dumbass LCC bike lane on Stratford High Street

[martint235]

I have exchanged emails with Mike in the recent past. The most disturbing thing in this one is that the LCC believe the issue to be settled

"Without high-quality separate facilities for cycling on main roads there will never be mass cycling in this country because people will be too scared to cycle

There's not a single post-industrialised country in the world that has achieved mass cycling any other way

I would argue that the pro-motoring lobbyists are delighted when cyclists insist on sharing the road, because that means more space for their cars

Sorry you don't agree, but the arguments over segregation are over – separation is essential on busy roads and at large junctions, or there will be no mass cycling

Kind Regards

Mike

Mike Cavenett
Communications Manager
London Cycling Campaign
020 7234 9310 - 07939 606359"


Perhaps what we need is a campaigning organisation to represent London's cyclists.

I've always had this feeling that LCC represents those London residents that don't cycle but would like to rather than the existing cyclists who have actual experience of what is required to make cycling a better experience within London. I believe that if you make cycling a better experience, more people will cycle without the need for ill-thought out solutions to a problem that isn't even on two wheels yet.

 

[mcshroom]

Sorry you don't agree, but the arguments over segregation are over – separation is essential on busy roads and at large junctions, or there will be no mass cycling

I suppose he would like to tell that to numerous countries in South and South East Asia with massive numbers of cyclists on the roads, or he would like to explain why there was mass cycling in the UK until the roads were surrendered to the motoring bullies.

 

[subaqua]

I cycled about the place when I was a child. I cycled about six miles° to school as a teenager. There was no segregated facillty at all it is just that this was seen as a normal at that time. All we need to do is find out what has gone wrong and put it right.

the LCC coordinator in Newham is a joke too.

 

[StuartG]

"Without high-quality separate facilities for cycling on main roads there will never be mass cycling in this country because people will be too scared to cycle
There's not a single post-industrialised country in the world that has achieved mass cycling any other way

Thanks Ade for posting that. I didn't realise Mike has such form. And ignorance.

I came to London from a town (a very industrialised town in the west midlands) that had mass cycling with zero facilities. Albeit with fewer anti-cycling facilities such as the modern gyratory. I am unclear why de-industrialisation leads to greater fear. Perhaps Mike could source this?

The bottom line is us cyclists are a diverse lot and dosh is in short supply. Yet we can surely all agree on some really good things the dosh could be spent on that would benefit us all and make cycling more attractive. Like sorting those gyratories, filling in holes making any cycling provision wide enough and maintained.

Mike clearly has a problem with his fantasy of my bulging lycra clad muscles. But people like me is all he has got to re-build cycling for the masses. Evidence is the best way to get cyclists is to have cyclists. The more the safer everyone feels. Yet he casts us aside and thinks that this fancy tarmac will do the job.

You would think a LCC Communications Manager would want to communicate rather than harange. Maybe that's the modern way. Hey-ho.

 

[Linford]

Kings St, Hammersmith was done 5 years ago HERE

 

[dellzeqq]

I have exchanged emails with Mike in the recent past. The most disturbing thing in this one is that the LCC believe the issue to be settled

"Without high-quality separate facilities for cycling on main roads there will never be mass cycling in this country because people will be too scared to cycle

There's not a single post-industrialised country in the world that has achieved mass cycling any other way

I would argue that the pro-motoring lobbyists are delighted when cyclists insist on sharing the road, because that means more space for their cars

Sorry you don't agree, but the arguments over segregation are over – separation is essential on busy roads and at large junctions, or there will be no mass cycling

Kind Regards

Mike

Mike Cavenett
Communications Manager
London Cycling Campaign
020 7234 9310 - 07939 606359"


Perhaps what we need is a campaigning organisation to represent London's cyclists.

that's all kinds of bonkers. Rush hour cyclists outnumber cars on the A24/A3 down to Tooting.

I remember attending some kind of TfL Greenways planning meeting. I was the only person at the meeting not being paid to be there. I suggested that, before throwing £1.3M at the Wandle Path they survey the area, including Garratt Lane, which, at that time, was beginning to take off. This suggestion was treated like some kind of heresy - cyclists who took to the road had placed themselves beyond the pale. And so........£1.3M was spent on installing mesh deck bridges and the like on the Wandle Path. I took Her Nibs down to Beddington - at that time it would have been a long ride for her. I got a telling off, and we rode home on the road. But - here's the crucial thing - spending the money was the whole point of the thing. The money was the measure of its worth.

Spool forward to this month's written questions to the Mayor on cycling. Darren Johnson is absolutely on-message. 'What's the budget. what's the budget, what's the budget?' To which we ask 'who's paying?'

 

[Aniello]

Unused also because, when coming from west, and you see it, it invites you on this contra-flow cycle track which, you would think, would cut through the center and help you go, also, quicker towards Kensington.

Instead it just drops you at the hearth of Hammersmith and stops half way here with a weird turn right: http://goo.gl/maps/mnYxC

Totally useless (the majority to me) for people who would like to continue past Hammersmith toward the City centre.

 

[Gerhard]

the LCC coordinator in Newham is a joke too.

I don't think there is any need for that. You are free to stand for that voluntary role and be less of a joke any time.

 

[Frood42]

The problem here is that little is being done to remove the motoring bullies from the road, and little will be done while such a large number still use their motor car.

The fact that the roads here were three lanes wide was a joke in the first place, and they would not have the back bone to take it down from three lanes to one, I should imagine it was quite a significant victory to take the road down to two lanes.

While not a perfect solution, I am quite looking forward to being seperated from the fast moving idiots that use this road with no thought for others around them.
I would rather have this than the silly blue painted guideways that were put in along the rest of the route...

Due to the size of the road and the huge shopping centre at one end, the area in between will continue to go down hill and will continue to be used as a dual carriageway/motorway.

I for one am looking forward to using this, as at least it is wide enough for passing other cyclists if needed (as it takes out a traffic lane).
What is now being turned into a segregated cycle way would not be best suited as a Bus Lane as you would still get idiots wanting to take shortcuts around queueing traffic.

In terms of making this road ready for Boris bike users, I think this is a good compromise, as I cannot see people wanting to use a three lane road.

It is a compromise and frankly much better than the rest of the CS2...

I would rather that we were able to share the road, but until the police and government are seen to be doing things, there are not many who would use a three lane road like this one... especially where we have very fast moving traffic that treat it like a dual carriageway rather than an urban road...

 

[Gerhard]

...Hackney - the borough which has mostly rejected segregation...

I think they reject a certain kind of segregation (or even paint jobs, i.e. gutter lanes), which is kerb seperated tracks alongside the carriageway. However in my view they have used a different kind of segregation. By getting most of the motor trafic out of 'filtered' areas segregation is not 100% but maybe 80 or 90%. So it is segregated 'enough' for safe and comfortable walking and cycling.

I would argue that by counting these streets that are segregated 'enough' plus the green routes such as London Fields (also segregated from motor traffic), Hackney is perhaps the borough with the most segregated facilities per ha in London. It's just that the facilities are not exclusively for cyclists.

 

[angus h]

Linford, that infra on King Street has been there at least 20 years. Used to use it when I was a kid. It's a contraflow against the one way system & as such isn't really comparable to the Stratford thing - it's about 1/4 the width, for one thing. (Never mind that it stops before it gets to the town centre & sends you off round the houses). But last time I was there (admittedly a while ago) it was fairly well used by short-trip cyclists - school kids, people on cheap ""mountain"" bikes - yes, pedestrians can & sometimes do step in to it without looking (the pavements aren't wide & it's a busy shopping area - far too much space given over to cars, as usual), but cyclist-pedestrian interactions are much more manageable than cyclist-car or pedestrian-car - you just have so much more awareness than someone behind a windscreen.

The idea of cyclist / driver parity is all very well.. in London speeds, that's something that, on a personal level, I'm OK with.. but only because I have the same training & competence as any other qualified driver.

I don't see how you can put the same blanket expectation on cyclists or would-be-cyclists who can't, won't or don't drive, for whatever reason. Expecting a ten-year-old to be as competent in road skill as a fully qualified driver is plainly nonsensical. So you have a choice:- either deny that ten-year-old the freedom of travelling by bike (sticking bikes on the back of Mummy's Range Rover and driving to the park doesn't count), or engineer the roads so as to require less competence of cyclists. I for one am glad that LCC are campaigning for the latter - whether that be through Stratford-style segregation or Hackney-style filtered permeability. There's plainly no way of doing the latter East-West around Bow/Stratford with all the canals, rivers, railways, industrial estates, the A12 etc., so the LCC/TfL solution gets my vote.

Frood, I don't think most motorists are bullies.. it's more that perception of what's bullying or not is very different from one side of the windscreen to the other, and people who drive almost everywhere don't get to reset those prejudices. A manoeuvre that "feels" fine from inside a car can be pretty unpleasant to those on the outside. Numerous times I've taken people to task for close passes & they seem genuinely surprised.

Dell, isn't the Wandle Path supposed to be a leisure route? Seems like that would serve a different purpose for cycling than the A217 (& hopefully come out of a different budget).

 

[Frood42]

Frood, I don't think most motorists are bullies..

I never said all motorists are bullies, but there a minority out there that have a "I own the road" or a "you don't pay road tax" mentality, and they have this mentality with other vehicles to a greater or lesser degree (depending on their ego or how much of a threat they determine the other person to be).

There are also those who seem to still be in the dark ages and whos brains seem to melt or overload when a cyclist is in primary for their own safety rather (car door zone) than "hugging the gutter where they should be".

These people need removing from the road, they are ignorant and dangerous to all road users.

Ignorance should not be an excuse (but that seems to be the argument you are putting forward in defence).

Mandatory re-testing every 5-10 years and improved teaching on vunerable road users would be one avenue.

When I learnt to drive there was next to nothing about vunerable road users and there is no incentive for people to continue learning once they have passed their test.

 

[subaqua]

I don't think there is any need for that. You are free to stand for that voluntary role and be less of a joke any time.

well I think that encouraging people to cycle where there are clear cycling prohibited signs on a feeder ride to a demonstration is pretty poor . but hey lets not let legalities get in the way of making a point. especially when the point was raised at the time and again later as to why it was OK for us to do that yet we are saying we want good facilities.

that was the clincher in me not joining LCC.

 

[angus h]

I never said all motorists are bullies, but there a minority out there that have a "I own the road" or a "you don't pay road tax" mentality, and they have this mentality with other vehicles to a greater or lesser degree (depending on their ego or how much of a threat they determine the other person to be).

There are also those who seem to still be in the dark ages and whos brains seem to melt or overload when a cyclist is in primary for their own safety rather (car door zone) than "hugging the gutter where they should be".

These people need removing from the road, they are ignorant and dangerous to all road users.

Ignorance should not be an excuse (but that seems to be the argument you are putting forward in defence).

Not defending. Just putting forward the idea that it may be easier to build lanes, and block through traffic out of roads where it doesn't need to be, than to bring about the level of cultural change and re-education necessary to fix the problem.

Another aspect to this.. some drivers are bullies most of the time, but most drivers are probably bullies some of the time. It's what happens when you routinely put flawed, emotional, stressed human beings in metal boxes with big, powerful engines. In a car-dependent society, education on its own isn't going to make drivers adopt the cool-headed professionalism you'd expect of a pilot or surgeon.

Which is another argument in favour of filtered permeability. Few people will speed on their own road.. it's crapping on your own doorstep. But you can't, by definition, do filtered permeability on a 6-lane "A" road.

Mandatory re-testing every 5-10 years and improved teaching on vunerable road users would be one avenue.

When I learnt to drive there was next to nothing about vunerable road users and there is no incentive for people to continue learning once they have passed their test.

I'd wholeheartedly support both of those, but the former seems very unlikely to happen. More teaching about vulnerable road users - certainly worth lobbying for, the powers-that-be don't mind making the test harder - but as you've already identified, people forget half of what they learned the moment the "L" plates come off.

The problem with mandatory re-testing is people would fail - probably 20%. And that would mean waking up to the fact that, right now, there's no alternative to driving for a lot of people in rural & outer-suburban areas -- taking people off the roads entirely in the middle of their working life is considered an extreme sanction, a punishment largely reserved for alcoholics and criminals. If they did bring it in, it would have to be in some diluted form.. if you fail, you've 3 months in which you can keep driving but have to get up-to-scratch for a re-test.

 

[booze and cake]

What % of London cyclists are in the LCC? I've no idea but I'd bet its less than 10%. From a campaigning perspective thats hardly a resounding mandate from the cycling community for baziollions of £ of investment is it, so claiming to be speaking for the non cycling millions sounds much more impressive I suppose.

And as for the letter from the LCC Comms Manager, just wow, if a comms manager from any organisation had such a beligerent 'my way or the highway' approach (whoops thats a wrong choice of words), they'd be sacked quick sharp. Again another example of LCC action just leaving a bad aftertaste