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

[mjr]

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

If you know of an elected member or staffer, please invite them. I don't think ordinary members can speak for LCC without checking any more than we could.

 

[martint235]

Stop painting costly, useless blue lines on roads. Tactical squads of police on bikes but drop the uniformed guys on MTBs: suits on bromptons, hipsters on fixies, full kit roadies, bikes with baskets on the front. Dangerous driving around these, 5 points on your license no ifs, no buts. While they are out there, they can enforce the driving on mobile phones etc.

Cyclist jumping a red light, confiscated bike again no ifs no buts.

It might take a year, it may take 10 but it'll be cheaper than blue paint and it'll get the message across.

 

[mjr]

Dangerous driving around these, 5 points on your license no ifs, no buts. While they are out there, they can enforce the driving on mobile phones etc.

Cyclist jumping a red light, confiscated bike again no ifs no buts.

So the cyclist gets his vehicle seized, while the motorist gets some pointless points on his record? I think that's rather imbalanced.

In general, more unmarked traffic police of all sorts would be good. I've asked Norfolk for that a year or two ago, but I think they said they've unmarked traffic cars and motorbikes, but unmarked cyclists aren't used for traffic tasks ATM. Anyone here know what the met or city police are doing?

 

[martint235]

So the cyclist gets his vehicle seized, while the motorist gets some pointless points on his record? I think that's rather imbalanced.

In general, more unmarked traffic police of all sorts would be good. I've asked Norfolk for that a year or two ago, but I think they said they've unmarked traffic cars and motorbikes, but unmarked cyclists aren't used for traffic tasks ATM. Anyone here know what the met or city police are doing?

I felt 5 points was suitable to put a miscreant driver at risk of losing their license. It would be difficult to balance seizing a £15,000 car against a £500 bike don't you think?

But I'm not really fussed and I'm happy to make the penalties as punitive as you like, the key is zero tolerance with immediate consequences. And while it would be impossible to have police everywhere all the time, even if you only had 10 officers so long as you moved them around the city, drivers and cyclists would have no idea if the cyclist nearest to them was police or not and would begin to behave with respect towards each other and peds.

 

[mjr]

It would be difficult to balance seizing a £15,000 car against a £500 bike don't you think?

I think it's easy: both are impeding the mobility of the offender. If two people run around shooting, should the one with the more expensive gun get a lesser punishment? I'd go the other way and fine the cyclist heavily, though.

even if you only had 10 officers so long as you moved them around the city, drivers and cyclists would have no idea if the cyclist nearest to them was police or not and would begin to behave with respect towards each other and peds.

I don't share your optimism about rational behaviour by road users! Also, how could we convince someone to authorise this sort of action? News media goes nuts every time a signed and hi-vis speed camera is switched on

Can we predict that it should help? Does anyone keep track of what proportion of cyclist-or-walker-involved motoring collisions result in a motorist being charged or fined, or something like that, London or nationally?

 

[martint235]

I think it's easy: both are impeding the mobility of the offender. If two people run around shooting, should the one with the more expensive gun get a lesser punishment? I'd go the other way and fine the cyclist heavily, though.

I don't share your optimism about rational behaviour by road users! Also, how could we convince someone to authorise this sort of action? News media goes nuts every time a signed and hi-vis speed camera is switched on

Can we predict that it should help? Does anyone keep track of what proportion of cyclist-or-walker-involved motoring collisions result in a motorist being charged or fined, or something like that, London or nationally?

It's a different crime to shooting fairly obviously so. The aim in this case is to deter people so you go for what matters most to them and what can easily be applied at the time. So how do you fine a cyclist who may have no ID on them? Taking their bike is an immediate and noticeable punishment.

You're not authorising anything, you're enforcing a regulation that is already there. You're just amending the punishment.

If we're going to live in a world ruled by media nothing will change and something drastically needs to change to encourage a different view of cycling.

Yes I predict it will help. Once word gets around that there are people enforcing the law and you could lose your bike or your livelihood (if you're a professional driver with multiple transgressions) people won't take the risk. If it doesn't work at first, increase the number of officers, it'll still be cheaper than blue paint. It will also upset the good drivers less as they won't be held up in traffic jams by people painting said blue paint onto road.

 

[booze and cake]

Considering how much money it cost, and the delays and misery the work has caused, I am unimpressed by the whole thing around Kennington and Oval, in parts its a bloody mess. Apologies for the rant I just have to get this off my chest, I live in the area so can't avoid the changes. I hope someone at TFL and LCC at least reads this.

Cycling from Oval to Vauxhall is definitely better than it was, but it appears the planners popped into the Royal Vauxhall Tavern (RVT) for 8 pints each as what happens immediately in the crossing over towards MI6 is some comedic zig zagging that actually made me laugh out loud riding it for the first time. What the hell is that all about?

Coming the other way from MI6 towards Oval, I really don't like the bit right outside RVT where the cyclist are funnelled through a narrow gap between 2 concrete posts that is totally blind. There used to be one of those mirrors there before when it was wider so it was a known blind spot, but now the blind spot is even bigger but there's no mirrors. I would actually prefer to cycle in the 4/5 lines of traffic than do this section. Also bearing in mind the RVT is a busy pub and often has revellers outside, there is going to be accidents here for sure. They used to have a temporary urinal right by this point too, dont know if this is being allowed to continue but if so it wont be long before a cyclist crashes into a member of the village people here who just popped out for a piss.

Also just after this point you cross the road, but rather than continuing up towards Oval you want to continue up the marked cycle path towards South Lambeth Road, you have to cut across cyclists coming the other way and do a sharp turn of about 120 degrees avoiding a lamp post. This is very badly done as in practice it just means that cyclists dont bother doing the sharp turn and instead just cycle on the pedestrian bit and come back round in a shallower curve to rejoin the cycle path, so in fact this section actually introduces conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. Honestly have these clowns even thought to cycle it and see what they've made?

Back up to the Oval bit, and on the northbound CS7 just past Oval junction we have the new feature, Oval pond. The surface is really uneven and weeks ago when this opened my first impression was, 'when are they going to come and finish it'? Nobody came back. After even the tiniest shower the entire cycle lane turns into a huge pond, there is no drainage whatsoever. Really? In this country, where its kind of world famous for raining, a lot. And we've had the good weather bit of the year, god knows how grim this is going to be for the next 4 months. I don't mind cycling through the odd puddle, but I'd rather not, and this is about 6ft by 6ft in size I've actually stood and watched this section, and in practice yet again this poor design is just creating more danger. TFL and LCC, after the next bit of rain go and sit by this junction for a day and observe. You will see that cyclists are swerving the puddle, back out into the traffic on the right, and due to us being segregated by the kerb you cannot simply go round the puddle, you have to cycle 50 yards in the road before you can rejoin the cycle path, exposed to the 'dangerous' traffic the whole time. The other alternative is cyclists swerve left onto the pavement again introducing conflict with pedestrians, way to go designers

Coming from Kennington towards Oval is not clear either, just past Kennington Road junction there is a newly opened cycle lane on the left but absolutely no signs or roadmarking indicating its a cycle lane, I genuinely thought it was pavement the first time and I missed it completely, and as above was again stuck in traffic at being found the wrong side of the kerb being forced and kept in a danger zone, cheers for that. Are they really not going to have any signs or roadmarkings indicating cycle lane approaching or some arrows, or even some blue paint so its clear? Its just smacks of being a half arsed effort yet again.

Ride 100 yards up to Oval and we have another section of kerbed-in-ness with a traffic light. Now at least this is better than before as the cyclists and cars are on different lights phasing so the cars going up Brixton road can't veer left across you path. But again it seems the planners did'nt seem to get of grasp of what they are trying to achieve, as in practice conflict is being introduced again. The 1st time I came to these lights due to the high volume of traffic the cars were totally backed up from Brixton Road and totally blocking the exit to the kerb in cycle lane . There is no yellow boxes/grids warning cars of not stopping and blocking this section where the cycle lane crosses the road. So you are trapped in, You either wait there trapped and miss the light phasing and forced to repeat the same cycle again. Or you are forced to try and climb out of the kerbed in bit to try and pick you way between the bumpers of the nose to tail cars and try and rejoin the other side, honestly it is a joke. I thought maybe I was unlucky this first time, but I did it every day last week and 4 out of 5 days the exact same thing happened, that is just rubbish and frankly piss poor design again. I honestly can't decide whether its just inept, or are they trying to put us in more danger on purpose and TFL are just massively trolling us

And then of course you cross the road and have another one of these behind the bus stop routes like they do on the Stratford CS. I hated these the first time I saw them and ranted and raved at the time. I know the Stratford one has been open for ages and I don't know if there has been any accidents, if not then maybe they are not as bad as they seem and if there has been no conflict, fair enough I'll accept my fist impressions were wrong. Anyone know of any reported cyclist/ped incidents at these points on the Stratford route?

Anyway the problem with this bit at Oval is it so narrow. The cycle path in the run up to the crossing is enough for cyclists to pass each other, going through the lights though and its bottle-necked down to a very narrow lane, so narrow I wonder if anyone riding one of the new breed of wide barred mountain bikes can even get through this section. I'm no planning and traffic flow super-guru but I'm fairly sure introducing bottlenecks at points like this is not a good idea, the most annoying thing is there is plenty of space, they are not forced into it by buildings or anything, it could easily have been wider. Just why?

My final gripe is about light phasings. If TFL were serious about encouraging people out of their cars and onto bikes, they should be giving cyclists priority. Car drivers should visibly see the cyclists are getting the fast track treatment, then they will some of that action. Some of the light phasings clearly indicate to me cyclists are 2nd class road users. Coming from Victoria up Vauxhall Bridge Road towards Vauxhall, before the bridge on the new lane there is a set of lights as you approach the junction with John Islip St. I had to wait so long at this set of light recently I needed to step off my bike and as I needed another shave. Honestly, WTF? So now when I come to this section I ride in the cycle lane, then at the lights hop into the main traffic flow, through the lights an then rejoin the cycle lane. This is much more risky but is the 'obvious' thing that many cyclist will do in the real world, encouraged by poor design and again this seems to be introducing conflict when before there was none, which I think could be the motto for the whole damn scheme, oh the irony. I'm sure TFL and LCC look at actual real human behaviour in these situations, so they must be ignoring it then? Drivers rage and seethe at cyclists getting ahead of them and moan more about RLJ'ing than anything. Give us all the green lights, if they cant beat us, a lot will join us.......if the infrastructure was'nt so badly designed.

I should point out I'm not some cycling anarchic renegade (mores the pity maybe) . I'm in my 40's, I stop at red lights. I am an experienced and confident cyclist so appreciate much of the segregation debate is not aimed at the likes of me, but if its not clear to me how is it going to be any clearer to a novice? I live in this area so want it improved for cycling, and it is indeed personal now. I completed numerous questionairres and responded to the consultations before the work started, have endured the traffic chaos for months and months caused by the works, which cyclists still get the blame for as aparently its all for us Its cost millions and really if is this the best they can manage, sorry to sound so negative but from me its an overall....but I was trying to be constructive, it just seems no one is listening. Rant over, and breathe......

 

[Drago]

Stop painting costly, useless blue lines on roads. Tactical squads of police on bikes but drop the uniformed guys on MTBs: suits on bromptons, hipsters on fixies, full kit roadies, bikes with baskets on the front.

It's a nice thought, but if the copper isn't in uniform they don't have the power to require you to stop, so it achieves nothing.

 

[subaqua]

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.

You would have thought that 60 years after motorways were first opened that we would have learnt the lessons from that .

M10. (As was) , M45 were built because we had this wonderful M1 that just tipped people off the end of it.

It's a nice thought, but if the copper isn't in uniform they don't have the power to require you to stop, so it achieves nothing.

So change that bit of legislation . And what's to stop them having uniform on underneath a plain jacket etc.

At least it means you will never be quite sure who is or isn't a police officer.

 

[martint235]

It's a nice thought, but if the copper isn't in uniform they don't have the power to require you to stop, so it achieves nothing.

So the next time a plain clothes detective asks me to stop I can politely tell him to do one?

If that's the case then I think we're going to have some real issues with terrorism and should maybe look at changing that bit of legislation.

 

[mjr]

So how do you fine a cyclist who may have no ID on them?

Same way you fine a motorist who may have no ID on them. Let's apply similar rules in this instance

You're not authorising anything, you're enforcing a regulation that is already there. You're just amending the punishment.

And allocating resources to its enforcement. I'm not saying let's be ruled by media, but it seems reasonably probable to cause a reaction, so it'd be nice to have a rational defence.

Yes I predict it will help.

I know you do, but is there any data?

What the hell is that all about?

In general, you may find the answer if you dig around https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk and if not, then emailing them or asking the local LCC reps, or if TfL don't answer then asking for relevant stuff through www.WhatDoTheyKnow.com (but get in quick before Cameron starts charging for everything) may reveal the answer. In my experience elsewhere, it's usually cost-cutting or thoughtlessness... more on that now:

Honestly have these clowns even thought to cycle it and see what they've made?

Designers seem about as likely to cycle as the rest of the population (which seems wrong IMO) so that means 20% at best in most places will have regular experience of cycling... but the rest really should be professional enough to follow the guidance and not enable mad crap like sharp zero-radius corners or dangerous obstacles in/by the track!

I am an experienced and confident cyclist so appreciate much of the segregation debate is not aimed at the likes of me, but if its not clear to me how is it going to be any clearer to a novice?

Exactly! I'm fine with you saying you're not going to use it because you're OK on the carriageway - and I want lots of opportunity for cyclists to move between carriageway and cycle track so there are options for all sorts - but where do the future riders like you come from? They probably haven't been gently built up to riding on busy A roads by their parents (like I was fortunate enough to) and I'm sure the majority aren't going to dive in at the deep end on the carriageway, so they'll begin on things like these, so it's really important that they're designed so that experienced riders think they're OK because novices don't enjoy obstacle courses and maybe won't spot the dangers before they get hurt and won't keep cycling if they feel it's a choice between that and the hurly burly. So please keep on and if ANY highway designer ever tries to dismiss legitimate concerns because "this isn't aimed at the likes of you" then fire your question straight back at them and ask if they think novice riders like dangerous obstacle courses!.... ok, rant over - you can probably tell I've had that experience a few times!

Its cost millions and really if is this the best they can manage, sorry to sound so negative but from me its an overall....but I was trying to be constructive, it just seems no one is listening.

Part of the problem is that highways planning isn't part of the normal planning process, so what gets consulted upon isn't what gets built - if potential users are consulted at all! (At least TfL seems to do that fairly consistently...) If the design changes (or lack of) in response to the consultation are fundamentally perverse, there's very little opportunity to challenge it. Even then, projects often change with no visible reason between the consultation report approval and final construction. This accountability problem doesn't just afflict cycle tracks, but all highways - but when they cock it up for motorists, there are massively expensive collisions and outrage and cock-ups usually get corrected, whereas on a cycle track, a few people fall over and nothing blows up or gets demolished by a car. They are basically unaccountable. They are the dandy highwaymen who the mayor's too scared to caution - They spend our cash on looking flash and grabbing our attention! The devil take your handlebars and your cycle collection - The way you look you'll qualify for next year's old age pension. Stand and deliver! Your money or your life! Try and use a mirror - no bullet or a knife!

Ahem. TFL won't read your fine words. Please slap them with it. Email a copy to your assembly member www.WriteToThem.com - you're a resident and voter, you have a much louder voice than commuting workers like me. If you're free at the time, please consider going along tomorrow evening for a little lie-down outside their office. #NoMoreCoffins.

 

[mjr]

You would have thought that 60 years after motorways were first opened that we would have learnt the lessons from that .

M10. (As was) , M45 were built because we had this wonderful M1 that just tipped people off the end of it.

Yebbut M10 and M45 just spread the load from the ends of the M1 onto more non-motorways... most of the CS load spreads among non-cycle-superhighways in a similar fashion, doesn't it? There's no shortage of junctions on most of them, as you know to your cost

 

[martint235]

Same way you fine a motorist who may have no ID on them. Let's apply similar rules in this instance

And allocating resources to its enforcement. I'm not saying let's be ruled by media, but it seems reasonably probable to cause a reaction, so it'd be nice to have a rational defence.



I know you do, but is there any data?

You mean checking their license plate against who they say they are and arresting them if there's enough of a discrepancy? Or perhaps expecting them to have a driving license on them when they are driving? That'll be fun with cyclists.

The rational defence is that we are trying to make the roads safer (parents happy) for less cost (everyone happy) than disrupting traffic and putting stupid blue paint everywhere (motorists happy). Even the Daily Wail can't complain about that.

Yep I'll make up some data for something we've never attempted yet.

 

[mjr]

You mean checking their license plate against who they say they are and arresting them if there's enough of a discrepancy? Or perhaps expecting them to have a driving license on them when they are driving?

The registration plate has nothing to do with who's driving and we don't have to carry licences when driving ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/164 ), or indeed any official ID. Personally, I think that's a basic freedom... but possibly that's OT here (rather than SCP).

Yep I'll make up some data for something we've never attempted yet.

I suggested possible data which should already exist but may not be published. I don't mind if someone else knows it. It's OK to say we can't find it.

 

[martint235]

The registration plate has nothing to do with who's driving and we don't have to carry licences when driving ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/164 ), or indeed any official ID. Personally, I think that's a basic freedom... but possibly that's OT here (rather than SCP).


I suggested possible data which should already exist but may not be published. I don't mind if someone else knows it. It's OK to say we can't find it.

164(1) suggests that you do have to produce your license:
"Power of constables to require production of driving licence and in certain cases statement of date of birth.
F1or vehicle examiner] has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road,

F1or vehicle examiner] has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use of a motor vehicle on a road, or

F1or vehicle examiner] has reasonable cause to believe was supervising the holder of a provisional licence while driving, at a time when an accident occurred owing to the presence of the vehicle on a road or at a time when an offence is suspected of having been committed by the holder of the provisional licence in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road,

must, on being so required by a constable [F1or vehicle examiner], produce his licence [F2and its counterpart] for examination, so as to enable the constable [F1or vehicle examiner] to ascertain the name and address of the holder of the licence, the date of issue, and the authority by which [F3they were] issued. "


I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a driver to carry their license when they are operating their vehicle anyway so if the above isn't sufficient it's a minor law change. It would be more difficult to enforce for cyclists though as you'd have to introduce a licensing scheme. Then again I'm not against a requirement to carry photo ID anyway.