London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[srw]

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?

Yes. One of many. Where's the segregated bike path going to go down Oxford Street?

 

[dellzeqq]

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.

you're completely incapable of working through the complexities. Show me the drawing.

And, yes, buses do make a greater contribution to London's transport needs than bikes - and here's the thing....they're actually more efficient in spatial terms. And that's without dumbass bike lanes.

 

[jonesy]

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?

You are continuing to ignore some rather fundamental factors that affect modal choice, in particular travel distances. London is bigger than Copenhagen and Amsterdam. Commuting distances are greater. Buses are used for longer distance trips than cycling. You can't have 40% modal share for cycling unless 40% of trips are within reasonable cycling distance, i.e. cycling is comparable in journey time. So, to go alongside dellzeqq's "show us the drawing" challenge, here's another one for you: "show us the trips".

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.

EH? Since when is it assumed that everything a local authority does is the rational thing, or the most cost-effective thing? Why do I have to justify measures I don't think are necessary? There are plenty of reasons why ineffective cycling infrastructure is installed, and one of those is that people like you keep demanding it!

In any case, I didn't say that all the cycling infrastructure installed in Oxford or Cambridge is pointless. Some of it is beneficial, but you've still missed the fundamental point, which is that the main growth in cycling took place before it, demonstrating that separate provision is not a necessary condition for getting more people to cycle. Once you've grasped the significance of that then you'll start to understand that modal choice is rather more complex than you think it is.

 

[stowie]

You are continuing to ignore some rather fundamental factors that affect modal choice, in particular travel distances. London is bigger than Copenhagen and Amsterdam. Commuting distances are greater. Buses are used for longer distance trips than cycling. You can't have 40% modal share for cycling unless 40% of trips are within reasonable cycling distance, i.e. cycling is comparable in journey time. So, to go alongside dellzeqq's "show us the drawing" challenge, here's another one for you: "show us the trips".




EH? Since when is it assumed that everything a local authority does is the rational thing, or the most cost-effective thing? Why do I have to justify measures I don't think are necessary? There are plenty of reasons why ineffective cycling infrastructure is installed, and one of those is that people like you keep demanding it!

In any case, I didn't say that all the cycling infrastructure installed in Oxford or Cambridge is pointless. Some of it is beneficial, but you've still missed the fundamental point, which is that the main growth in cycling took place before it, demonstrating that separate provision is not a necessary condition for getting more people to cycle. Once you've grasped the significance of that then you'll start to understand that modal choice is rather more complex than you think it is.

Modal share in London will absolutely be skewed by the size of the city and the large variety of transport options. This still doesn't detract from the fact that the average car journey in London is 7 miles with a very significant proportion being below 5 miles. Although London is big, many journeys, especially those by car, are local.

I also think modal share can be somewhat of a red herring for London due to the factors above. I would think understanding the numbers of adults who cycle at certain frequencies (every day, once a week etc.) would be interesting. Stats can be spun anyway you like. Hence the TfL promoters using percentage increase in cycling modal share to show cycling increase, whilst detractors use modal share. Both are flawed to use as the only measure.

 

[ozzage]

You are continuing to ignore some rather fundamental factors that affect modal choice, in particular travel distances. London is bigger than Copenhagen and Amsterdam. Commuting distances are greater. Buses are used for longer distance trips than cycling. You can't have 40% modal share for cycling unless 40% of trips are within reasonable cycling distance, i.e. cycling is comparable in journey time. So, to go alongside dellzeqq's "show us the drawing" challenge, here's another one for you: "show us the trips".

Bus trip length in London, 2009

Under 1 mile 5%
Under 2 miles 27%
Under 5 miles 76%
Under 10 miles 96%

76% are under five miles. I'm not really sure what your point is. Sounds like a perfect potential market to convert to cycling to me.


http://www.google.co...Oc1nsFnhgdbFfPg

EH? Since when is it assumed that everything a local authority does is the rational thing, or the most cost-effective thing? Why do I have to justify measures I don't think are necessary? There are plenty of reasons why ineffective cycling infrastructure is installed, and one of those is that people like you keep demanding it!

In any case, I didn't say that all the cycling infrastructure installed in Oxford or Cambridge is pointless. Some of it is beneficial, but you've still missed the fundamental point, which is that the main growth in cycling took place before it, demonstrating that separate provision is not a necessary condition for getting more people to cycle. Once you've grasped the significance of that then you'll start to understand that modal choice is rather more complex than you think it is.

It simply doesn't make sense, what you're saying. So a whole bunch of people started cycling when there were no facilities. Then they, for some reason, demanded facilities despite these cyclists actually hating them (as all "real" cyclists who have experienced the joy of on-road cycling do). The local authority decided, despite the apparent evidence AGAINST such facilites, to spend the money and annoy the local car owners. I'm sorry, but I'd like to see good figures on this, including demographic info about the people cycling, alongside a timeline of the the development of cycling facilities.

I CAN believe that Cambridge had higher cycling rates than other places before the facilities were installed, as it seemed to never completely lose its old cycling culture like most places did. Beyond that, well let's see the numbers.

 

[ozzage]

Yes. One of many. Where's the segregated bike path going to go down Oxford Street?

No chance, obviously, in its current state. I believe that's what is called a "straw-man argument".

Oxford Street is complicated. It's horrible. It needs to be pedestrianised. But the buses...

 

[ozzage]

And would anyone have cleared the snow and ice from this segregated path?


I should make it clear that I am working on the assumption that the little green man with his tongue sticking out is a way of communicating that, in implying that you support an attack on my right to be on the road, you are only joking. If I have got this wrong, please let me know. I will then rethink my response as appropriate.

In (some) other countries, yes they would have cleared them!

Anyway yes it was somewhat facetious, but it does amuse me when people use examples of cyclists conflicting with vehicles as an argument against segregation!! I do know what you mean, and I do support your right to ride on the road, but to be honest I wouldn't care that much about it if we could get some minimum enforceable standards for infrastructure.

 

[ozzage]

you're completely incapable of working through the complexities. Show me the drawing.

And, yes, buses do make a greater contribution to London's transport needs than bikes - and here's the thing....they're actually more efficient in spatial terms. And that's without dumbass bike lanes.

Clearly they make a greater contribution. Hardly anybody rides bikes and we're firmly on track to keep it that way.

Sadly they also don't go door-to-door, they pollute, they get stuck in traffic, they significantly increase maintenance required on the roads and require heavy subsiding (more than half a billion pounds in London, if I recall correctly) to be affordable for normal people!

It sounds like you think it's better to have more people in "efficient" buses than riding on bikes.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

it is the concept of segregation that is causing the problem.

Not really. What's causing the problem is the attitude of morons who think they own the road. Let's not get confused.


In fact, this kind of argument is a direct parallel to the one that suggests gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt because of the abuse and bullying their children might receive. That is - an eminently reasonable course of action is ruled out because of the potential unpleasant response to it by idiots.


There are arguments against segregation. The idea that we should take into account the opinions and attitudes of troglodytes is not one of them.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

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.

Those sound like good ideas. I've tried to use your profile to email you, but I get an error message - "[#10314] Sorry, you are not permitted to send an email via this board." Not sure why that is.

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)

I have done a couple of London to Brighton runs - the official organized ones - but, no, I haven't done an FNRttC.

WRT cycling on a Sunday, I'm not much of an early riser on a Sunday, tbh! I do ride around here for pleasure quite a lot, though - plenty of good routes, especially north towards Betchworth, and south towards Steyning.

 

[srw]

It simply doesn't make sense, what you're saying. So a whole bunch of people started cycling when there were no facilities. Then they, for some reason, demanded facilities despite these cyclists actually hating them (as all "real" cyclists who have experienced the joy of on-road cycling do). The local authority decided, despite the apparent evidence AGAINST such facilites, to spend the money and annoy the local car owners.

Do I detect a Bombus terrestris - capitulary covering interface situation?

This paragraph, even though meant facetiously, accurately reflects the observations of many people.

On the subject of buses, you might try reading (critically) the cyclox website.

Oxford also, critically, has excellent bus services (a bus every few minutes on all the main corridors), which has allowed traffic to be reduced substantially over the years.

[...]

There are two consequences of the excellent buses: (1) fewer cyclists, because some potential cyclists use the bus, and (2) political acceptance that car-access can be actively discouraged, to the point that there are considerably fewer cars on the main roads than you might expect.

So Oxford is one of the few places where cyclists really can use all the roads.

That doesn't seem too bad an option to me, and it's very similar to central London (zone 1) after the congestion charge.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I am not in the slightest bit confused. Partial segregation encourages some people to believe that they own the rest of the road.

You are responding to an argument I am not making. Read my post again.

I am disagreeing with your characterization of segregation as "the problem", rather than the attitude and behaviour of the people who think they own the road. I am not suggesting that this attitude does not exist, or that segregation does not encourage it.

My response is to deal with that attitude, not bend to it.

Would you suggest that - if a woman wearing a short skirt is harassed my a man - that her short skirt is "the problem", rather than the behaviour of the man?

Or, to return to the example I gave above, if a child with gay parents is bullied, that gay adoption is "the problem", rather than the bullying?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Its not like for like though. In your two examples there is a moral argument not to bend . For the segregation there is not, at least not on that precise point.

A) Is there that much of a difference between a "get off my road attitude" (your words) and playground bullying? Especially when the former can, and does, manifest itself in dangerous driving? I don't see why cyclists should have to put up with abusive attitudes, any more than women who choose to wear shorter skirts should.


B) The "get off my road attitude" is merely a variant on the "get out of my way attitude" that exists even in places where there is no segregation. It is a pre-existing attitude. I don't see how hostility to cyclists is going to be ameliorated, let alone prevented, by the failure to provide segregation.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

We have not at any stage been in disagreement about the root problem.

Really? I happen to think that "the root problem" is the unpleasant and abusive attitude of some motorists towards cyclists, regardless of whether they happen to be on the road or not (because even the most ardent "segregationist" will not want segregation everywhere. Take a look at Holland, where cyclists still share the majority of roads with drivers).

And yet while agreeing with me, you think that

it is the concept of segregation that is causing the problem.

No. Just no.

(Nice use of the word "apartheid" by the way. That's deliciously and needlessly provocative

)

EDIT - "motorists" changed to "some motorists"

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

If however you think that any form of road apartheid will help, then at that point we do disagree.

I would add that if you think I am suggesting segregation - in and of itself - as a cure for hostility towards cyclists, you are mistaken.