Kennington. LCC and TfL foolishness. Now it's personal.

[MissTillyFlop]

I read it as mandatory use cycle lanes.

It is confusing, it actually means that it's mandatory that only cyclists use them.

 

[Markymark]

So given how awful these schemes are either improve or scrap them. I'd rather scrap then as I doubt they'll improve.

 

[mjr]

So given how awful these schemes are either improve or scrap them. I'd rather scrap then as I doubt they'll improve.

Of course you would. You're happy to use even busy carriageways. But they will improve because of the numbers pushing for it, including riders whose safety perception is a bit off and will use these routes when they wouldn't ride otherwise. More people cycling should enable other changes like presumed liability which also helps people happy to cycle on the carriageway.

 

[subaqua]

Do you enjoy making stuff up to argue against, @subaqua? CS2 is dangerously defective in places like the junction you got hooked and I think even most people who like Dutchish infrastructure would agree. It's yet another example of where part-doing something is worse than not doing it

And the usual accusation is "the fit and the brave" (two groups) and I think you're brave given how crap management and policing of London's roads has been for ages.

Erm where have I made stuff up. That is the words used to Me by a LCC cockwomble yesterday.

Dangerously defective along its whole length. Not just at specific junctions , it tips you out into danger at loads of places.

Put the segregated lanes where they are needed. Alongside trunk carriageways etc, and have proper robust prosecutions with no " aww but I need my licence despite driving like a bell end "


There was a delicious irony this morning when a cockwomble with space for cycling and LCC stickers plastered everywhere gave me no space as he decided that the red light wasn't for him, just the cars.

 

[mjr]

Erm where have I made stuff up. That is the words used to Me by a LCC cockwomble yesterday.

Sorry but it looked like the all-too-common stating of a flawed argument which no-one here supports and then arguing against it. Take it up with LCC or the person themselves, rather than arguing against people who aren't here to defend themselves and whose views we can't check because we don't know who they are - I think I've suggested this about reported problems with unnamed LCC people before, but you seem content to be fobbed off and then rant on here, rather than do anything effective.

Dangerously defective along its whole length. Not just at specific junctions , it tips you out into danger at loads of places.

Defective possibly (it's been a while since I saw it) but not dangerous along the whole length. It's pretty difficult to screw up straight lengths with no junctions so badly they're all dangerous.

Put the segregated lanes where they are needed. Alongside trunk carriageways etc, and have proper robust prosecutions with no " aww but I need my licence despite driving like a bell end "

Mile End Road is a trunk carriageway in all but name and that's mainly because trunk roads didn't extend within London, isn't it? (Edit: you may be able to see on http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=51.55395,0.00385&map=NPEMap&zoom=11&layer=6, that the blue solid line - which then meant trunking - stopped where the old A11 met the A118 aka the old A12.) That's why it's a TfL road they can build along so easily, rather than a borough one which is a bit more vulnerable to local democracy. I agree with you about prosecutions, as you can probably guess.

There was a delicious irony this morning when a cockwomble with space for cycling and LCC stickers plastered everywhere gave me no space as he decided that the red light wasn't for him, just the cars.

It's almost like they give those stickers out to anyone!

 

[subaqua]

Sorry but it looked like the all-too-common stating of a flawed argument which no-one here supports and then arguing against it. Take it up with LCC or the person themselves, rather than arguing against people who aren't here to defend themselves and whose views we can't check because we don't know who they are - I think I've suggested this about reported problems with unnamed LCC people before, but you seem content to be fobbed off and then rant on here, rather than do anything effective.


Defective possibly (it's been a while since I saw it) but not dangerous along the whole length. It's pretty difficult to screw up straight lengths with no junctions so badly they're all dangerous.


Mile End Road is a trunk carriageway in all but name and that's mainly because trunk roads didn't extend within London, isn't it? (Edit: you may be able to see on http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=51.55395,0.00385&map=NPEMap&zoom=11&layer=6, that the blue solid line - which then meant trunking - stopped where the old A11 met the A118 aka the old A12.) That's why it's a TfL road they can build along so easily, rather than a borough one which is a bit more vulnerable to local democracy. I agree with you about prosecutions, as you can probably guess.


It's almost like they give those stickers out to anyone!

I have taken it up with several people in LCC - one was the local area organiser , who on a ride into Central London decided to completely ignore the No cycling signs along the river front from Dowgate to Blackfriars, yes that narrow little walkway with PEDESTRIANS on it. The attitude was one of "so what" when i asked if that was a good example to be setting to the younger members of the ride.

LCC HQ wasn't bothered either. the attitude was "we are not responsible for our ride leaders actions "
the LCC also say they are " your voice for a cycling city " and claim "We are a 12,000-strong membership charity, making sure that everyone who cycles, or wants to cycle, has a voice in Greater London." well sorry that doesn't represent MY VOICE so the statement is bollix.

you yourself say you haven't seen it for a while yet you claim it isn't dangerous along its whole length.
I would suggest you ride it in its current state and again after the improvements are finished then make a comment based on reality, I suggest doing it on a cold frozen day after some rain and then tell me it isn't dangerous and defective. and when the Market at whitechapel is in full swing


Oh I love the feeble disengenious arguments about trunk roads in all but name , however it would appear that Trunk routes did come into London . the 1/4 inch series is quite good for demonstrating that.

You do know full well what is meant by trunk route though . A dual carriageway ( there is a difference between that and 2 lanes each way I suggest you use SABRE to educate yourself there) with a speed limit of above 30 , so something like the North Circular , or indeed the A12 proper heading out to deepest East Anglia.

 

[mjr]

I love to point out to the Hembrow acolytes just how little segregated provision the Netherlands actually has. They have some good segregated routes (i.e. the North Sea Coast route) but they are a fraction of the main cycle routes in the Netherlands, the majority of which are on roads.

Yes, when I've seen videos of real rides through the Netherlands (rather than the promotional stuff we're bombarded with), they've often included sections that aren't much different from ours - maybe except for greater willingness to block rat-runs, speed-limit urban routes and encourage motorists to use the motorways? But a lot of what they do have is on major urban routes like Mile End Road so I'm not sure that helps here.

Do you have some stats handy which can be used to drag off-the-road-is-the-one-true-way fans back to reality?

 

[mjr]

I have taken it up with several people in LCC

Since yesterday? Wow. Apologies.

You do know full well what is meant by trunk route though . A dual carriageway

I know what is meant by trunk route. I also had a pretty good idea what you meant, but that's not the same as a trunk route. There's still quite a lot of single carriageway trunk routes and most of the TfL Road Network is at least as busy. There's also quite a lot of dual carriageway non-trunk routes. It may be that single/dual is a better place to draw the line than non-trunk/trunk, but Mile End Road was pretty crap to ride on before CS2 - I'd agree what it needs most is more effective traffic policing but I feel building consent for that needs more convinced politicians and part of doing that is to get lots more voters cycling.

I don't care much how we get more people cycling more, but my experience is that glitzy cycle tracks do seem to attract new riders and convince them to go further. I've ridden into London with people who never thought they'd dare, using a combination of similar tracks and back streets... and yes, if I can during a ride, I try to take them onto the bus lane of a larger road if I can - Gray's Inn Road was one but I can't remember if the planned changes remove it. We may know that the carriageway is generally no more dangerous and be willing to bet with our wheels, but few newcomers are.

I'll try CS2 again when I'm nearby for work (I'm more often central, west end or Hackney lately). It makes me angry that TfL seem to have followed that brain-dead TRL junction safety study instead of best practice from elsewhere or what cyclists were telling them during consultation: continue the tracks across the side roads and allow cyclists more chances to move to/from the leftmost carriageway lane. I'm getting heartily fed up with the letters TRL appearing so often when I look into why something's been part-done.

 

[jefmcg]

Defective possibly (it's been a while since I saw it) but not dangerous along the whole length. It's pretty difficult to screw up straight lengths with no junctions so badly they're all dangerous.

Most accidents occur at junctions. If a lane hasn't helped at those points - or indeed has made them worse - then I would regard it as a failure along it's whole length.

 

[martint235]

I don't care much how we get more people cycling more, but my experience is that glitzy cycle tracks do seem to attract new riders and convince them to go further. I've ridden into London with people who never thought they'd dare, using a combination of similar tracks and back streets... and yes, if I can during a ride, I try to take them onto the bus lane of a larger road if I can - Gray's Inn Road was one but I can't remember if the planned changes remove it. We may know that the carriageway is generally no more dangerous and be willing to bet with our wheels, but few newcomers are.

But all these cyclists who have materialised because of the new tracks and are now cycling further, what do they do when the said track drops them in some hell hole like Elephant and Castle or around Bank or around Kings Cross and they have no experience of cycling on typical London streets?

I still say stop wasting money on white elephant, "look at what I did as mayor" projects and put serious money into integrating cyclists into where they should be: on the road, in the traffic, as safe and confident members of that traffic.

 

[martint235]

I have taken it up with several people in LCC - one was the local area organiser , who on a ride into Central London decided to completely ignore the No cycling signs along the river front from Dowgate to Blackfriars, yes that narrow little walkway with PEDESTRIANS on it. The attitude was one of "so what" when i asked if that was a good example to be setting to the younger members of the ride.

I've been on an LCC led ride where we were taken (or at least the leader tried to take us) through a red light and then the wrong way down a one way street. Never been on another ride led by them.

I don't believe that LCC are the voice of London cyclists, they are a group of cyclists with their own agenda and portray themselves, falsely, as the voice of the majority in order to get the ear of the mayor and TfL.

 

[subaqua]

Since yesterday? Wow. Apologies.


I know what is meant by trunk route. I also had a pretty good idea what you meant, but that's not the same as a trunk route. There's still quite a lot of single carriageway trunk routes and most of the TfL Road Network is at least as busy. There's also quite a lot of dual carriageway non-trunk routes. It may be that single/dual is a better place to draw the line than non-trunk/trunk, but Mile End Road was pretty crap to ride on before CS2 - I'd agree what it needs most is more effective traffic policing but I feel building consent for that needs more convinced politicians and part of doing that is to get lots more voters cycling.

I don't care much how we get more people cycling more, but my experience is that glitzy cycle tracks do seem to attract new riders and convince them to go further. I've ridden into London with people who never thought they'd dare, using a combination of similar tracks and back streets... and yes, if I can during a ride, I try to take them onto the bus lane of a larger road if I can - Gray's Inn Road was one but I can't remember if the planned changes remove it. We may know that the carriageway is generally no more dangerous and be willing to bet with our wheels, but few newcomers are.

I'll try CS2 again when I'm nearby for work (I'm more often central, west end or Hackney lately). It makes me angry that TfL seem to have followed that brain-dead TRL junction safety study instead of best practice from elsewhere or what cyclists were telling them during consultation: continue the tracks across the side roads and allow cyclists more chances to move to/from the leftmost carriageway lane. I'm getting heartily fed up with the letters TRL appearing so often when I look into why something's been part-done.

no when the nobber ride leader was a dick. I know the attitude i will get so its pointless . your responses sort of affirm that LCC are indeed cockwombles of the self serving smug variety who really don't want to give an answer and will skirt around issues with bluster and bollix

 

[mjr]

I've been on an LCC led ride where we were taken (or at least the leader tried to take us) through a red light and then the wrong way down a one way street. Never been on another ride led by them.

I've been on a British Cycling led ride this autumn that headed the wrong way down a one way. I'd still go on another. People make mistakes sometimes. :shrug:

And a quick reminder that I'm not LCC and it seems they're not here to defend themselves - which I think is a shame because there seems to be a lot of London cyclists on here - so we're only getting one side of any stories.

 

[martint235]

There are more LCC members on CC than you might think. I even know some of the user names. The fact they stay silent could mean something. Or then again it might not

 

[mjr]

But all these cyclists who have materialised because of the new tracks and are now cycling further, what do they do when the said track drops them in some hell hole like Elephant and Castle or around Bank or around Kings Cross and they have no experience of cycling on typical London streets?

I don't know. I see a lot of people get to the end of the route that links to the Bloomsbury protected track at King's Cross and either dock their hire bike or walk their bike across towards the back of the departure concourse where I suspect they get back on and ride up the access-only-and-bikes road towards Goods Way. Maybe some are OK to ride a short distance but wouldn't ride the whole trip on such streets. Heck, even I prefer the Bloomsbury track to the Euston Road bus lanes because I'd rather deal with cyclist congestion and dodgy junctions than taxi congestion and dodgy junctions.

I still say stop wasting money on white elephant, "look at what I did as mayor" projects and put serious money into integrating cyclists into where they should be: on the road, in the traffic, as safe and confident members of that traffic.

1. The numbers say these things aren't white elephants. 2. How? Years of offering rides and training basically didn't work. The main less infrastructurey things to make dents seem to have been the congestion charge and cycle hire and expanding those has been problematic because of politics rather than finance.