London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[GrumpyGregry]

It took 27 pages to reach this point.

Godwin's Law does not apply.

 

[stowie]

Try to take in Southwark Bridge Road. I am given to understand that there are pavement works spilling in to the blue cycle lane at the moment. This has meant that there are signs deployed advising that the cycle lane is closed and cyclists should dismount.

I said it a fair few pages back but it stands repeating. If you create a cycle lane you are implicitly creating a non-cyclists lane out of whatever road is left.

Well, kind of.

The fact that thisis the attitude of some motorists and that TfL / council are stupid enough to put in these types of signs can't really be blamed solely on cycle lanes. Some motorists currently think cyclists shouldn't be on the road - cycle lane or no.

The cycle lane close / cyclist dismount signs drive me spare. I can only assume they are there as some kind of weasel way to get out of being sued?! How much more civilised to have "road narrow / motorists taken caution with cyclists" or some such sign! And this would re-enforce our right to be on the road.

Locally, the council have dug up a small section of the road and put up these signs. It makes me mad.

So, it bears repeating that creating a cycle lane doesn't limit the cyclist's use of the road in law or highway code. Only in the mind of road users already pre-disposed to question our right to the road in the first place.

(Edited so that the post bears some passing resemblance to English)

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Suppose - hypothetically speaking - that bus lanes cyclists are permitted to use create, or rather, engender, the belief that the rest of the road, or indeed any road that does not have a bus lane on, is not for cyclists.

Would that be an argument for removing the permissibility of bus lanes* for cyclists? That it creates an attitude about our usage of the rest of the road network?




*I should add, for clarity, that I do think bus lanes are generally wonderful on a bike, especially the one on Gower Street in morning rush hour.

 

[stowie]

Apologies if I have failed to make myself clear. I do not think that an actual "Not-cyclist lane" is created, more a de-facto one. Official signs telling us to get off and walk because our lane is obstructed fuel the beliefs that the rest of the road is not for us.

Obviously I will take the notion of a Cyclists Dismount sign the day I see a Motorists Get Out And Push sign.

Yes, same here!

I guess I was saying that the problem maybe not the concept of cycle lanes in principle, but the attitude of some other road users to cyclists in general. And that signs such as cyclists dismount are incredibly unhelpful in altering this mindset.

I have been in Denmark this week (in a relatively small city, so no real comparisons with London, but plenty of smaller towns are comparable in the UK). The town wasn't covered in cycle lanes (in fact there were very few in the town at all), but the space given to pedestrians and cyclists, and the restrictions on cars in a very large part of the centre was completely different to similar towns I see in the UK. The attitude of drivers seems different to pedestrians and cyclists (priority is assumed to be different for a start), but I would say the standard is driving generally is not really different - I don't think the Danish are magically better, more considerate drivers. They are just conditioned to sharing space much more effectively in towns, and road design has removed space from them and given it to cyclists and pedestrians in the first instance.

 

[stowie]

Suppose - hypothetically speaking - that bus lanes cyclists are permitted to use create, or rather, engender, the belief that the rest of the road, or indeed any road that does not have bus lane on, is not for cyclists.

Would that be an argument for removing the permissibility of bus lanes* for cyclists? That it creates an attitude about our usage of the rest of the road network?




*I should add, for clarity, that I do think bus lanes are generally wonderful on a bike, especially the one on Gower Street in morning rush hour.

Or indeed, does it engender the belief in some motorists that buses shouldn't be on the other parts of the road? I suspect it might, but buses cannot be bullied quite as easily.

 

[dellzeqq]

WGF's hypothesis is a decent hypothesis, but, in practice, the width of bus lanes* enables cyclists to proceed, overtake each other, and do everything except turn right on the red tarmac. There are times that I'm in the 'fast lane', but that's generally because I'm going pretty fast, and as fast as the traffic, and that puts me in to a different relationship with the drivers. But, again, there is a problem in theory.

*Clapham North southbound is filling up with bikes. Oh dear!!

 

[jonesy]

I think it is pretty well understood that bus lanes are intended to give buses advantage over other traffic, which often isn't the case with cycle paths or lanes, so buses gain rather than lose from their creation, and cyclists benefit from the additional space as a bonus. I'd be surprised if drivers perceived bus lanes as being somewhere cyclists should be constrained to in the same way that they do with cycle specific provision.

 

[dellzeqq]

I've a confession to make - I should have said this straight away. Susie and I have been told to get back in the bus lane. By a cab driver. It was a bus lane that cabs aren't allowed in, so he wasn't being a complete hypocrite.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Apologies. My point was not really about bus lanes, but was instead an oblique response to a point Adrian has been making.

Upthread he argued "If you create a cycle lane you are implicitly creating a non-cyclists lane out of whatever road is left." Also, "Every bit of segregated lane in a world of partial segregation only serves to encourage this [get off my road] attitude" and "it is the concept of segregation that is causing the problem."


That is, we shouldn't provide dedicated lanes for cyclists, because in doing so, we create an attitude amongst certain members of society that the rest of the road network is not for us.


I was attempting to see whether this logic would extend to bus lanes - suppose, hypothetically, that cyclists' use of bus lanes created precisely this attitude (and given Dell's example above, it does seem to, at least among a small minority). Would the fact that some rather stupid people think that cyclists are no longer allowed on the rest of the road be a sufficient (or even good) reason to rethink allowing cyclists in bus lanes?


(This is not really an argument about whether we should provide more cycle lanes or not; it's rather about what reasons can or can't be employed against or in favour of them)

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I'd be surprised if drivers perceived bus lanes as being somewhere cyclists should be constrained to in the same way that they do with cycle specific provision.

That is almost certainly true, even taking into account Dell's example above.

But I was really engaging in a thought experiment - a "what if."

 

[jonesy]

Apologies. My point was not really about bus lanes, but was instead an oblique response to a point Adrian has been making.

Upthread he argued "If you create a cycle lane you are implicitly creating a non-cyclists lane out of whatever road is left." Also, "Every bit of segregated lane in a world of partial segregation only serves to encourage this [get off my road] attitude" and "it is the concept of segregation that is causing the problem."


That is, we shouldn't provide dedicated lanes for cyclists, because in doing so, we create an attitude amongst certain members of society that the rest of the road network is not for us.


I was attempting to see whether this logic would extend to bus lanes - suppose, hypothetically, that cyclists' use of bus lanes created precisely this attitude (and given Dell's example above, it does seem to, at least among a small minority). Would the fact that some rather stupid people think that cyclists are no longer allowed on the rest of the road be a sufficient (or even good) reason to rethink allowing cyclists in bus lanes?


(This is not really an argument about whether we should provide more cycle lanes or not; it's rather about what reasons can or can't be employed against or in favour of them)

Ok, I see where you are going. And as I have no objection to things that give advantage to cyclists, especially when they take space from motorised traffic, then I'd agree with you that that particular argument is not of itself sufficient to argue against the principle of cycle lanes. That said, - most of the argument here has been about segregation hasn't it? On highway cycle lanes aren't segregation in the way it is usually understood in transport planning. (I'm not opposed in principle to segregation either, as long as it provides advantage, but dellzeqq's "show us the drawings" challenge has to be faced).

 

[sheddy]

yup.
I see that WalthamForestCrapCycleLanes has stepped over the mark again... https://docs.google....dit?hl=en&pli=1#

For those of us lost and reading up a few days late, what date was the WFCCL item ?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Ok, I see where you are going. And as I have no objection to things that give advantage to cyclists, especially when they take space from motorised traffic, then I'd agree with you that that particular argument is not of itself sufficient to argue against the principle of cycle lanes. That said, - most of the argument here has been about segregation hasn't it? On highway cycle lanes aren't segregation in the way it is usually understood in transport planning. (I'm not opposed in principle to segregation either, as long as it provides advantage, but dellzeqq's "show us the drawings" challenge has to be faced).

Sorry, I would have replied earlier - I didn't spot this.

On the basis of the above, I don't think there's much disagreement here. I think the "advantage" point is absolutely critical - I certainly would not be in favour of any segregation that made a cyclist's journey longer and/or more difficult than the equivalent road journey, because frankly that's not going to be attractive enough to justify the expense.

The Dutch are sadly decades ahead of us on this, and competitive advantage is just as important as the safety aspect. Take this roundabout in Utrecht. Not only does the cyclist heading in to town not have to negotiate the large multi-lane roundabout, but their route is a simple straight line without any traffic lights or junctions. This is the kind of thing I would like to see.

Unfortunately, in the UK, any segregated infrastructure on that kind of roundabout is a desperate mish-mash of hopping on and off pavements, and/or convoluted and confusing pedestrian underpasses. Take this example from near me -

I try to avoid this roundabout as you get lunatics screaming around it, coming straight off a dual carriageway at 50+ mph. The radius is large enough for vehicle speeds to remain high. The "segregation" provides no advantage, and not really any more safety than cycling on the roundabout, because you have to make several crossings against high speed traffic. This roundabout is a massive barrier between the town and the satellite village - barely two miles apart, centre to centre, yet largely isolated for pedestrians and cyclists (there is a pedestrian footbridge, but the route is convoluted and lengthy).

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

When it comes to urban centres, I don't think segregation is at all necessary on many quieter roads, provided that access for cars becomes more difficult.

This video - again from Utrecht - is a good illustration. There is no segregation here, but it looks like there is a lot of restricted access for motor vehicles. The bicycle gains competitive advantage.

 

[dellzeqq]

well, we've been wittering on about advantage through the entire thread. That is what will get people on bikes - when they see cyclists who look something like them swanning down bus lanes and getting to work in less time and in decent shape.