dumbass LCC bike lane on Stratford High Street

[theclaud]

Was it not a proper question when I asked?

You need to work on the tone.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Right chaps, so...

Consensus is we:

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

Job's a goodun.

4. Down the pub.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

[stevenage cycle paths] do go everywehere/

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

View: http://vimeo.com/80787092


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

 

[mjr]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mjr]

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

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

 

[dellzeqq]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[subaqua]

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

View: http://vimeo.com/80787092


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

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

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

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

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

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

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

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

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

 

[dellzeqq]

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

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

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

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

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

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

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

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

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

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

Now you say you don't have a point, before making several.

Point 1. Suggestion UK roads as is 'can' work to increase cycling relative to segregated provision, in the face of UK mode share collapse over the last sixty years and the 40% achieved with the competing policy suggestion. ---To be charitable, this is a non-standard use of the word 'can'.

Point 2. We don't need a parallel network, if we make our roads work. ---Well yes. We don't need a rocket to go to the Moon, if we walk there.

Point 3. We have no space for a parallel network either way. ---Complete tosh, as anyone with a tape measure and ferry ticket might verify.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Why would I need a ferry ticket to take a tape measure to London?

Oh dear lord.... So, in order to support your assertion about London not having the space to incorporate Dutch provision, you propose comparing London with.... London. Obviously. How could I have been so dumb as to expect anything else.