dumbass LCC bike lane on Stratford High Street

[Pete Owens]

Wow, some people really love making stuff up to disagree with! David Hembrow's vision would surely be cycleways away from car doors and peds with enough policing to deal with illegal parking, no?

Perhaps this sort of thing?

 

[mjr]

Swinley is a major mtb destination - all great fun but bugger all to do with how people get around towns.

Looking at the cycle to work data, Bracknell Forest is only 2.2%, so still above average but not so much (and below MK) so you may be right. If you've better data, let's have it, but even so, still nothing like the least cycling in the country. For the 2011 census cycle to work data, that's Barnsley, NE Derbyshire and Rossendale.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Swinley is a major mtb destination - all great fun but bugger all to do with how people get around towns.

Right. Has anyone looked up the 'regular cycling' numbers for the Netherlands, however..... http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/CyclingintheNetherlands2009.pdf

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

And since then there has been more research on the subject:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457509001997

I doubt anyone has gone to the trouble of conducting research on such a little used gimmick - I think the projection would have a negative effect if anything as the projected virtual cycle lane is even narrower. However, I doubt there would be a significant effect as the driver would be so close by the time they saw the projection that they would already be commited to their overtaking trajectory.

Goodie- Here's a topic on which Pete Owens and I agree!

 

[Pete Owens]

The answer is ALL of them helped produce this- precisely by arguing that we would be better not even trying.

I always find it rather amusing to see proponents of this sort of thing attempt to blame those who opposed it when it turns out to be just as awful as we predicted.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

I always find it rather amusing to see proponents of this sort of thing attempt to blame those who opposed it when it turns out to be just as awful as we predicted.

If it is as awful as you predicted, why in God's name is it FULL OF CYCLISTS?

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

If it is as awful as you predicted, why in God's name is it FULL OF CYCLISTS?

The lane is clearly defective- in that there's scarcely room for all the people who want to use it. But that is NOT the kind of 'defective' you attribute.

It should have been put in twice as big, and with a proper treatment at the junctions. Why wasn't it? Partly because people like you opposed the whole idea as a waste of money -which going by the numbers using it, it quite clearly is not.

 

[Pete Owens]

If it is as awful as you predicted, why in God's name is it FULL OF CYCLISTS?

Because cental London has lots of cyclists - and if you cram them together by restricting them to a narrow portion of a particular street then that will tend to become full.

I expect you are the authority. I've only got a copy of Cyclecraft and a badge. I suppose what I should have said is- 'those who make a religion out of vehicular cycling' -given that I am. myself, a vehicular cyclist.

Well since you claim to understand vehicular cycling then you would realise that the our opposition to this sort of thing is on the grounds of safety. One-way cycle tracks are bad enough - Two-way cycle tracks increase the risk at junctions by an order of magnitude. (look up the chapter on using cycle facilities and the extra skills required). I really can't for the life of me understand how you could possibly consider that wierd crossover and riding on the wrong side of the street to be remotely consistent with the principles of vehicular cycling.

I once had an exchange of views with Mark Treasure when I expressed the opinion that even if he thought that segregated cycle tracks were a good idea in theory they always worked out rubbish in practice (which is afterall the excuse offered by segregationists on this thread for why half a century of segregationist highway engineering has utterly failed to attract cycling). His response was that it was not inevitable - and gave the specific examples of 2-way cycle paths Tavistock Place http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/March2013
and Royal College Street - which has subsequently been dug up at enourmous expense due to its poor safety record.

So try not to make a fool of yourself by blaming opponents of these schemes - they were campaigned for by segregationists, built by segregationists (despite the opposition), defended after the event by segregationists and even hailed as examples to copy by segregationists.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Question:
If it is as awful as you predicted, why in God's name is it FULL OF CYCLISTS?

Answer:
Because cental London has lots of cyclists - and if you cram them together by restricting them to a narrow portion of a particular street then that will tend to become full.

.....Noises emerging listlessly from a head banging against a wall:

It's not a compulsory lane. Nor is it a compulsory street. Camden have not perfected a magic bike vortex, they have simply installed imperfect kerb separation.

Look, there are maps of London bike traffic showing the intensity of traffic on that particular street. They go that way to take advantage of it. *I* go that way to take advantage of it.

I really can't for the life of me understand how you could possibly consider that wierd crossover and riding on the wrong side of the street to be remotely consistent with the principles of vehicular cycling.

Then perhaps you will stop trying- because as you might have noticed, I never said a single word in favour of the crossover. In my use of the lane, I don't do that bit- I turn north on Marchmont street.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

try not to make a fool of yourself by blaming opponents of these schemes

You calling me a fool won't stop me apportioning blame as I see fit- and you, Pete Owens, can have your share. In rejecting the whole idea of segregation, rather than criticising schemes on their merits, you help make cock ups like this. Two species are uniquely native to the UK cycling scene: Bollocks Infra and religious objectors opposed to any Infra at all. The relationship between the two is that of brotherhood- no, symbiosis.

Imagine where the Netherlands would be today if enough Pete Owenses had made their voices heard- they'd have tried to preserve DZ's notion of a 'perfectly good bike ride' by skimping on the infra for others- and they'd have made cock-ups like this.

The ministry of Off-Fob -who's telling them to fob off Segregationists with minimal space, minimal money, minimal everything? You are.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

So now these wonderful lanes require a special police force too?

Yeah right. Because its not like we'd want anyone to give a damn about illegal parking in general.

 

[Pete Owens]

Scene 1:
Jonny: "Daddy Daddy - look at me"
Daddy: "Don't play with those matches youll burn yourself"
Scene 2:
30 minutes later
Jonny: "Mummy Mummy - Ive burned myself"
Mummy: "Oh dear how did that happen"
Jonny: "It was all Dadd'ys fault - he told me not to play with matches"

 

[Pete Owens]

Camden have not perfected a magic bike vortex, they have simply installed imperfect kerb separation.

Which apparently is the fault of those who asked them NOT to!

Look, there are maps of London bike traffic showing the intensity of traffic on that particular street. They go that way to take advantage of it. *I* go that way to take advantage of it.

Which brings us back to the heat map of the 2011 census:
http://datashine.org.uk/#zoom=13&la...TTT&table=QS701EW&col=QS701EW0010&ramp=YlOrRd
Compare Camden (the pale yellow area to the left) with its enthusiasm for segregation - with Hackney (the deep red area to the right) and its scepticism.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Scene 1:
Jonny: "Daddy Daddy - look at me"
Daddy: "Don't play with those matches youll burn yourself"
Scene 2:
30 minutes later
Jonny: "Mummy Mummy - Ive burned myself"
Mummy: "Oh dear how did that happen"
Jonny: "It was all Dadd'ys fault - he told me not to play with matches"

Gosh, analogies! They are fun. Two can play.

Jenny: "Daddy Daddy - meet my lovely new Boyfriend"
Daddy: "Don't have Boyfriends. They are Evil."
Scene 2:
10 years later
Jenny: "Mummy Mummy -my marriage is a wreck."
Mummy: "Oh dear how did that happen?"
Jenny: "It was all Daddy's fault - he scared off all the good ones."
Mummy: "I know, he's a twit. You never really developed a sense of yourself as a worthwhile partner."

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Compare Camden (the pale yellow area to the left) with its enthusiasm for segregation - with Hackney (the deep red area to the right) and its scepticism.

"Enthusiasm?" Like hell. You are referring to how many miles of segregated provision exactly, on which types of road? The dutch model isn't either segregation or filtered permeability, it is both- deploying each technique on the appropriate roads by speed and volume. Deploying filtered perm. only Hackney has impressive numbers for the UK and seriously unimpressive numbers for the Netherlands. It would be even better with segregation provided on heavy traffic routes so that the filterd perm islands could get joined up, as is standard practice across the north sea. Probably Camden could do with more filtered perm- they also need better designed and located segregated provision. That means taking space from the motor car at torrington and elsewhere- which you refuse to support.