London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[slowmotion]

I'm no expert here, but this is how it appears to me. For eighteen months I have traded a motor commute of 10 miles round trip for a bike one. The bike trip is at least ten minutes faster ( London W14 to SW8 ) each way compared to the motor, and often a lot more. I no longer care about the weather. As long as there is no ice, I really do prefer to ride it. (The motor option would cost me nothing at all, BTW). It is more fun than driving, and a whole shed load more fun than public transport.

My non-bike friends all say that it is insanely dangerous to ride a bike in London traffic, and they may well have a point. If they go to gyms, walk, play sports or whatever, they are probably quite fit, so the "healthy lifestyle" argument for bikes just doesn't cut the mustard with them.

My chances of being killed or seriously injured in a motor on that commute are about zero due to low traffic speeds. On the bike, a whole lot more. (OK, no evidence, but common-sense and experience tells me how close I have come to something that could have been quite nasty) That is the reason why more people don't cycle in cities, I gently suggest....real danger, actually.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I can agree with this 100%.

Poorly thought-out, inferior infrastructure is worse than no infrastructure at all.

Likewise shite on-road cycle lanes should be taken out immediately. This one in my town

is an absolute disgrace and - AFAIK - the council were advised to remove it in 2009. It's still there though. I'm going to write to them.


Edit - I also agree entirely about competitive advantage.

Kings Road in Horsham? Let it be. It does no harm and no one, well hardly anyone, uses it. Our local cycling forum, of which I am secretary, have had lengthy discussions with WSCC about the provision in Horsham. I feel campaigning to make them remove stuff, and thus have to admit their mistakes, whist satisfying if succesful, is not the way forward.

Fancy joining the Horsham Cycling Forum then?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Kings Road in Horsham? Let it be. It does no harm and no one, well hardly anyone, uses it. Our local cycling forum, of which I am secretary, have had lengthy discussions with WSCC about the provision in Horsham. I feel campaigning to make them remove stuff, and thus have to admit their mistakes, whist satisfying if succesful, is not the way forward.

Fancy joining the Horsham Cycling Forum then?

King's Road - that's the one.

I disagree about it not doing any harm. I cycle there fairly regularly, and am often subjected to close overtakes from morons who think I should "be in the cycle lane." When I move out of the lane approaching the roundabout at the southern end, to prevent myself being left-hooked, I was recently honked and shouted at by someone asking me "How much room do you want!?!?" because I had the temerity to remove myself from a 50cm wide cycle lane. It also regularly puts (inexperienced) cyclists right in the door zone, or intimidates people into cycling there.

It would cost very little to remove it - and, I could be wrong, the council said they would. I have to do some digging to find the document.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Let me know about the Cycling Forum, btw.

I remember seeing something in the County Times, but I wasn't aware anything had become of it!

 

[Ravenbait]

Sorry but that's tosh. The perceived lack of safety is what people most often give as the reason, aka excuse, when asked why they don't cycle. Rather like I cite my bad knee whenever my wife wants to go for a walk in the country. It's a convenient, vaguely credible at first glance, excuse. Nothing more nothing less.

Absolutely. In my previous life of active campaigning I've done a few "Why don't you cycle?" surveys, to which the most memorable response (after the usual bewildered, blinky-eyed, hadn't even considered the option stare) was "My boyfriend says it's too dangerous for a girl by herself."

The safety in numbers argument is also tosh taken out of context. There are only two methods by which safety in numbers can be effective:

(1) So many people cycle that drivers perceive cyclists to be part of their own peer group, because they are cyclists too, which will only make a difference if the cyclists are on the road where it matters that drivers identify them as part of their own peer group; or

(2) Selective inattention blindness is no longer a problem because drivers see so many cyclists on the road with them that they expect to see them. Again, this is only going to be effective when cyclists share space with drivers.

The increased safety of cyclists when there are more cyclists is down to changes in driver behaviour, not cyclist behaviour. I think John Franklin's study on the Milton Keynes Redways is enlightening when considering the absolute effects of total segregation on cyclist safety in a typical UK city (http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/redway.html).

Also, anyone who chooses to ignore the needs and safety of existing cyclists, the ones who are already out there making a difference by adding their weight to the numbers, because they're lycra-clad or cycle too fast or don't matter because they'll do it anyway: I once had a very public argument with a speaker at a Cycle Scotland conference who was saying this very thing. The reason that view wouldn't be terribly well-received on this forum is that most of us are the people who are already cycling anyway and such a view would imply we're the ones who don't matter. If we don't matter, then I would suggest seeking our agreement is an exercise in pointlessness.

Sam

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Let me know about the Cycling Forum, btw.

I remember seeing something in the County Times, but I wasn't aware anything had become of it!

PM your email and I'll send you a copy of our response to WSCC's local transport plan consulation. We are now in discussion with HDC over

a) allowing cycling on all the paths in the park (about which an announcement is imminent; the signage is ready, etc., etc..)

and

b) converting the western side of the 'Riverside Walk' route (Warnham Road to Denne Road) into a 'Riverside Ride'

The ultimate idea, accepted by both HDC and WSCC, being that the park becomes the hub of network of town centre cycle routes (vehicular and segregated as deliverable; we are pragmatists) with spokes radiating to a circular Riverside Ride around the outer edges of the town.

So quite a bit has come of it. For not a lot of effort.

Do you ever ride with Horsham Cycling on a Sunday?

We need to get you on a FNRttC next year.... or have you done one.... Brighton or Bognor are both easy ones to do (and ride home from)

 

[GrumpyGregry]

King's Road - that's the one.

I disagree about it not doing any harm. I cycle there fairly regularly, and am often subjected to close overtakes from morons who think I should "be in the cycle lane." When I move out of the lane approaching the roundabout at the southern end, to prevent myself being left-hooked, I was recently honked and shouted at by someone asking me "How much room do you want!?!?" because I had the temerity to remove myself from a 50cm wide cycle lane. It also regularly puts (inexperienced) cyclists right in the door zone, or intimidates people into cycling there.

It would cost very little to remove it - and, I could be wrong, the council said they would. I have to do some digging to find the document.

Let's agree to difer on the basis that our experiences are very different

a) I've not had what you describe happen to me in Horsham for years (But I am a well built 6' 2" ex rugby player and I ride very assertively so maybe peeps think twice) anywhere than on Albion Way. (When I twatted the aggressive little Hosham gobshite who got out of his poxy repmobile to berate and then assault me at the Bishopric lights.) Kings Road? I go primary and flat out all the way up or down, and no one ever overtakes me over the iron bridge before the station either. Nor do they honk.

b) I'd rather what little money is currently available is not wasted by WSCC highways removing stuff

and

c) I work in Haywards Heath. This made me change my mind 180 degrees about the 'poor infrasturcture is worse than no infrastructure'. No infrastructure causes drivers to assume cyclists have no place on the roads. Even poor infrastructure has a role in remind them we are there. Haywards Heath is a truly awful place to cycle in.

 

[jonesy]

...

c) I work in Haywards Heath. This made me change my mind 180 degrees about the 'poor infrasturcture is worse than no infrastructure'. No infrastructure causes drivers to assume cyclists have no place on the roads. Even poor infrastructure has a role in remind them we are there. Haywards Heath is a truly awful place to cycle in.

But this is where I have to disagree, it is poor segregated infrastructure that makes drivers think cyclists have no place on the road. No infrastructure at all doesn't send this message. As I've said before, the majority of confrontations I've had with drivers over the last few years (I don't have many) have been because the driver thought I should be on the 'cycle path'. So those are conflicts that wouldn't have occurred if the crappy shared use pavement hadn't existed, and wouldn't happen again if it were removed. You have a reasonable concern about not wasting money, but the opportunity to remove things at low cost does occur, e.g. when surfaces are repaired, or utility work is carried out, so having a list of counter-productive infrastructure ready to be removed when the opportunity does arise is entirely reasonable.

 

[ozzage]

Sorry but that's tosh. The perceived lack of safety is what people most often give as the reason, aka excuse, when asked why they don't cycle. Rather like I cite my bad knee whenever my wife wants to go for a walk in the country. It's a convenient, vaguely credible at first glance, excuse. Nothing more nothing less.

OK so now we get to the bit where seasoned people who do cycle claim to know better why people don't cycle, than those who err.. DON'T! Nothing worse than pesky statistics which don't coincide with your world view...

Just apply a common sense rule for a minute. Is it conceivable, that for very many people, cycling on road would seem like a dangerous activity? Surely even the most hardened cyclist would accept the truth in that? If that's true, then might it not be a large factor in why one might not choose to cycle? Not the only reason, for sure, but that was never the claim.

Anyway, I've just a pleasant Christmas week away in a part of Germany covered in shared-use paths (next to roads) which has a nicely high modal share. Not sure of the numbers, but outside extreme weather periods like now there's heaps of cyclists all going to the shops, visiting people, just living their lives on bikes as they should. It's nice to be reminded that despite all the doom-sayers, even shared use can work fine when neither bike or pedestrian numbers are too high and cyclists aren't as speed-obsessed as here. It's a very pleasant place to cycle! You guys would probably hate it!

 

[ozzage]

On my way to work this morning I incurred the wrath of a Royal Mail lorry driver by overtaking another cyclist and thus being out of the cycle lane. When I caught up with her at the lights and asked what the problem was she told me that I should stay in the cycle lane and not be in the road.

Until you can address that attitude I would much rather remove all existing cycle lanes than go any further down the path of segregation.

Wouldn't happen if you were on a segregated cycle path, would it

 

[ozzage]

This all sounds like a load of old bollocks. The whole rational behind the safety in numbers concept is that those numbers are in the same space as the cars. It is the idea that the car driver gets a repeated message "cyclists here on this road, I need to watch for them" with each one that passes them, that gives the benefit. You could load up your separate cycle path with any number of cyclist, who between them have taken a bus of the roads, and your average motorist will just see the slightly clearer road. Unfortunately that allows him to carry slightly greater speed into the corner where he hits a cyclist going straight on on the path. What was the net benefit again?

With respect, that is not the "whole rational". The safety in numbers argument is used all over the world, including in places with segregated infrastructure, not just by vehicular cyclists in places like the UK.

Cyclists always need to interact with other vehicles and also with pedestrians. This might be a shared use path, a slow-speed on-road environment or where segregated facilities intersect with roads at crossings etc. All of those environments benefit from having more cyclists as all other users are more used to finding bikes there.

 

[ozzage]

competitive advantage is key. One of the joys of the Cycling Superhighways is that they give times to various points along the route - times that are eminently achievable. While CS7 journey times are not quite as quick as Northern Line times they're not far off - and the cyclist has the advantage of a flying start from his or her front door, and a flying finish to their place of work. They're a good deal better than rush hour car times, particularly through Tooting and Clapham. If people work out that they can get from home to work ten or fifteen minutes faster on a bike they're going to go for it.

I agree 100% with this, and have tried to iterate this in my posts as well. Direct routes are a big factor in making cycling attractive. You need to make it (seem) safe, and you need to make it efficient. With those two things you'll have success.

Here's a related link I saw a while back. You might find this interesting.

http://www.youtube.c...u/0/PJhGSxDb5wQ

 

[dellzeqq]

I agree 100% with this, and have tried to iterate this in my posts as well. Direct routes are a big factor in making cycling attractive. You need to make it (seem) safe, and you need to make it efficient. With those two things you'll have success.

Here's a related link I saw a while back. You might find this interesting.

http://www.youtube.c...u/0/PJhGSxDb5wQ

show us the drawing............

 

[ozzage]

Well, being 'equal to' is very different from the 'vast majority', isn't it! The point I hope you've realised is that buses are an essential part of London's public transport system, far more so than is the case in Copenhagen, and those buses, their stops and their disembarking passengers, have to be taken into account if you want to start building Copenhagen style segregated cycle paths.

So... buses are far more an important part of the transport system which has a <2% cycling modal share, than of one with 35%. You'd almost wonder if there's a link, wouldn't you...

Do you also claim that with a 40% cycling modal share that London wouldn't see a significantly reduced load on the public transport system, including buses, as was semi-claimed earlier?

Again, the 'paths' followed the growth in cycling, not the other way around. Also, cycle lanes aren't 'paths', and they certainly aren't segregation, even if mandatory. There isn't anything like Copenhagen segregation. I'd add that completely off-road paths across parks etc are in a different category, like the Hyde Park route, they can be very attractive, and can be advantageous over the road because they can offer short cuts. But routes across parks, like routes on old railway lines and towpaths, can only be built where there are parks, towpaths and disused railway lines, so they aren't that helpful as a model for what we should do everywhere else, where the road corridor is the most direct and convenient route.

OK so cycling was growing brilliantly without lanes or paths, so they decided to then add something which costs money but at the same time actually reduces safety and wasn't necessary anyway. Seems somewhat counter-intuitive to me. Perhaps you can explain further why/how this came about.

Once they started adding those lanes, what happened to cycling? My problem with this is: what you're claiming doesn't make sense. If adding the lanes and other paths wasn't necessary to grow numbers, then why did they do it? It's expensive, it takes parking away, it takes road-space away.

Of course not, but in learning from other cities we have to understand the differences so we can know what is transferable and what isn't. Hence my comments on differences in bus use and journey distances for example.

Noting your edit- but they are fundamentally different, and sit a very different level in the Hierarchy! It really is important to be precise about these things, not least because I fear it is lack of clarity on the part of cyclists in expressing what they want that has helped contribute to the failings of the schemes that councils so often put in.

I agree that not everything is transferable and we need to pick and choose, but it's time we started doing a lot more choosing and a lot less rejecting.

And finally, as my lunch break seems to be getting a little out of hand, I leave you all with this

http://www.montrealg...2475/story.html

 

[ozzage]

show us the drawing............

Yawn. You are too caught up in details. Do you honestly think the reason we don't have bike paths in London is because the streets are too narrow? It's purely because cars are prioritised over bikes!

Check out the youtube link above. It also covers this topic a bit.