That worthless and dangerous cycling infrastructure

[jonesy]

http://hembrow.blogs...n-one-post.htmlHmmm. I notice his comparator for Oxford Street has a distinct lack of buses. No doubt removing them is a trivial task...

 

[Richard Mann]

It seems that in your view, this is OK because it is all part of some grander scheme to slow the traffic. You do want "cycle lanes, no matter how crap", but they aren't for cyclists to use.

Yes it's part of a grander scheme to slow the traffic. That's what makes it work. It also has some side benefits, like being pretty popular.

Given that reduction in traffic speed, I'm also concerned to make the cycle lanes feel comfortable, and minimise the safety issues that remain (having reduced the speed). That seems to be roughly what the bulk of existing and potential cyclists want. So it's cycle lanes, as long as they're as comfortable and as safe as reasonably practical. I wouldn't describe that as "no matter how crap"; I certainly think there's some constraint. "Crap" is such a vague term.

 

[Red Light]

Most of these roads are 50ft between property lines (the Barns Road photo happens to be at a place where it's wider for a short way). If you have two 10ft pavements (typical for a main road), there's 30ft (just over 9m) left. In places it's less than that. If you can fit in two traffic lanes, good width cycle tracks and parking into that, then you're a miracle worker. What would the Dutch do - probably narrow the pavements.

What would the Dutch have done? Probably put a 30kph limit on it, narrowed the road down and mixed the bikes in with the cars if the road wasn't wide enough. Instead here the cars get to go at 45kph and the bikes get squeezed out of their way into the gutter and door zone.

 

[TheJollyJimLad]

http://hembrow.blogs...-post.htmlHmmm. I notice his comparator for Oxford Street has a distinct lack of buses. No doubt removing them is a trivial task...

I shall let David Hembrow know you said that so he can add that to this list of excuses!

Isn't the potential to have more cycling along there, or the new Crossrail thundering along below enough? Geez, there's no pleasing some people!

 

[henshaw11]

The rule of thumb seems to be that if the road is wide enough to have a proper cycle lane its wide enough not to need one and if narrow enough to need one there's not room to fit one in. Otherwise you end up with things like this gem from Ambleside (which are now even wider still)

[attachment=4769:Screen Shot 2011-08-17 at 19.35.59.png]

I don't disagree - I'm simply pointing out that stating that the width is non-crucial is nonsensical IMO. Some people will ride in the cycle lane thinking they're safer there, so *if* lanes are provided at least make them useable. The example you gave is very similar to the one I mentioned in the same post, BTW. TBH I don't see a problem with it - it's simply making the point about allowing enough room, and is discretionary anyway (hence my point re education).

Anyhow, just noticed the thread's moved on quite a bit since then !

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

http://hembrow.blogs...-post.htmlHmmm. I notice his comparator for Oxford Street has a distinct lack of buses. No doubt removing them is a trivial task...

There were trams running along that street, Grote Markstraat. They now run underneath it.

http://maninblue1947.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/1708-seven-den-haag-the-hague-pictures/

Obviously that was an ambitious solution - but surely the pedestrianization of Oxford Street is going to happen at some point, once Crossrail arrives?

 

[jonesy]

I shall let David Hembrow know you said that so he can add that to this list of excuses!

Isn't the potential to have more cycling along there, or the new Crossrail thundering along below enough? Geez, there's no pleasing some people!

Please do.

Perhaps you, or Hembrow, would like to show how the journeys currently made by bus along Oxford St could be transfered to Crossrail and cycling, with suitable reference to travel distances, origins and destintations etc. This is fantasy transport planning I'm afraid.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I think it shows that it doesn't really matter what you do, as long as you make it consistently narrow so that vehicle speeds are reduced, and road users follow reasonably straight lines, thus making their behaviour predictable, and "negotiation" automatic.

And "negotiation" is a lot easier if the motorist doesn't believe you are going out of your designated lane and moving into their territory.

Edit: Incidentally, "designated lane" is a term I've heard from motorists I've encountered on more than one occasion.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Please do.

Perhaps you, or Hembrow, would like to show how the journeys currently made by bus along Oxford St could be transfered to Crossrail and cycling, with suitable reference to travel distances, origins and destintations etc. This is fantasy transport planning I'm afraid.

The London Assembly want it to happen - pedestrianisation of at least some sections of Oxford Street.

http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-l.../transport/streets-ahead-relieving-congestion

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Several answers to that. Its very difficult to have a cycle journey that is entirely within a cycle lane - usually because the lanes tend to end just at the point where you might think they are most needed. If they don't have the confidence to cycle without a cycle lane then they are not going to start without one all the way. Second is there is no evidence that cycle lanes attract new people to cycling in any significant numbers. Third "Because I can't think of anything else" isn't an adequate reason for building them.

I wouldn't claim an answer either but some of the things that interest me from a personal perspective are

• awareness campaigns for drivers and cyclists about vehicular riding. I think a lot of the problems out there are ignorance and misunderstandings on both sides.
• Adult Bikeability training and community rides especially built around training in the schools and getting parents involved with group cycling outings in the evenings or at weekends where kids and parents can ride together in a group practising Bikeability skills on the roads.
• A bikebuddy scheme to cycle with you when you are first getting started and building up the confidence. London ran several very successful Bike Trains into London during the tube strikes where they gathered at a meeting point and then cycled into the centre together.

+1

 

[Richard Mann]

What would the Dutch have done? Probably put a 30kph limit on it, narrowed the road down and mixed the bikes in with the cars if the road wasn't wide enough.

Nonsense, not with 14,000mvpd. If they didn't narrow the pavements, they'd put in slightly wider cycle lanes and slightly narrower traffic lanes. Quite possibly they'd use suggestion lanes, which are the equivalent to a UK advisory cycle lane. It's not all cycle tracks in the Netherlands.

 

[TheJollyJimLad]

Please do.

Perhaps you, or Hembrow, would like to show how the journeys currently made by bus along Oxford St could be transfered to Crossrail and cycling, with suitable reference to travel distances, origins and destintations etc. This is fantasy transport planning I'm afraid.

Once again, it turns into a localised debate and off the OP. Instead of looking at the OP's evidence it either boils down to something taken in isolation and London-centric ('what about Oxford Street' etc) or something taken in isolation and in the provinces ('what about the Badger Road, Badgerford') which is ludicrous as there is no way of determining car numbers, purpose of road etc. What Hembrow was doing was pointing out out how the Netherlands changed street design to a less car-centric model.

You can write it off as fantasy and make as many sniffy, 'glass is half empty' comments as much as you like but they did it.

 

[Richard Mann]

The London Assembly want it to happen - pedestrianisation of at least some sections of Oxford Street.

http://www.london.go...ving-congestion

It'll happen if the buses get diverted onto adjacent streets, and the rest of the traffic gets pushed out. Crossrail is irrelevant. And I'd be surprised if they allowed cycling along it.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

It'll happen if the buses get diverted onto adjacent streets, and the rest of the traffic gets pushed out. Crossrail is irrelevant. And I'd be surprised if they allowed cycling along it.

I'm not sure that Crossrail is that irrelevant, given that it will at least provide some extra capacity, and have stations at Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road.

And on the cycling thing - well, they probably won't allow it if we all sit back and be defeatist about it.

 

[Dan B]

Nobody sane would take a bus journey on a route which went down the length of oxford street. I'm not even sure that any such bus route exists. Oxford Street is chock-full of buses because every route in the neighbourhood (and probably about half of all routes from anywhere into the West End) is planned to start or stop nearby and pass through it on the way. It would be a good idea (I have no idea if it's actually possible mind you) to move many of them onto adjacent or parallel streets