestrians and loss of priority, and we all suffer as a consequence. We desperately need better informed highway authorities who understand how to implement the Hierarchy properly and know that compromised, sub-standard farcilities can be worse than nothing at all. 

This is also why it is important that, when making demands of local authorities, cyclists make themselves familiar with guidance on best practice in cycling provision and are very precise in what they ask for. Hence my getting grumpy with ozzage earlier about not differentiating between segregated paths and on-road cycle lanes. I've seen community groups make vague references to wanting "cycle ways"- what does this mean, exactly? Is anyone likely to be satisfied with the outcome when the requirement is so unclearly defined from the outset?


----------



## stowie (2 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Do you know, I have started to think that the drawings are never going to be forthcoming.



Drawings are not going to be forthcoming because they will only prove one thing. That any cycle facilities require space to be taken away from private cars and given to cyclists, if they are to work correctly. 

I am surprised that buses have been mentioned - where bus lanes were introduced and helped turn the bus system from a joke to something useful - and yet no-one has commented that these bus lanes involved de-allocating 240km worth of road space (on London's busiest routes) previously allocated to the private cars and giving it to public transport. So de-allocation is _physically _possible on most roads - whether the political will to do so and whether it would help cycling and be a good idea is another matter.

Reading through the posts one thing seems obvious. Everyone wants a similar outcome, namely that cycling becomes more pleasant, convenient and more people feel empowered to cycle. It also seems to me that, actually, cities that have high cycling rates all have something in common - the cities are (either intentionally, or through historical fate) easier to navigate by cycle than by car, and cars are very restricted. Cambridge does this by default (with history meaning that even the most car-friendly town planners couldn't find it within themselves to knock down the colleges to build roads), whilst some continental cities have done it by design, with cycling and pedestrian facilities also doubling as restrictions on car access.

What also is obvious is that I don't think anyone is proposing that _any _cycling infrastructure is better than none. And you cannot segregate everywhere - even in The Netherlands, much cycling is on road. Bad cycle infrastructure is terrible and completely counterproductive, and good infrastructure implicitly requires cycle prioritisation - for example at junctions as is done in many countries in Europe. But what also seems to be the case is that taking the roads as they are now - after decades of planners catering solely for car use - and then thinking that all these roads can be easily used by anyone wishing to cycle is a _touch _optimistic. I cycle on the A11 through Bow and Stratford, and yet I wouldn't have dreamt of doing this when I started cycling. So there is a big physical barrier for cyclists unwilling to navigate such a road. I think these types of obstacles have to be addressed, and in _some _cases the way to address them is to remove space from cars to provide high quality pedestrian and cycle provision.

Things like the hierachy of provision should naturally gravitate road planning towards restricting car use in a way that helps cycling. But I see very little evidence of the hierachy of provision being implemented on the ground in places like Waltham Forest. Cycling facilities should flow naturally from the hierachy of provision where they are absolutely needed, but mostly won't be required as roads become geared towards pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. And when that happens, surely everyone will be happy?!


----------



## stowie (3 Jan 2011)

jonesy said:


> Well, clearly there are lots of reasons why local authorities make mistakes, and I'm unclear why ozzage thinks I'm somehow to be held to account for them; however, very often, yes, poor quality cycling infrastructure is installed in response to demands from cyclists. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is simply that cyclists aren't, for the most part, transport planners or highway engineers; while the people who design and install the infrastructure aren't cyclists. So some cyclists might say, with the best intentions, that they want cycle lanes, but there isn't space for adequate width lanes, so dangerously narrow ones are installed, when none at all would have been better. People like ozzage insist we have to have segregation when there isn't space or resources to do it properly, so we get crappy lines painted on the pavement, conflict with pedestrians and loss of priority, and we all suffer as a consequence. We desperately need better informed highway authorities who understand how to implement the Hierarchy properly and know that compromised, sub-standard farcilities can be worse than nothing at all.
> 
> This is also why it is important that, when making demands of local authorities, cyclists make themselves familiar with guidance on best practice in cycling provision and are very precise in what they ask for. Hence my getting grumpy with ozzage earlier about not differentiating between segregated paths and on-road cycle lanes. I've seen community groups make vague references to wanting "cycle ways"- what does this mean, exactly? Is anyone likely to be satisfied with the outcome when the requirement is so unclearly defined from the outset?



To my untutored eye there is lots of unintended consequences (target driven?) with cycle provision at the moment. Waltham Forest is clearly very proud of its mileage of cycle lanes (on-road), failing, of course, to mention that much of this is poorly implemented and dangerous. I agree that this sounds like town planners who, maybe for the right reasons, want to implement cycle facilities, but have no idea what works, and what doesn't. But this amazes me when, as a simple cyclist, I can access reams of documents detailing good and bad cycle infrastructure provision - documents where it would take minutes to realise that implementing cycle lanes right next to lines of parked cars (for example) is probably unwise and not particularly useful. I am sure LCC and CTC and their local groups have expertise that could help as well.

Do the planners responsible for putting in these lanes get invited to cycle around the areas? Again, I am sure that they would be invited to do so by local groups?

I also see frustration when requests are specific. I know that our local LCC has complained about a set of useful cycle lights which have been turned off for over a year because they "conflicted" with the car phase (they were in use for years before, so how this arose so suddenly is somewhat of a mystery). And yet the best response is the junction _may_ be redesigned in 2011 and will be addressed then (this redesign is unlikely to happen as it is linked in with nearby "regeneration" which I cannot see happening in the near future, but that is a whole other local council scandal).

Finally, I am interested in where money for cycle provision actually goes, as I know my local council gets some but has no documentation released on how it is spent. Last I heard, the local LCC was concerned some of the grant was earmarked for off-road car parking (I kid you not).

So although some of the problem may be local planners trying to implement cyclists wishes, I wouldn't underestimate the target culture, or indeed, the apathy culture either. My new years resolution is to rid myself of some of my "apathy culture" and actually start going to LCC meetings and emailing my MP and councillors.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Those sound like good ideas. I've tried to use your profile to email you, but I get an error message - "[#10314] Sorry, you are not permitted to send an email via this board." Not sure why that is.



me neither! I've pm'd you my email address.


----------



## jonesy (3 Jan 2011)

stowie said:


> Drawings are not going to be forthcoming because they will only prove one thing. That any cycle facilities require space to be taken away from private cars and given to cyclists, if they are to work correctly.



The reason we keep asking for the drawings is because in many locations there simply isn't space for good quality segregated provision at all, nothing to do with car parking. As I've pointed out earlier, that is the situation on much of Cowley Rd, which is also one of the busiest cycling corridors in the country . The road is a narrow single-carriageway, used by large numbers of buses and delivery vehicles as well as cars, so even banning cars from the centre of Oxford wouldn't solve the problem. There simply isn't room to Copenhagenise the road, and that's the way it is. And of course similar situations apply on many other key cycling corridors in the country.




> I am surprised that buses have been mentioned - where bus lanes were introduced and helped turn the bus system from a joke to something useful - and yet no-one has commented that these bus lanes involved de-allocating 240km worth of road space (on London's busiest routes) previously allocated to the private cars and giving it to public transport. So de-allocation is _physically _possible on most roads - whether the political will to do so and whether it would help cycling and be a good idea is another matter.


Well, I'd certainly agree with giving buses priority, and that bus lanes can be very helpful to cyclists. But then I've been clear all along that bus travel is an essential part of sustainable transport, it is ozzage who thinks all the bus passengers can be moved onto bicycles so we can get the buses out of the way for segregated cycle paths...

However, I'd strongly disagree that this is possible on "most" roads- unless you have two lanes in either direction you can't create a bus lane. Where is there space for bus lanes on Victoria St for example? And bus lanes plus segregated cycle lanes requires a lot more space than exists on most of London's streets; and you've still got to sort out the bus stops to avoid conflict between bus passengers and cyclists. And find a way of dealing with local deliveries etc, which are essential if you want to maintain vibrant local centres with good local shops and services.




> Reading through the posts one thing seems obvious. Everyone wants a similar outcome, namely that cycling becomes more pleasant, convenient and more people feel empowered to cycle. It also seems to me that, actually, cities that have high cycling rates all have something in common - the cities are (either intentionally, or through historical fate) easier to navigate by cycle than by car, and cars are very restricted. Cambridge does this by default (with history meaning that even the most car-friendly town planners couldn't find it within themselves to knock down the colleges to build roads), whilst some continental cities have done it by design, with cycling and pedestrian facilities also doubling as restrictions on car access.
> 
> What also is obvious is that I don't think anyone is proposing that _any _cycling infrastructure is better than none. And you cannot segregate everywhere - even in The Netherlands, much cycling is on road. Bad cycle infrastructure is terrible and completely counterproductive, and good infrastructure implicitly requires cycle prioritisation - for example at junctions as is done in many countries in Europe. But what also seems to be the case is that taking the roads as they are now - after decades of planners catering solely for car use - and then thinking that all these roads can be easily used by anyone wishing to cycle is a _touch _optimistic. I cycle on the A11 through Bow and Stratford, and yet I wouldn't have dreamt of doing this when I started cycling. So there is a big physical barrier for cyclists unwilling to navigate such a road. I think these types of obstacles have to be addressed, and in _some _cases the way to address them is to remove space from cars to provide high quality pedestrian and cycle provision.
> 
> Things like the hierachy of provision should naturally gravitate road planning towards restricting car use in a way that helps cycling. But I see very little evidence of the hierachy of provision being implemented on the ground in places like Waltham Forest. Cycling facilities should flow naturally from the hierachy of provision where they are absolutely needed, but mostly won't be required as roads become geared towards pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. And when that happens, surely everyone will be happy?!



I largely agree, which is why I've been advocating the hierarchy throughout this discussion. Which means moving people like ozzage (and, more importantly, some of the organisations that lobby for and fund cycling facilities...) on from the single-minded obsession with segregation.


----------



## jonesy (3 Jan 2011)

stowie said:


> ....
> 
> So although some of the problem may be local planners trying to implement cyclists wishes, *I wouldn't underestimate the target culture,* or indeed, the apathy culture either. ...



I quite agree. Targets for miles of "cycle route" are totally inappropriate and encourage the creation of routes with no reference to quality or the needs of users. Or indeed whether there are any potential users- as is demonstrated by the many miles of "cycle route" that has been developed in remote locations, well beyond typical cycling distances. Indeed, the more indirect and out of the way the route is, the more miles can be added to the target! Clearly it is much easier to map out and signpost a 20 mile route in a rural area than to provide ten 2 mile long good quality routes serving real desire lines in urban areas, even though the latter would carry vastly more cyclists.


----------



## ozzage (3 Jan 2011)

jonesy said:


> Well, I'd certainly agree with giving buses priority, and that bus lanes can be very helpful to cyclists. But then I've been clear all along that bus travel is an essential part of sustainable transport, *it is ozzage who thinks all the bus passengers can be moved onto bicycles* so we can get the buses out of the way for segregated cycle paths...



I don't really like people telling direct untruths about my position.

You'll never get rid of buses and I never said you would, but when people argue with a statement that a 40% cycling modal share wouldn't reduce the required number of buses then I can only shake my head. If people genuinely don't think that we couldn't significantly reduce load on the public transport infrastructure with a high cycling modal share then there's not much more I can add. People in the UK are often so blinkered because they don't believe, in their hearts, that cycling can take the place of public transport for a massive chunk of the population. But it can.



> However, I'd strongly disagree that this is possible on "most" roads- unless you have two lanes in either direction you can't create a bus lane. Where is there space for bus lanes on Victoria St for example? And bus lanes plus segregated cycle lanes requires a lot more space than exists on most of London's streets; and you've still got to sort out the bus stops to avoid conflict between bus passengers and cyclists. And find a way of dealing with local deliveries etc, which are essential if you want to maintain vibrant local centres with good local shops and services.



Firstly not all roads will be suitable. No argument there. London is difficult, but not as difficult as it's made out to be. For your other points we are, as ever, dealing with problems which have already been solved in other countries.



> I largely agree, which is why I've been advocating the hierarchy throughout this discussion. Which means moving people like ozzage (and, more importantly, some of the organisations that lobby for and fund cycling facilities...) on from the single-minded obsession with segregation.



The hierarchy of provision is, quite simply, an unmitigated disaster. It is nothing but an excuse to spend little or no money on cycling. It's been shown to fail in reality in the UK, everywhere you look and it's time to move on.


----------



## ozzage (3 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> 3) Upstream Ozzage has proposed that cycling facilities are good even if they actually make cycling more dangerous provided that they appear to make cycling safer to non-cyclists. At least I think that was what he said.



And explained why it will ultimately still make things safer in real terms as well.

Much later edit: I just realised you said to "non-cyclists" That's not true, or at least not wholly. It makes them seem safer to the majority of cyclists as well!


----------



## ozzage (3 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> it is. That may not be what you want to hear, but buses move people more efficiently than bikes.



In your narrow measure, maybe. I notice you ignored everything else I wrote about buses.


----------



## jonesy (3 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> It might be an idea actually to give it a go sometime first.



Quite. The hierarchy does of course come from Dutch practice, which I thought ozzage was terribly keen for us to learn from...


----------



## jonesy (3 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> I don't really like people telling direct untruths about my position.
> 
> You'll never get rid of buses and I never said you would, but when people argue with a statement that a 40% cycling modal share wouldn't reduce the required number of buses then I can only shake my head. If people genuinely don't think that we couldn't significantly reduce load on the public transport infrastructure with a high cycling modal share then there's not much more I can add. People in the UK are often so blinkered because they don't believe, in their hearts, that cycling can take the place of public transport for a massive chunk of the population. But it can.



I'm not. You said "if we can get 30% modal share we'll need FAR fewer buses too "

Your emphasis. FAR fewer. But you haven't remotely been able to justify that position. So, I repeat my earlier question: "show us the trips". By which I mean demonstrate that a 40% modal share for cycling is actually possible in London (I note you've made your challenge even more difficult with a higher figure!), with reference to trips that are actually made in London, the journey type and trip length you propose to target etc. And don't assume that 100% of trips within cycleable distance can actually be moved to cycling either, so you'll need to show that a very much higher percentage of trips are within cycling distance, and make realistic assumptions about the distance people will cycle for everyday trips in normal clothing, as they do in Oxford, Cambridge and Copenhagen. Hint- very few are going as far as 5 miles.


----------



## ozzage (4 Jan 2011)

jonesy said:


> Quite. The hierarchy does of course come from Dutch practice, which I thought ozzage was terribly keen for us to learn from...



It's a load of utter rubbish pedalled by CTC and similar that they are promoting any kind of Dutch model here with their hierarchy of provision. The CTC thinks that segregation _may _be suitable for use alongside _high-speed, dual carriageways_ (but not always, and thanks to the hierarchy they have plenty of chances to block it happening) and is well suited for _open green spaces_. They also think that such routes should be wide enough for the _*pedestrians *and cyclists_ who are going to use them.

This is not the Dutch model, no matter how often people claim it to be. The hierarchy of provision is garbage and the supporting documentation to it by the CTC show very clearly where they consider segregation to sit. Nowhere, preferably.


----------



## theclaud (4 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Not to my satisfaction you haven't.



Nor mine, I might add. Could those persuaded by Ozzage's "explanation" please identify themselves?


----------



## ozzage (4 Jan 2011)

Perhaps you guys might point out explicitly which bits you're having trouble understanding.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> Firstly not all roads will be suitable. No argument there. London is difficult, but not as difficult as it's made out to be.


great. Show us the drawing.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> In your narrow measure, maybe. I notice you ignored everything else I wrote about buses.


In my narrow measure. Let me tell you something. I organise cycle rides. In September I (with a good deal of help from Adrian and others) organised a cycle ride of 350 people. That's about two and a half bendy buses, four double deckers, or, if you prefer, five half full bendy buses and eight double deckers. That ride had a police escort and caused almighty traffic jams at *half past twelve at night*. This year we're hoping for a thousand. I confidently expect to jam up a considerable stretch of major arterial road - perhaps a mile and a half at a time. The same number of people in buses would hardly be noticed.

Now, if you don't know, feel free to ask. And show us the drawing.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> The hierarchy of provision is, quite simply, an unmitigated disaster. It is nothing but an excuse to spend little or no money on cycling. It's been shown to fail in reality in the UK, everywhere you look and it's time to move on.


how is it a disaster? Pedestrians are, quite rightly, given top priority. Are you saying they shouldn't be? Again....show us the drawing

And can you not get hold of the idea that some of us are against spending money on cycling. We've seen £140M go west on LCN+. I'm surprised that people aren't asking for the money back.


----------



## StuartG (4 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> In my narrow measure. Let me tell you something. I organise cycle rides. In September I (with a good deal of help from Adrian and others) organised a cycle ride of 350 people. That's about two and a half bendy buses, four double deckers, or, if you prefer, five half full bendy buses and eight double deckers.


Wrong. 

Bus users will know that a high proportion are less fit Freedom Pass holders who would require tricycles (preferably battery powered), Mums with 2 or more kids/prams who would need cargo bikes and people whose girth exceeds the average cycle lane. So a bit more road needed and you would need to add an ambulance escort. Also the prospect of expecting OAPs and disabled people to shell out a few hundred quid on a bike when they travel free is a bit of a marketing challenge - the alternative of removing free travel is a political challenge even Boy George funked.

There is also the issue that makes public transport attractive is frequency - people don't like waiting. Lower the modal share of public transport and it becomes less attractive to all users. The leakage is going to be both ways - back to cars and taxis. Lowering public transport modal share is not the most well thought out transport strategy methinks.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Jan 2011)

StuartG said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Bus users will know that a high proportion are less fit Freedom Pass holders who would require tricycles (preferably battery powered), Mums with 2 or more kids/prams who would need cargo bikes and people whose girth exceeds the average cycle lane. So a bit more road needed and you would need to add an ambulance escort. Also the prospect of expecting OAPs and disabled people to shell out a few hundred quid on a bike when they travel free is a bit of a marketing challenge - the alternative of removing free travel is a political challenge even Boy George funked.
> 
> There is also the issue that makes public transport attractive is frequency - people don't like waiting. Lower the modal share of public transport and it becomes less attractive to all users. The leakage is going to be both ways - back to cars and taxis. Lowering public transport modal share is not the most well thought out transport strategy methinks.


----------



## jonesy (4 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> It's a load of utter rubbish pedalled by CTC and similar that they are promoting any kind of Dutch model here with their hierarchy of provision. The CTC thinks that segregation _may _be suitable for use alongside _high-speed, dual carriageways_ (but not always, and thanks to the hierarchy they have plenty of chances to block it happening) and is well suited for _open green spaces_. They also think that such routes should be wide enough for the _*pedestrians *and cyclists_ who are going to use them.
> 
> This is not the Dutch model, no matter how often people claim it to be. The hierarchy of provision is garbage and the supporting documentation to it by the CTC show very clearly where they consider segregation to sit. Nowhere, preferably.



I suspect you haven't actually read any of the Dutch guidance... and I don't know why you are so hung up the CTC either. The hierarchy is applied in DfT's and Cycling England's cycling guidance.

But we digress. I think you were going to tell us where the cycleable trips will come from that make a 40% modal share for cycling in London a realistic proposition...?


----------



## ozzage (5 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> how is it a disaster? Pedestrians are, quite rightly, given top priority. Are you saying they shouldn't be? Again....show us the drawing
> 
> And can you not get hold of the idea that some of us are against spending money on cycling. We've seen £140M go west on LCN+. I'm surprised that people aren't asking for the money back.




It's a disaster because despite it being touted as the answer over and over again, we still have virtually nobody cycling in the UK.

I'm not sure what you mean by your comment about pedestrians. I'm all in favour of pleasant environments for pedestrians. I am one, much of the time.

I never claimed anything about you wanting money spent on infrastructure so I'm not sure where you got that from.


----------



## srw (5 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> It's a disaster because despite it being touted as the answer over and over again, we still have virtually nobody cycling in the UK.



So few, in fact, that it's impossible to sustain a lively and interesting internet forum. Or a lively and active campaigning membership organisation. Or indeed a government-run bicycle hire scheme, or a commercial magazine, or a charity that funds cycle routes. And you never see a cyclist when you're out and about on a Sunday morning, do you?


----------



## gaz (5 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> We've seen £140M go west on LCN+. I'm surprised that people aren't asking for the money back.



If only we could.


----------



## stowie (6 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> how is it a disaster? Pedestrians are, quite rightly, given top priority. Are you saying they shouldn't be? Again....show us the drawing
> 
> And can you not get hold of the idea that some of us are against spending money on cycling. We've seen £140M go west on LCN+. I'm surprised that people aren't asking for the money back.



I think that government at all levels would view people asking for money back that had been p!ssed away as a somewhat slippery slope.

LCN+, in my limited view,as simply a cyclist, seems to be the wrong idea (using indirect routes) badly implemented (signs that point the wrong way, LCN+ routes landing up at difficult junctions with major routes with no priority). The fact it took £140M to achieve this result seems slightly extraordinary.

However, £140M is a mere drop in the ocean in terms of transport spend. Of which considerably more than £140M could probably be reasonably thought as a bit of a waste of time.

Hierachy of provision looks a wonderful philosophy, but I can't really see much evidence of it in action. I shan't bore you with my example of Tottenham Hale re-organisation (removal of pedestrian crossings to aid traffic flow etc.) to illustrate my point. In my view implementing hierachy of provision would resolve many of the issues in the first place.

BTW - I took the opportunity the other day to use the contraflow at Stratford instead of the one way system. It is a much better route to get to Leytonstone High Road, but the signs seem to exclude all traffic except buses from the lane. Which seems wrong as the crossings at either end have cycle lights. And the buses didn't seem to mind me being there. So thanks for the heads-up. I have spent 2 years going around the Stratford gyratory and never thought the contraflow would be an option because of the signs. I will use the contraflow from now on - much more relaxing!


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Jan 2011)

I'm pleased - but do bear in mind that the benefits of the Stratford contraflow can only be truly appreciated at one in the morning in the company of loons. Click the link below. Give it a try.....


----------



## Ravenbait (6 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> It's a disaster because despite it being touted as the answer over and over again, we still have virtually nobody cycling in the UK.


Wow. So I was imagining the 7 other people I saw on bikes on my commute this morning, all within the space of a couple of miles? And my hubbie must be imaginary too, because I could have sworn he cycled to work this morning just like he does every other morning. Those other bikes in the bike shed next to mine are evidently someone's Playstation Network avatars or something.

I *am* someone's imaginary friend!

Sam


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Jan 2011)

srw said:


> So few, in fact, that it's impossible to sustain a lively and interesting internet forum. Or a lively and active campaigning membership organisation. Or indeed a government-run bicycle hire scheme, or a commercial magazine, or a charity that funds cycle routes. And you never see a cyclist when you're out and about on a Sunday morning, do you?



To be fair, I don't think "virtually nobody" was meant literally.

Less than 2% of UK journeys under 5 miles are made by bike - a figure that has not changed for two decades. 

This is the issue.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Jan 2011)

Ravenbait said:


> Wow. So I was imagining the 7 other people I saw on bikes on my commute this morning, all within the space of a couple of miles? And my hubbie must be imaginary too, because I could have sworn he cycled to work this morning just like he does every other morning. Those other bikes in the bike shed next to mine are evidently someone's Playstation Network avatars or something.
> 
> I *am* someone's imaginary friend!
> 
> Sam



Again, to be fair, claiming that "virtually nobody" cycles is probably not a claim that absolutely nobody cycles.


----------



## Ravenbait (6 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Again, to be fair, claiming that "virtually nobody" cycles is probably not a claim that absolutely nobody cycles.



No, but it is a tad hyperbolic. What is the relationship of "virtually" to zero? I would expect "virtually" to be the equivalent of "statistically insignificant", and I'm not sure that this is the case. I don't have absolute figures to hand.

Sam


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Jan 2011)

Ravenbait said:


> I would expect "virtually" to be the equivalent of "statistically insignificant"



Put it this way, if 2 out of 100 kids at a school played, say, basketball, as their chosen sport, and the other 98% played football or rugby instead, I don't think I'd quibble if a teacher said "virtually nobody at our school plays basketball". 


I certainly wouldn't think the teacher was claiming that there was a statistically insignificant number of basketball players.


----------



## srw (6 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Put it this way, if 2 out of 100 kids at a school played, say, basketball, as their chosen sport, and the other 98% played football or rugby instead, I don't think I'd quibble if a teacher said "virtually nobody at our school plays basketball".



On the other hand, if the figures were 20 out of 1000, or 200 out of 10,000 in the county I definitely would quibble. You might as well say that virtually no-one in the country plays premiership football. A multi-billion pound industry says you're wrong.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Jan 2011)

It is quite clear that the "virtually nobody cycles" comment was not meant literally, but was instead used, figuratively, to express a proportion. 

For example, if I said, "virtually nobody in the UK wears clogs, in comparison to the Netherlands" would you waste my time and yours by finding evidence of UK clog wearers?


Of course, if you think ozzage meant, literally, that nobody cycles, then feel free to take issue with a claim that I am absolutely sure he, or she, is not making.


----------



## jonesy (6 Jan 2011)

In which case it is, at best, extremely unhelpful, especially when cycling actually has a significant modal share in a number of places. But then ozzage has form for factually incorrect sweeping statements in this thread...


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Jan 2011)

jonesy said:


> In which case it is, at best, extremely unhelpful, especially when cycling actually has a significant modal share in a number of places. But then ozzage has form for factually incorrect sweeping statements in this thread...



Perhaps Ozzage was wrong to say "virtually nobody cycles in the UK" when he or she could have said "a very small proportion of people in the UK cycle".

But I fail to see why that statement was "extremely unhelpful", or indeed why he or she should necessarily have to mention that cycling has a higher modal share in some UK towns and cities. Variation in levels of cycling from place to place is a given in any country, is it not? 

Am I allowed to say that "more people cycle in the Netherlands than in the UK?" 

Or - presumably - do I have to qualify that statement by saying "more people cycle in the Netherlands than in the UK, although in some places in the Netherlands not many people cycle, and in some places in the UK, quite a few people cycle?" lest I get picked up for making a sweeping statement?

Do you not think you are taking pedantry just a little too far here?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> What I don't really understand is why you speak for Ozzage.



I'm not, nor would I presume to.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> It is not the way it comes across




You evidently cannot distinguish between me taking issue with an interpretation of Ozzage's words, and me speaking for him. 

I am no more "speaking for Ozzage" than anyone else who is debating the meaning of the statement with me.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> I think that I am capable of making the distinction. When you make five successive replies clarifying and reasserting someone else's post though, it comes across as I say.



And the other people who are reasserting their interpretation of his words? 

What a strangely one-eyed view of this discussion you seem to have.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Jan 2011)

I might ask - given that you have now asserted, or reasserted, your opinion of _my_ words three times - whether you are now speaking for me.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Are other people interpreting Ozzage? It seems to me that they are discussing your interpretation with you.



_In what possible way_ can they disagree with my interpretation of his words without having one of their own?

Sincere question - are you trolling?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (6 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> They can disagree with that which you are saying using your interpretation of Ozzage's words




Yes, and I can disagree with what they are saying, using their intepretation of Ozzage's words. 

Do you see how this works? It's called a discussion. it requires two differing interpretations. It's a little difficult with just one.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> So why not leave aside the interpretation stuff and just post your own opinions?




Is this advice only directed at me, or does it include the people who were discussing their interpretation with me?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Jan 2011)

Is that because I am the only one currently here, or because you are being illogical?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Because you write, apparently on Ozzage's behalf, and other people reply to you. Nothing illogical there.



No. Other people present an interpretation of Ozzage's words. I disagree with that intepretation, and present my own.

For some unfathomable reason, you have a problem with this.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Jan 2011)

Here is an example - Ravenbait's interpretation of the quote in question.


Ravenbait said:


> ... it is a tad hyperbolic. What is the relationship of "virtually" to zero? I would expect "virtually" to be the equivalent of "statistically insignificant"




I freely admit that my interpretation may be wrong. I find it a little odd, however, that I am the only one who is precluded from discussing what Ozzage meant. 

Anyway, I expect the final wicket to fall soon. Better things to be doing...


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Jan 2011)

when I see bicycles outnumber private cars, and by a considerable margin, _on main routes in to London_ then I'm tempted to put Ozzage's hyperbole in the box marked 'flat earthers'


----------



## Ravenbait (7 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> What a strangely one-eyed view of this discussion you seem to have.



What, Adrian is relying on parallax to determine distances rather than stereo images? I quite like that. It means he's adjusting position slightly to get a better look instead of deciding that his brain's interpretation is correct.

Sam


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> when I see bicycles outnumber private cars, and by a considerable margin,





dellzeqq said:


> _on main routes in to London_ then I'm tempted to put Ozzage's hyperbole in the box marked 'flat earthers'




How about on Route 211 from Waterloo to Hammersmith, where in this clip, I count ~25 cyclists, and getting on for a thousand private motor vehicles (excluding vans, buses and black cabs)?

Or - from suburban London - Route 230 from Walthamstow to Wood Green, where in this clip, I counted ~400 private motor vehicles (excluding buses, vans, and so on), and only 4 cyclists?

I think it's a little harsh to pull out the "flat earther" label on the basis of some routes in London, when other routes in London tend, at the very least, towards the described pattern of cycling in the UK.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Jan 2011)

Ravenbait said:


> What, Adrian is relying on parallax to determine distances rather than stereo images? I quite like that. It means he's adjusting position slightly to get a better look instead of deciding that his brain's interpretation is correct.
> 
> Sam




Well, yes, parallax relies on a change of position, but I'm not sure it relies on the exclusive use of one eye. Indeed, from a stationary position, two eyes are rather recommended.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Jan 2011)

The A3/A24 corridor, Kennington Road, and Blackfriars Bridge sees more cyclists than private cars in rush hour. I've seen 35 cyclists waiting at one red light on the Clapham Road, and 33 on Kennington Road. So I'm not being harsh when I describe the disastrous 'virtually nobody cycles' Ozzage as a flat-earther - particularly when he declines to _show us the drawing...._


----------



## Ravenbait (7 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Well, yes, parallax relies on a change of position, but I'm not sure it relies on the exclusive use of one eye. Indeed, from a stationary position, two eyes are rather recommended.




It doesn't rely on the exclusive use of one eye, but is rendered necessary by having only one eye.

I should know.

You seemed to be suggesting that a one-eyed view of the world restricts adequate function. I can assure you that this is not the case unless one wishes to play fast-moving ball games or join the armed services.

Sam


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Jan 2011)

Ravenbait said:


> It doesn't rely on the exclusive use of one eye, but is rendered necessary by having only one eye.
> 
> I should know.



Nope. Parallax is used to determine the distance to stars, planets, and so on. Having one eye is not necessary to do this. Quite obviously.



Ravenbait said:


> You seemed to be suggesting that a one-eyed view of the world restricts adequate function.



No, I wasn't doing that at all.


----------



## theclaud (7 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Nope. Parallax is used to determine the distance to stars, planets, and so on. Having one eye is not necessary to do this. Quite obviously.



I think you're misreading Ravenbait's post - she means that if you only have one eye it is certainly necessary, not that it is requires having only one eye.


----------



## Ravenbait (7 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Nope. Parallax is used to determine the distance to stars, planets, and so on. Having one eye is not necessary to do this. Quite obviously.



Comprehension fail.

Having one eye _makes _it necessary to do this as there is a lack of stereo vision to do the job. Trust me. I do know what I'm talking about.



> No, I wasn't doing that at all.



So what did this mean?



> What a strangely one-eyed view of this discussion you seem to have.



What does "one-eyed" mean in this context?

Sam


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Jan 2011)

Ravenbait said:


> Having one eye _makes _it necessary to do this as there is a lack of stereo vision to do the job. Trust me. I do know what I'm talking about.



I understand you. Apologies. (I do usually know what I'm talking about as well, although that may not be obvious when I misread someone else's post.)



Ravenbait said:


> What does "one-eyed" mean in this context?



I was under the impression that "one-eyed" was a fairly common expression - I have found an example here, for instance - that does not necessarily carry with it implications about the actual ability of one-eyed people to perceive the world. If you feel it does I will happily withdraw it and replace it with "partial" or "partisan".


----------



## Ravenbait (7 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> I was under the impression that "one-eyed" was a fairly common expression - I have found an example here, for instance - that does not necessarily carry with it implications about the actual ability of one-eyed people to perceive the world. If you feel it does I will happily withdraw it and replace it with "partial" or "partisan".



It's genuinely not one I've heard before. Don't worry about it, though, I have thicker skin than that  .

From the article to which you've linked it would seem that users of the phrase think that having two eyes is like seeing through 3D glasses: look through just the one and everything is green (or red, depending on which one).

How quaint.

Sam


----------



## stowie (7 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm pleased - but do bear in mind that the benefits of the Stratford contraflow can only be truly appreciated at one in the morning in the company of loons. Click the link below. Give it a try.....



Went around Stratford yesterday, and the traffic was so stationary that I didn't bother with the contraflow. There are roadworks in the contraflow as well at the moment, so getting past stationary buses was trickier than it should be. It appears that the intention is to dig up the whole of Stratford before the Olympics.

The rides look excellent. I would like to do the Southend run, but am away on the date. However work commitments change so may be able to do the March one. I will add the ride to my list of New Year resolutions!


----------



## sheddy (7 Jan 2011)

A 2010 Dutch Cycle survey here - http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/7/1/89 (stolen from CTC Cycleclips)

Reasons for not cycling - 'living too far from work', 'sweating', 'too time-consuming'. No mention of - danger, safety, fear, frightened 

And 'a large proportion of the cyclists thought nothing could be improved'


----------



## jonesy (8 Jan 2011)

sheddy said:


> A 2010 Dutch Cycle survey here - http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/7/1/89 (stolen from CTC Cycleclips)
> 
> Reasons for not cycling - 'living too far from work', 'sweating', 'too time-consuming'. No mention of - danger, safety, fear, frightened
> 
> And 'a large proportion of the cyclists thought nothing could be improved'



Yes, this is the paper that got mentioned in the Cambridge travel survey thread about travel distances. It is worth noting:

" The majority (71%) lived no more than eight kilometers from work. The average single trip distance to work was 6.0 kilometers (median 5 km). Women cycled significantly fewer kilometers (5.3 km) to work than men (6.3 km)."


----------



## stowie (8 Jan 2011)

jonesy said:


> Yes, this is the paper that got mentioned in the Cambridge travel survey thread about travel distances. It is worth noting:
> 
> " The majority (71%) lived no more than eight kilometers from work. The average single trip distance to work was 6.0 kilometers (median 5 km). Women cycled significantly fewer kilometers (5.3 km) to work than men (6.3 km)."



What is the average distance in the UK? Last time I read this statistic it was that the average commute in the UK was 8.7 miles - still within cycling range for many.

Even if work commuting may be more difficult, the average car journey in the UK still indicates that many journeys could be made without resorting to the car.


----------



## jonesy (8 Jan 2011)

stowie said:


> What is the average distance in the UK? Last time I read this statistic it was that the average commute in the UK was 8.7 miles - s*till within cycling range for many.*
> 
> Even if work commuting may be more difficult, the average car journey in the UK still indicates that many journeys could be made without resorting to the car.



Yes, but the point is that when you look at places with high levels of cycling, the average cycle commute is much shorter than that. We really do have to be realistic about the sort of distances people are going to cycle in large numbers. Forget 8.7 miles, that's for people who are quite keen. You can largely forget 5 miles (80% of cycle trips in the UK are below 5 miles, and that is for all cycle trips, not just commuting. Basically, mass cycling is for places with lots of trips in the 1 to 3 mile range; yes we still need to encourage the 3 to 5 mile and above trips, the more out on bikes the merrier, but they aren't going to create a critical mass.


----------



## stowie (8 Jan 2011)

jonesy said:


> Yes, but the point is that when you look at places with high levels of cycling, the average cycle commute is much shorter than that. We really do have to be realistic about the sort of distances people are going to cycle in large numbers. Forget 8.7 miles, that's for people who are quite keen. You can largely forget 5 miles (80% of cycle trips in the UK are below 5 miles, and that is for all cycle trips, not just commuting. Basically, mass cycling is for places with lots of trips in the 1 to 3 mile range; yes we still need to encourage the 3 to 5 mile and above trips, the more out on bikes the merrier, but they aren't going to create a critical mass.



I am sure there are many trips in London within this range - isn't the average car journey something incredible like a couple of miles or something? And this is without thinking that maybe great cycle parking facilities at suburban train and tube stations may encourage people to cycle the typically shortish distance to get to the station?

UK journey distances may be somewhat longer than somewhere which has had high cycling rates for a long time - but the journey distances are in part due to the town planning that went on with only the car in mind. And I think there are enough short journeys that could use a cycle even now.

I think a lot of it is a mindset. It certainly was with me - I used to drive round the corner to do my shopping even though it took longer than even walking. It was simply habit.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Jan 2011)

there are many trips in London within that range, but, sadly, planners have encouraged car based shopping and allowed high streets to decay. Most Italian cities have thriving local economies that are within walking distance of people's dwellings. We have Tesco stores with 350 car spaces.

And that's the problem. It's not just about the design of streets, it's about urban form (sorry, but you hopefully know what I'm on about). Tax large car parks out of existence and you've got yourself a cycling city.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (9 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> there are many trips in London within that range, but, sadly, planners have encouraged car based shopping and allowed high streets to decay. Most Italian cities have thriving local economies that are within walking distance of people's dwellings. We have Tesco stores with 350 car spaces.
> 
> And that's the problem. It's not just about the design of streets, it's about urban form (sorry, but you hopefully know what I'm on about). Tax large car parks out of existence and you've got yourself a cycling city.



Exactly. We're up against a legacy of 30 to 40 years of dreadful urban planning. That inertia is going to be hard to overcome.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Exactly. We're up against a legacy of 30 to 40 years of dreadful urban planning. That inertia is going to be hard to overcome.


if you involve yourself with the local planning process you can be part of the overcoming


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> if you involve yourself with the local planning process you can be part of the overcoming



we like to think the Horsham Cycling Forum is part of our local overcoming. WheelyGoodFun is most welcome to join in.


----------



## style over speed (9 Jan 2011)

Just cycled along the superhighway from Colliers Wood to Balham this evening, its more like a carpark there are at least 60 cars parked on the blue bits. Not another cyclist to be seen unsurprisingly.

Did discover a considerable stretch of wide cycle path along the A217 towards Morden which could do with resurfacing but apart from a couple of poor junctions was pretty decent.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (9 Jan 2011)

GregCollins said:


> we like to think the Horsham Cycling Forum is part of our local overcoming. WheelyGoodFun is most welcome to join in.



Thanks Greg. I've just sent you an email.


----------



## stowie (9 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> there are many trips in London within that range, but, sadly, planners have encouraged car based shopping and allowed high streets to decay. Most Italian cities have thriving local economies that are within walking distance of people's dwellings. We have Tesco stores with 350 car spaces.
> 
> And that's the problem. It's not just about the design of streets, it's about urban form (sorry, but you hopefully know what I'm on about). Tax large car parks out of existence and you've got yourself a cycling city.



I understand exactly. Having been to one of these retail parks today (Edmonton Lee Valley - the one with the huge IKEA) I know how utterly unfriendly they are to anyone who dares decide not to use a car.

The story of our high streets is one of the tragedies of urban planning in the last 40 years. Not only has the retail park killed the high street, but the high street in many parts of London has been turned into an urban highway which also drives away custom.

The ongoing tragedy is that the shop owners in high streets cling to the belief that lowering parking fees and increasing the number of spaces is the answer. When in reality all that happens is that people using their car will still opt for the out of town shop as it will always be easier than navigating to, and parking in, the high street.

One day this trend will have to reverse, but I cannot see it happening any time soon.


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Jan 2011)

It's going to be tough. But it's do-able.


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Jan 2011)

style over speed said:


> Just cycled along the superhighway from Colliers Wood to Balham this evening, its more like a carpark there are at least 60 cars parked on the blue bits. Not another cyclist to be seen unsurprisingly.
> 
> Did discover a considerable stretch of wide cycle path along the A217 towards Morden which could do with resurfacing but apart from a couple of poor junctions was pretty decent.


I was in Balham last night. There was a hard frost. I'd have stayed at home as well. If you go back on a weekday morning you'd see bikes by the bundle.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Thanks Greg. I've just sent you an email.



Cheers. I've sent you our response to the local authorities transport plan consultation.


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I was in Balham last night. There was a hard frost. I'd have stayed at home as well. If you go back on a weekday morning you'd see bikes by the bundle.


...as there was at seven this morning


----------



## stowie (10 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> It's going to be tough. But it's do-able.



Tonight I had a car try to run me off the road because I had the temerity to be on the A10 cycling up Stamford Hill whilst he wanted to undertake the traffic on the outside lane (and then push in at the junction). And when I say run off the road, I mean the full beeping and shouting as he passed so close I felt the wing-mirror. Then I had a car speed towards me at a junction where the priority was mine, and slide (crappy corsa, no ABS) to a stop metres from me as my life flashed before me. Nothing I could realistically do about either, except not be on the road on a cycle at all.

I am really dispirited tonight - it feels a million miles from the environment we should be able to enjoy. 

Then, we have the local council with "regeneration" plans falling through repeatedly, and taking no notice of local opinion. In central Walthamstow, the arcade site (a large area which used to be a shopping parade, got pulled down for regeneration but has stayed derelict for years) is nothing short of a local scandal. And when the council consulted the local residents, the overwhelming response (despite the survey being somewhat "rigged") was that people wanted a low rise development (4 / 5 storeys) in keeping with the surrounding buildings, and the old EMD cinema to be regenerated (a building which was stunning, and is now a wreck) as part of the scheme. What the council (and St Modwen) wanted was an 18 storey towerblock with some retail space. Now all those plans fell through because St Modwen has apparently no money - although the council has paid the company money for "feasilibility" studies. Now the council, with Solun, want to "regenerate" the station area with 14 storey tower blocks. At the same time, 60's high rise buildings such as the Beaumont Estate are being replaced with low rise housing and flats.

Very active local associations that are campaigning against these plans seem to only be able to halt progress, not make anyone involved in the planning actually change their minds. 

How can things turn-around against these odds?


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Jan 2011)

on the other hand.....

Shoreditch gyratory system removed, bus and bike lane northwards
Brixton High Street, gyratory system removed
St. John's Street Clapham Junction, where prosperity has followed a ban on cars

(glosses over Vauxhall....) 

and, actually, if I was drawing for St. Modwen's I'd draw it 38 storeys high (that being the maximum you can get out of flat slab construction) oversize the lifts and hallways to take bikes and suggest that having 200 new flats within walking distance of a market is no bad thing for the market. The more people you have living in a town centre the more the town centre will flourish. The secret of Italian town centres is that they're eight stories. Walking trade guarantees the shops at ground floor level.


----------



## Dan B (11 Jan 2011)

Every time I set wheel on the a10 I am reminded that the standard of driving on that road is uniquely awful in london, and I don't know why. It's the only road I use on which I've ever wanted an airzound.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> The secret of Italian town centres is that they're eight stories.



and the parking is dreadful, so you only drive when you have to and walk/cycle everywhere otherwise. Lots of old town centres in France are the same.


----------



## ozzage (11 Jan 2011)

Sorry I've been away from the forum for a while (not that you mind I'm sure!) but I was amused to see pages of discussion about my "virtually nobody" cycles comment. I'm sorry, but 2% modal share IS virtually nobody in my view.

Let's try another analogy: if you came from another country to the UK (or even London) and found that only 2% of the adult population had a job it would be perfectly reasonable to say "virtually nobody here works!".

It's all relative of course and if you're comparing with the UK ten years then you probably think everything's going great. I've noticed that many people here seem to aim _extremely_ low with what they want to see in terms of cyclist numbers which I find a bit of a shame.

It is sadly indicative of the level of debate in this thread that people choose THAT to fixate on this one statement anyway, rather than on anything concrete.

I will try to respond later to some other points made earlier, since some people went to the trouble of actually trying to articulate arguments with real points! I'm sure you all can't wait


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> a cycle ride of 350 people. That's about two and a half bendy buses, four double deckers, or, if you prefer, five half full bendy buses and eight double deckers. That ride had a police escort and caused almighty traffic jams at *half past twelve at night*.


That's an absurd comparison.

First, those buses will, for most of the day, be mostly empty.

Second, if you want to keep 350 people together as a single group, and give them a police escort, of _ course _it will cause a traffic jam. I'll hazard that any road into central London has more than 350 cyclists every half an hour and causes no traffic jams at all.


----------



## ozzage (12 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> I don't think that anyone here has suggested that 2% is sufficient, or that they have low expectations or ambitions for cyclist numbers. In fact I can see some of them being quite offended by your implicit suggestion that to fail to share your utopic vision can be equated to a lack of any vision for cycling as a transport choice.
> 
> 
> Edit:
> ...



In response to your first point, people raised arguments directly against my statement pointing to what they saw as massive numbers of cyclists on London's roads, so I don't think my suggestion or implication is at all unfair. Apparently some think that there are already a lot of cyclists in London, or that's certainly suggested by their choice of evidence against my claim of virtually nobody cycling.

Sorry I did miss your other question. Yes I cycle in London every day either on my own bike or on Boris Bikes. Quite obviously, I cycle mostly on the roads because I have little choice!

However, I often find it unpleasant and am frequently reminded of how dangerous it feels almost being clipped by taxis or being stuck with a choice of waiting in the fumes or squeezing between a bus and curb/bus and lorry/bus and oncoming traffic. I'm also frequently reminded of how different it was cycling in the Netherlands and how I would never expect mothers with kids, grandparents etc to cycle in the conditions that we face here.

Don't get me wrong, it's not always terrible and I still love going by bike. I like cycling on my Boris Bike through the City after work. The traffic is sparse on the roads I use and it's great. However as soon as I want to get somewhere further away I'm on the Strand/Fleet Street or High Holborn stuck between buses and taxis again. Or I'm going via Lincoln Inn Fields on the quiet route which is fine (but indirect) but rapidly stops at Covent Garden with nowhere to go once I hit Seven Dials. Alternatively, when I commute the whole way on my own bike (from west London) I go through the parks as much as possible and then up via Bloomsbury (and the Tavistock route) which isn't too bad, but only in comparison to other places, and is hardly the most direct route.


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> *In response to your first point, people raised arguments directly against my statement pointing to what they saw as massive numbers of cyclists on London's roads, so I don't think my suggestion or implication is at all unfair.* Apparently some think that there are already a lot of cyclists in London, or that's certainly suggested by their choice of evidence against my claim of virtually nobody cycling.


just false. Show us the drawing


----------



## srw (12 Jan 2011)

Ozzage, next time you're in the Holborn peleton, quit worrying and just enjoy it. Look around you at the fixie gladiators, the Chelsea girls on Pashleys, the massed ranks of Borisers and Bromptoneers. Do we look worried about being clipped by cabs or bonked by buses?

No! Because it very rarely happens.


----------



## slowmotion (12 Jan 2011)

I could be wrong, but maybe the reliance on motor transport in Britain is partly a consequence of our love of suburbs rather than city centres as places to live. I suppose it's a bit chicken and egg.


----------



## ozzage (12 Jan 2011)

srw said:


> Ozzage, next time you're in the Holborn peleton, quit worrying and just enjoy it. Look around you at the fixie gladiators, the Chelsea girls on Pashleys, the massed ranks of Borisers and Bromptoneers. Do we look worried about being clipped by cabs or bonked by buses?
> 
> No! Because it very rarely happens.



I have no desire to be part of any peleton. I just want to ride along, enjoying myself and get from A to B without feeling like I'm doing some kind of fitness training or sport. In the mix there I automatically speed up to match the traffic (when it's moving!), my head swivels continually left and right, I'm looking for gaps and continually judging "will I fit" and accelerating/decelerating. Sure, I can ride like that and it can even be exciting, but it's NOT particularly enjoyable unless you are the type of person who likes the adrenalin rush from it (that's not at all a judgement, but those who DO like it have to realise that not everybody does)

It's as if every commute in your car was like doing laps of a racetrack. A certain portion of the population would LOVE that, but most would find it too much hard work and stress when they just want to get somewhere.

FWIW I don't see many Pashley princesses riding sedately down High Holborn if I'm there (usually just after 6pm although I avoid it these days). Plenty of Boris Bikers to be sure though but they're a mixed bunch!


----------



## ozzage (12 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> just false. Show us the drawing



Do you think I misrepresented your position? That would be rude of me wouldn't it.

A bit like people stating that my "strategy" is to reduce bus use, or that I said that a 40% modal share was a "realistic proposition", or that I think that "all bus passenger" can be converted to cycling, none of which were ever a position of mine but in a flurry of frantic straw-clutching were all held up as straw-men and argued against.


----------



## srw (13 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> I have no desire to be part of any peleton. I just want to ride along, enjoying myself and get from A to B without feeling like I'm doing some kind of fitness training or sport.


I'm exactly the same. "Peleton" was used as a metaphor.

The thing about Holborn is that there are plenty of bus lanes. And not enough buses to clog them up.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2011)

slowmotion said:


> I could be wrong, but maybe the reliance on motor transport in Britain is partly a consequence of our love of suburbs rather than city centres as places to live. I suppose it's a bit chicken and egg.


you could be wrong, or, then again, you could be 110% right. I blame that b*****d William Morris.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2011)

ozzage said:


> Do you think I misrepresented your position? That would be rude of me wouldn't it.


it would. Show us the drawing.

Tell you what, we'll meet up, cycle along the route of your choice, and I'll do the drawing. Can't say fairer than that, can I?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (13 Jan 2011)

Do bus lanes implicitly create a "non-cyclists lane" out of whatever road is left?


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2011)

yup.

I see that WalthamForestCrapCycleLanes has stepped over the mark again... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o1Wme_0ZrCQCpZP_heoHUI-oWLKlxux4kQBPT4XG9lk/edit?hl=en&pli=1#


----------



## Dan B (13 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Do bus lanes implicitly create a "non-cyclists lane" out of whatever road is left?



An interesting question and not one I know the answer to. But anecdotally I've been told many times to "get in the cycle lane" and can't ever remember getting grief for not being in the bus lane


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jan 2011)

slowmotion said:


> I could be wrong, but maybe the reliance on motor transport in Britain is partly a consequence of our love of suburbs rather than city centres as places to live. I suppose it's a bit chicken and egg.



I blame the Nazis


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> yup.
> 
> I see that WalthamForestCrapCycleLanes has stepped over the mark again... https://docs.google....dit?hl=en&pli=1#




That statement from cyclenation capture my thoughts and feelings spot on.


----------



## StuartG (13 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I see that WalthamForestCrapCycleLanes has stepped over the mark again... https://docs.google....dit?hl=en&pli=1#


And in other news Clyclenation hissed over the mark (again): http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/search?q=cyclenation

Tandems at dawn?


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2011)

blimey. Makes P+L look safe. Mind you, I'm still cheesed off that he's cut and pasted my stuff without acknowledgement and out of context.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (13 Jan 2011)

It is rather odd that Cyclenation saw fit to draw up an official statement correcting CWF's assertions about Cyclenation, when the blog in question had barely even mentioned Cyclenation in the first place.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2011)

User said:


> I tend to side with CrapCycleLanes on this.
> 
> Cyclenation is a nice little club that specialises in mutual back-slapping.


You may think that, but it consists of most of the independent cycle campaigning organisations in the country, and (touches imaginary forelock) Jenny Jones. And, as you and I have both heard Roger Geffen effectively fold up the last eight years of CTC's campaigning strategy without actually having the wherewithal to put something in its place, for all its faults, it's what we've got. And there's not a lot else on the horizon.

And WalthamForestCrapBlog did have a go at CCN. But, then again, he had a go at CTC, using cut and paste from something that I wrote, changing the meaning and context. So, it's fair to say that he's not my favourite.


----------



## slowmotion (13 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> you could be wrong, or, then again, you could be 110% right. I blame that b*****d William Morris.




I think the root cause goes even further back than William Morris. Britain industrialised earlier than a lot of larger countries. The net result was urban overcrowding, and slums. People saw the ideas of Morris and Ebenezer Howard as a highly desirable alternative. The garden city movement morphed into the suburbs. At the same time, wider car ownership in the Thirties made the suburbs more viable. Net result...car culture.

This could be a load of old cobblers...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> It took 27 pages to reach this point.



Godwin's Law does not apply.


----------



## stowie (13 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Try to take in Southwark Bridge Road. I am given to understand that there are pavement works spilling in to the blue cycle lane at the moment. This has meant that there are signs deployed advising that the cycle lane is closed and cyclists should dismount.
> 
> I said it a fair few pages back but it stands repeating. If you create a cycle lane you are implicitly creating a non-cyclists lane out of whatever road is left.



Well, kind of.

The fact that thisis the attitude of some motorists and that TfL / council are stupid enough to put in these types of signs can't really be blamed solely on cycle lanes. Some motorists currently think cyclists shouldn't be on the road - cycle lane or no.

The cycle lane close / cyclist dismount signs drive me spare. I can only assume they are there as some kind of weasel way to get out of being sued?! How much more civilised to have "road narrow / motorists taken caution with cyclists" or some such sign! And this would re-enforce our right to be on the road.

Locally, the council have dug up a small section of the road and put up these signs. It makes me mad.

So, it bears repeating that creating a cycle lane doesn't limit the cyclist's use of the road in law or highway code. Only in the mind of road users already pre-disposed to question our right to the road in the first place.

(Edited so that the post bears some passing resemblance to English)


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (13 Jan 2011)

Suppose - hypothetically speaking - that bus lanes cyclists are permitted to use create, or rather, engender, the belief that the rest of the road, or indeed any road that does not have a bus lane on, is not for cyclists. 

Would that be an argument for removing the permissibility of bus lanes* for cyclists? That it creates an attitude about our usage of the rest of the road network?




*I should add, for clarity, that I do think bus lanes are generally wonderful on a bike, especially the one on Gower Street in morning rush hour.


----------



## stowie (13 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Apologies if I have failed to make myself clear. I do not think that an actual "Not-cyclist lane" is created, more a de-facto one. Official signs telling us to get off and walk because our lane is obstructed fuel the beliefs that the rest of the road is not for us.
> 
> Obviously I will take the notion of a Cyclists Dismount sign the day I see a Motorists Get Out And Push sign.



Yes, same here!

I guess I was saying that the problem maybe not the concept of cycle lanes in principle, but the attitude of some other road users to cyclists in general. And that signs such as cyclists dismount are incredibly unhelpful in altering this mindset.

I have been in Denmark this week (in a relatively small city, so no real comparisons with London, but plenty of smaller towns are comparable in the UK). The town wasn't covered in cycle lanes (in fact there were very few in the town at all), but the space given to pedestrians and cyclists, and the restrictions on cars in a very large part of the centre was completely different to similar towns I see in the UK. The attitude of drivers seems different to pedestrians and cyclists (priority is assumed to be different for a start), but I would say the standard is driving generally is not really different - I don't think the Danish are magically better, more considerate drivers. They are just conditioned to sharing space much more effectively in towns, and road design has removed space from them and given it to cyclists and pedestrians in the first instance.


----------



## stowie (13 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Suppose - hypothetically speaking - that bus lanes cyclists are permitted to use create, or rather, engender, the belief that the rest of the road, or indeed any road that does not have bus lane on, is not for cyclists.
> 
> Would that be an argument for removing the permissibility of bus lanes* for cyclists? That it creates an attitude about our usage of the rest of the road network?
> 
> ...



Or indeed, does it engender the belief in some motorists that buses shouldn't be on the other parts of the road? I suspect it might, but buses cannot be bullied quite as easily.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Jan 2011)

WGF's hypothesis is a decent hypothesis, but, in practice, the width of bus lanes* enables cyclists to proceed, overtake each other, and do everything except turn right on the red tarmac. There are times that I'm in the 'fast lane', but that's generally because I'm going pretty fast, and as fast as the traffic, and that puts me in to a different relationship with the drivers. But, again, there is a problem in theory.

*Clapham North southbound is filling up with bikes. Oh dear!!


----------



## jonesy (14 Jan 2011)

I think it is pretty well understood that bus lanes are intended to give buses advantage over other traffic, which often isn't the case with cycle paths or lanes, so buses gain rather than lose from their creation, and cyclists benefit from the additional space as a bonus. I'd be surprised if drivers perceived bus lanes as being somewhere cyclists should be constrained to in the same way that they do with cycle specific provision.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Jan 2011)

I've a confession to make - I should have said this straight away. Susie and I have been told to get back in the bus lane. By a cab driver. It was a bus lane that cabs aren't allowed in, so he wasn't being a complete hypocrite.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (14 Jan 2011)

Apologies. My point was not really about bus lanes, but was instead an oblique response to a point Adrian has been making.

Upthread he argued "If you create a cycle lane you are implicitly creating a non-cyclists lane out of whatever road is left." Also, "Every bit of segregated lane in a world of partial segregation only serves to encourage this [get off my road] attitude" and "it is the concept of segregation that is causing the problem." 


That is, we shouldn't provide dedicated lanes for cyclists, because in doing so, we create an attitude amongst certain members of society that the rest of the road network is not for us. 


I was attempting to see whether this logic would extend to bus lanes - suppose, hypothetically, that cyclists' use of bus lanes created precisely this attitude (and given Dell's example above, it does seem to, at least among a small minority). Would the fact that some rather stupid people think that cyclists are no longer allowed on the rest of the road be a _sufficient_ (or even good) reason to rethink allowing cyclists in bus lanes?


(This is not really an argument about whether we should provide more cycle lanes or not; it's rather about what reasons can or can't be employed against or in favour of them)


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (14 Jan 2011)

jonesy said:


> I'd be surprised if drivers perceived bus lanes as being somewhere cyclists should be constrained to in the same way that they do with cycle specific provision.



That is almost certainly true, even taking into account Dell's example above. 

But I was really engaging in a thought experiment - a "what if."


----------



## jonesy (14 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Apologies. My point was not really about bus lanes, but was instead an oblique response to a point Adrian has been making.
> 
> Upthread he argued "If you create a cycle lane you are implicitly creating a non-cyclists lane out of whatever road is left." Also, "Every bit of segregated lane in a world of partial segregation only serves to encourage this [get off my road] attitude" and "it is the concept of segregation that is causing the problem."
> 
> ...




Ok, I see where you are going. And as I have no objection to things that give _advantage _to cyclists, especially when they take space from motorised traffic, then I'd agree with you that that particular argument is not of itself sufficient to argue against the principle of cycle lanes. That said, - most of the argument here has been about segregation hasn't it? On highway cycle lanes aren't segregation in the way it is usually understood in transport planning. (I'm not opposed in principle to segregation either, as long as it provides advantage, but dellzeqq's "show us the drawings" challenge has to be faced).


----------



## sheddy (15 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> yup.
> I see that WalthamForestCrapCycleLanes has stepped over the mark again... https://docs.google....dit?hl=en&pli=1#



For those of us lost and reading up a few days late, what date was the WFCCL item ?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (17 Jan 2011)

jonesy said:


> Ok, I see where you are going. And as I have no objection to things that give _advantage _to cyclists, especially when they take space from motorised traffic, then I'd agree with you that that particular argument is not of itself sufficient to argue against the principle of cycle lanes. That said, - most of the argument here has been about segregation hasn't it? On highway cycle lanes aren't segregation in the way it is usually understood in transport planning. (I'm not opposed in principle to segregation either, as long as it provides advantage, but dellzeqq's "show us the drawings" challenge has to be faced).



Sorry, I would have replied earlier - I didn't spot this. 

On the basis of the above, I don't think there's much disagreement here. I think the "advantage" point is absolutely critical - I certainly would not be in favour of any segregation that made a cyclist's journey longer and/or more difficult than the equivalent road journey, because frankly that's not going to be attractive enough to justify the expense.

The Dutch are sadly decades ahead of us on this, and competitive advantage is just as important as the safety aspect. Take this roundabout in Utrecht. Not only does the cyclist heading in to town not have to negotiate the large multi-lane roundabout, but their route is a simple straight line without any traffic lights or junctions. This is the kind of thing I would like to see. 

Unfortunately, in the UK, any segregated infrastructure on that kind of roundabout is a desperate mish-mash of hopping on and off pavements, and/or convoluted and confusing pedestrian underpasses. Take this example from near me -








I try to avoid this roundabout as you get lunatics screaming around it, coming straight off a dual carriageway at 50+ mph. The radius is large enough for vehicle speeds to remain high. The "segregation" provides no advantage, and not really any more safety than cycling on the roundabout, because you have to make several crossings against high speed traffic. This roundabout is a massive barrier between the town and the satellite village - barely two miles apart, centre to centre, yet largely isolated for pedestrians and cyclists (there is a pedestrian footbridge, but the route is convoluted and lengthy).


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (17 Jan 2011)

When it comes to urban centres, I don't think segregation is at all necessary on many quieter roads, provided that access for cars becomes more difficult. 

This video - again from Utrecht - is a good illustration. There is no segregation here, but it looks like there is a lot of restricted access for motor vehicles. The bicycle gains competitive advantage.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2011)

well, we've been wittering on about advantage through the entire thread. That is what will get people on bikes - when they see cyclists who look something like them swanning down bus lanes and getting to work in less time and in decent shape.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (17 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> well, we've been wittering on about advantage through the entire thread. That is what will get people on bikes - when they see cyclists who look something like them swanning down bus lanes and getting to work in less time and in decent shape.



Absolutely. But do you see a problem on the horizon, at least on arterial routes? That is, if numbers increase sufficiently (and you have already mentioned congestion in bus lanes), with those numbers coming from people stepping out of their motor vehicles, presumably due to frustration at the time it is taking them to get into work - would that mean that using the car becomes an attractive option again, as congestion in the road network is ameliorated at the expense of more "congestion" in bus lanes?

(This is of course why bus lanes are necessary, not just for buses to compete on journey times, but for them to continue to remain attractive in the long term. Without lanes giving the buses the competitive advantage, more people on buses=less congestion=people going back to cars=right back to square one)


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Jan 2011)

Well, it's the kind of problem that we should be glad to have. And we've made the point about the bus having the competitive advantage from the off - not least because buses are, at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, making a greater contribution than bikes.

I don't personally think that the new cyclists are ex-car drivers. For one - there's too many of them. We forget how few cars there are on the roads in to Zones 1 and 2 - they just occupy a lot of space. I reckon that the Congestion Charge has changed people's travelling habits, and that cars are simply staying out of the CC Zone. And, provided that there is no Johnson (how convenient that he was named after the penis) inspired frenzy leading to bus lanes being scrubbed out I think that the competitive disadvantage 'enjoyed' by cars will persist.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Jan 2011)

The cycalogical blog has an interesting post today that relates to "advantage."

Anyone wishing to hop on a Boris Bike on the docking station at Tavistock Street and then simply head east (legally) has to perform an enormous circuit, around Henrietta Street, Bedford Street, and then Floral Street, as shown below -









Advantage to the bicycle? None. A contraflow - segregated or otherwise - along the length of Tavistock Street would ameliorate this situation greatly.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Unfortunately, in the UK, any segregated infrastructure on that kind of roundabout is a desperate mish-mash of hopping on and off pavements, and/or convoluted and confusing pedestrian underpasses. Take this example from near me -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every word of what you say is true up until "This roundabout is a massive barrier...." Everyone knows that roundabout is bullshit including the County Council's Cycling Officer and Highway Dept. No one sane uses it or the approach to it either. In fact when I started out (again) on the local campaign road I did ask for that to be removed. It would be a death trap but lack of use..... Even if you could cross it the roads it links to are rat runs. But influential local loons sounded off when alterations/removal were proposed. So alternatives were suggested.....

A few hundred metres away cyclists and pedestrians can cross the A24 in perfect safety off road on a dedicated mixed mode route via the Tesco/Leisure Centre footbridge so why sweat it? If any cyclist is isolated from 'Sham Town in Bored Stiff Heath they need to get a map of the towns cycle routes. What about the Robin Hood Lane Golf course route in? All added after WSCC/HDC realised what a farce that roundabout, amongst other provision, is.

(PS how do you get streetview images in apost. I've forgotten)


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> The cycalogical blog has an interesting post today that relates to "advantage."
> 
> Anyone wishing to hop on a Boris Bike on the docking station at Tavistock Street and then simply head east (legally) has to perform an enormous circuit, around Henrietta Street, Bedford Street, and then Floral Street, as shown below -
> 
> ...


and making roads two way with shared surfaces and interruptors and crossings would be better still, not least for pedestrians. Tavistock Street is, at present, a short sprint for van drivers, and crossing it on foot, particularly if you're not so fleet, is needlessly unpleasant. A cycle lane is neither here nor there.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (19 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> and making roads two way with shared surfaces and interruptors and crossings would be better still, not least for pedestrians. Tavistock Street is, at present, a short sprint for van drivers, and crossing it on foot, particularly if you're not so fleet, is needlessly unpleasant. A cycle lane is neither here nor there.




I think this is where we have to disagree slightly. I think driving a motor vehicle around London has to be made more difficult than using a bicycle - this is the "advantage" we are talking about - and I'm not sure that is achieved by making roads equally accessible to cars and bicycles. 


A contraflow for bicycles could of course go hand in hand with pedestrian friendly measures like pedestrian crossings, or indeed shared space. And - all other things being equal - a one-way street with a contraflow bicycle lane is more pleasant for pedestrians than two-way motor vehicle flow.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (19 Jan 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Every word of what you say is true up until "This roundabout is a massive barrier...." Everyone knows that roundabout is bullshit including the County Council's Cycling Officer and Highway Dept. No one sane uses it or the approach to it either. In fact when I started out (again) on the local campaign road I did ask for that to be removed. It would be a death trap but lack of use..... Even if you could cross it the roads it links to are rat runs. But influential local loons sounded off when alterations/removal were proposed. So alternatives were suggested.....
> 
> A few hundred metres away cyclists and pedestrians can cross the A24 in perfect safety off road on a dedicated mixed mode route via the Tesco/Leisure Centre footbridge so why sweat it? If any cyclist is isolated from 'Sham Town in Bored Stiff Heath they need to get a map of the towns cycle routes. What about the Robin Hood Lane Golf course route in? All added after WSCC/HDC realised what a farce that roundabout, amongst other provision, is.
> 
> (PS how do you get streetview images in apost. I've forgotten)



I use the Robin Hood Lane route myself, and like it - but usually for going out for leisure rides in that direction. I'm not sure that it's going to get that many people switching from their car to the bicycle for journeys into town from Broadbridge Heath. The route is circuitous - 








You have to head north from the village for half a mile, when you want to be heading east. This is a disadvantage. Robin Hood Lane (in combination with Byfleets Lane) is also an increasingly heavily used rat run for people taking a shortcut from the A281 to the A264, instead of taking the main road south of Broadbridge Heath. So it's not ideal. 

The "Tesco" crossing is much better, but it's still a bit of a PITA, not least negotiating the car park (IIRC there is no direct route across to the bridge?), and again the route is somewhat circuitous. 

I don't know if this piece of piss-poor design has been ameliorated either -







I mean... really. Were they _trying _to make things difficult when they laid that footpath? 

(BTW who are the "local loons" and on what grounds were they resisting? Intrigued.)


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (19 Jan 2011)

Oh and WRT to the images of the maps, I'm just using a screen capture thing, and uploading it to tinypic. Nothing too sophisticated!

I'll send you an email later today with some questions/comments about "getting involved".


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> I think this is where we have to disagree slightly. I think driving a motor vehicle around London has to be made more difficult than using a bicycle - this is the "advantage" we are talking about - and I'm not sure that is achieved by making roads equally accessible to cars and bicycles.
> 
> 
> A contraflow for bicycles could of course go hand in hand with pedestrian friendly measures like pedestrian crossings, or indeed shared space. And - all other things being equal - a one-way street with a contraflow bicycle lane is more pleasant for pedestrians than two-way motor vehicle flow.


interruptors. As in bollards, designed to *slow or halt through traffic*. And contraflow cycle lanes are detested by pedestrians and wheelchair users, with good reason. 

It is absolutely no use proposing stuff that Living Streets opposes. They are at the top of the heirarchy and with good reason.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (19 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> interruptors. As in bollards, designed to *slow or halt through traffic*. And contraflow cycle lanes are detested by pedestrians and wheelchair users, with good reason.
> 
> It is absolutely no use proposing stuff that Living Streets opposes. They are at the top of the heirarchy and with good reason.



Ah, I had assumed you meant interruptors like traffic lights. 

A two-way street that is closed to through traffic, except cycles, would be a massive improvement.


----------



## Dan B (19 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> I think this is where we have to disagree slightly. I think driving a motor vehicle around London has to be made more difficult than using a bicycle - this is the "advantage" we are talking about - and I'm not sure that is achieved by making roads equally accessible to cars and bicycles.
> 
> 
> A contraflow for bicycles could of course go hand in hand with pedestrian friendly measures like pedestrian crossings, or indeed shared space. And - all other things being equal - a one-way street with a contraflow bicycle lane is more pleasant for pedestrians than two-way motor vehicle flow.



In general I'd rather have two-way working for all. The one-way systems for cars are almost always the places with lots of lanes that drivers want to give it some welly (gyratories as previously discussed), which makes it unpleasant to cross the road and unpleasant to cycle. If they were to see more people in tin boxes coming towards them I think that would have a calming effect.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (19 Jan 2011)

Dan B said:


> In general I'd rather have two-way working for all. The one-way systems for cars are almost always the places with lots of lanes that drivers want to give it some welly (gyratories as previously discussed), which makes it unpleasant to cross the road and unpleasant to cycle. If they were to see more people in tin boxes coming towards them I think that would have a calming effect.



Oh, absolutely, I agree, large multi-lane gyratories are horrible. 

But they are a different kettle of fish from the "quieter" one-way streets in central London.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2011)

I suppose circumstances differ, but most one way streets, even the ones that don't have much traffic, have higher vehicle speeds. That, I suppose, is the idea. Tavistock Street is no exception, and it's one of those streets that could do with a bit of imaginative thinking. If you put bollards to stop through traffic on Tavistock Street, and make Burleigh Street a dead end, you'd have quieter, more pedestrian friendly streets

The thing is that Tavistock Street shouldn't be on the way to somewhere else - it's a destination street.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jan 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> You have to head north from the village for half a mile, when you want to be heading east. This is a disadvantage. Robin Hood Lane (in combination with Byfleets Lane) is also an increasingly heavily used rat run for people taking a shortcut from the A281 to the A264, instead of taking the main road south of Broadbridge Heath. So it's not ideal.



Life is full of compromise. I accept the increasing traffic point btw. The 'disadvantage' cuts two ways; cyclists rarely want to take the most direct route preferring quietness over directness in out of town situations. After all what is the odd extra km when you're on your bike. I remain to be convinced that any amount of cycling infrastructure from BH to Town including a direct cycles only overpass  would persuade more than a handful of people onto bikes over cars. Most are not wedded to cars but welded to them.



> The "Tesco" crossing is much better, but it's still a bit of a PITA, not least negotiating the car park (IIRC there is no direct route across to the bridge?), and again the route is somewhat circuitous.



The route goes around the southern edge of the car park thus avoiding conflict with vehicles in favour of conflict with pedestrians. Lesser of two evils. Longer? yes. onerously so? hardly. and it is a well used route.

Don't get me started on the balls up made when Tesco was redeveloped. I had a whole file of correspondence highlighting where Tesco ignored undertakings they had given. HDC are in thrall to big business and are not interested in enforcing planning conditions. the east street pseudo pedestrianisation almost saw the two way cycle route extinguished but there local businesses who challenged the legality of the scheme as originally proposed played somewhat into the cyclists hands. We have a couple of very pro cycling libdem councillors and a couple of officers are keen, whilst some of the senior officers are at least open to listening to ideas. But there is no money, and within the county other towns, Crawley, Worthing and Chichester are years ahead of us in being on the radar.



> I mean... really. Were they _trying _to make things difficult when they laid that footpath?


they giveth not a stuff about those assumed so poor as to have to walk or cycle. The very existence of such stores depends on the infernal combustion engine. I never shop there on principle, and because I'm a snob and live within walking distance of Waitrose.



> (BTW who are the "local loons" and on what grounds were they resisting? Intrigued.)


you have PM


----------



## sheddy (27 Jan 2011)

British v Dutch Streets - look for the 10 sets of photos

http://hembrow.blogs...ch-streets.html


Send your Council bods on this - http://hembrow.eu/cycling/studytour.html


----------



## srw (28 Jan 2011)

I notice that all but one of the British examples are in major cities... and that almost none of the Dutch ones are.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (28 Jan 2011)

srw said:


> I notice that all but one of the British examples are in major cities... and that almost none of the Dutch ones are.



Really?

Three of the ten photos are of Utrecht, a city of over 300,000 - larger than all the British examples, save London. 

The Hague has a population of nearly 500,000. 

Tilburg has a population of 200,000 - Plymouth is only slightly larger.

Breda is a more populous city than Cambridge.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (28 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> does it sort out the right of way issue where the cycle path intersects a side street?



Examples -


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOR6zm_Yziw


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (28 Jan 2011)

In this country, they can't even get the Cycle Superhighways right.



View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeRXkHB1_0


----------



## Speshact (29 Jan 2011)

Just caught up on the past dozen or so pages. Blimey it's still going, but still some good stuff too. 

One of the significant factors in creating London suburbs and sprawl was the development of the tube system. I recommend those interested in travel in London read Christian Wolmar's 'The Subterranean Railway: How the London Underground was Built and How it Changed the City for Ever'.

Clearly in London the underground has a major impact on allowing greater commuter distance and other travel (eg to the West End for shopping or a night out). One of the things I admire about the Superhighways concept is the way they echo this pattern of travel, providing a clear alternative option.

I'm interested in the segregation or not question partly because I work with school kids and I'm interested in how, without segregation, we can get them cycling to school as school pupils routinely do in the Netherlands. I don't consider cycle training to be exclusively the solution.

It seems clear to me in the first place that we're failing to do enough to control motor traffic speeds and volume away from the distributor roads.

(To explain for those unfamiliar with the terminology: The theory, at least for motorists, goes like this. You live in a street and you wiggle on backstreets to a road that has been designated a distributor road (eg A roads) which you follow to nearby your destination where you leave the distributor to wiggle on back streets to where you're going.) 

Residents of back streets who are used to taking the car for every short journey will object to council attempts at road closure, eg using bollards to divide a street, to make each half a cul de sac with one way in or out where they are accustomed to two. The perceived inconvenience to their car usage for them outways the pedestrian/cyclist/liveability benefits of reduced through-traffic and lower speeds. Instead the council installs less contentious speed cushions, which vans pelt through and render largely ineffectual.

Even if you do get the back streets truely calmed you've still got to tackle the distributors - on the one hand having loads of places which feel safe and easy to cross them, and on the other having a way of going along them if there isn't a wonderful back route that takes you to all the places on the distributor that you want to go. In the absence of a segregated cycle lane here then a bus lane is likely to offer the solution IF it's 24/7 and IF the bus drivers are trained and expected to drive in the most cycle friendly way possible giving every possible latitude to primary school children and grannies.

The alternative is 'feral' cycling where the nervous/inexperienced ride on the pavement in the bits where they fear the road.

I'm angling to start projects to try to increase cycling to two neighbouring schools - one primary, one secondary - jammed in the mass of largely one-way distributors between the Elephant & Castle and the Thames bridges http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=notre+dame+school+st+georges+road+se1&aq=&sll=51.497897,-0.106108&sspn=0.006278,0.02105&ie=UTF8&hq=notre+dame+school&hnear=St+George's+Rd,+London+SE1,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.496801,-0.106108&spn=0.006613,0.02105&z=16
Should be interesting!


----------



## sheddy (22 Feb 2011)

Having created a bus lane, why allow parking in it ?

http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/ 22nd Feb, how TFL puts car parking before buses, cyclists and pedestrians


----------

