The LCC "Go Dutch" campaign

[style over speed]

Wow

, after years of backing the discredited vehicular cycling craze, the LCC is now campaigning on this! Brilliant, the cycle embassy of GB has a rival:

Londoners should have the freedom to cycle wherever they live, whatever the route, and whatever the destination.

Years of car-centric planning have squeezed cyclists off major routes across and between boroughs.

Most people are scared to cycle on these roads because of the high volumes and speeds of motor traffic.

They either put up with inconvenient detours... or more often, they don't cycle at all.

Yet planners refuse to dedicate space to cyclists because they're wedded to outmoded thinking that prioritises motor vehicles above all else.

When bike lanes or tracks have been installed, they're usually poor quality, doing little to encourage more journeys by bike, even giving the whole idea of cycle lanes a bad name.

Installing bad cycling solutions, or nothing, hasn't created equality between cycling and motoring, which is why there is no genuine freedom of choice to cycle.


Ensuring that people feel happy riding along London’s major roads and routes is a key barometer for how cycle-friendly our city is.

Main roads are fast, direct, easily navigable routes that Londoners want to use.

That’s why our 'Go Dutch' campaign calls for clear space, Dutch-style, for cycling along major roads in every London borough.



We've set out the detailed principles that are key to making main roads cycle-friendly.

http://lcc.org.uk/pages/key-principles

Cycling on London’s main roads can and must be made safe, enjoyable and convenient for all Londoners, whatever their age or cycling ability.This has been achieved in succesful cycling nations, such as the Netherlands, where a quarter of all journeys are taken by bike, by people of all ages and experience.

The solutions exist, now our decision-makers must find the political will to make them happen here.

Making London's main roads 'Go Dutch' - giving them 'clear space for cycling' - will require a new approach from London's leadership, based on a comitment to Equality, Quality and Continuity, plus the application of 10 key principles:


Equality Londoners will be given real equality of transport choice, because cycle safety will be prioritised.

Continuity Londoners will be able to make continuous, unobstructed journeys across London by bike.

Quality Londoners will be given the highest quality of provision for cycling.


1. Safety first
Londoners young or old, occasional cyclists or experienced ones, will be safe, and will feel safe cycling on main roads.More..

2. Best practice
Londoners will benefit from the best available know-how in street design, public education and rules of the road, whether using best-practice from the Continent or home-grown. More..

3. Adaptability
Londoners will benefit from every infrastructure and non-physical solution to make our main roads 'Go Dutch', tailoring solutions to circumstances. More..

4. Easy passage
Londoner’s will enjoy clear and hassle-free passage throughout our city by bike. More..

5. Calm junctions
Londoners will be able to negotiate all junctions safely and conveniently whether cycling or walking. More..

6. Harmony with pedestrians
Londoners will be able to choose to cycle or walk to their destinations without impeding each other. More..

7. Harmony with public transport
Londoners will be able to safely cycle or use public transport alongside each other, and switch easily between the two.More..

8. Quality of life
Londoners from all walks of life will be able to enjoy cycling on main roads, which will be improved to make them more pleasant and attractive places for everyone. More..

9. Commitment
Londoners will have cycling facilities that are properly managed and maintained. More..

10. Engagement



Londoners will be consulted about the way their local main roads should 'Go Dutch'. More..

and more here:

http://lcc.org.uk/pa...principles-full


I dont see why this should just be a London campaign, ALL of the UK suffers from miserable and corrupt urban planning.

 

[dellzeqq]

the longest and most tedious suicide note in history!

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Whilst I'm no fan of the "segregation everywhere" approach, anything that promises to change the culture should be welcomed. However, I started to reply by pointing out that there is far more to "going Dutch" than putting cycle lanes in, such as presumed liability, decades of cultural change management, some punitive cases against careless motorists, etc. Then I was looking for articles to back up some of my arguments and found that someone has already written the reply, here. So just read that for a less utopian view.

[Edit] Oh, and before Del mentions it, we certainly don't want the kind of bleak concrete jungle that has been created in parts of Holland in the name of cycle segregation.

[Second edit] The segregation proposed appears not to be everywhere, but apparently includes in most places measures to help cycles and motor vehicles to co-exist. That sounds good, though it depends on how it is interpreted.

 

[Red Light]

Interesting. They've changed the photo to go with it which looks a lot less like cycle faciities and more like shared space/naked street. The old one was most appropriate. A busy road with a shared use cycle path on the pavement with no-one cycling on it but someone walking in it instead.

I bet the version of Go Dutch will just be something taken from the catalogue and nothing like the Dutch at all.

 

[dellzeqq]

without getting all Wittgenstein on yo asses, when the LCC says 'going Dutch' they mean what people think they mean. And. let's face it, people will think they mean 'cycle paths'. It's against that expectation that the success (or failure) of this campaign will be measured.

It's no use saying 'oh, well, we didn't really mean cycle paths' six months or a year down the line.

 

[John the Monkey]

Arg. "Dutch" isn't segregation everywhere. It's a combination of redesign of roads, better design of new roads, some segregation, and prioritising things other than the "flow" of motor traffic within cities.

Vehicular cycling is "discredited" only in the sense that it couldn't stand against successive, intensely pro-car governments. I doubt whether a "Dutch" campaign over the same time would have either.

 

[Red Light]

without getting all Wittgenstein on yo asses, when the LCC says 'going Dutch' they mean what people think they mean. And. let's face it, people will think they mean 'cycle paths'. It's against that expectation that the success (or failure) of this campaign will be measured.

It's no use saying 'oh, well, we didn't really mean cycle paths' six months or a year down the line.

I can't deconstruct the "they mean what people think they mean" and "people will think they mean cycle paths" I'm assuming its supposed to mean LCC are thinking cycle paths? The LCC vote was clearly different and just called for "clear space, Dutch-style, for cycling along major roads in every London borough." not just cycle tracks and lanes

Personally I very much doubt there are many places in London where you could Go Dutch in the way that most people perceive it which is one way cycle lanes and tracks between 2 & 4m wide depending on cycle volumes built to CROW standards.

What I have seen at the local campaign level is all the segregated cycle track enthusiast are rubbing their hands at the opportunity to install replicas of the Bloomsbury segregated tracks which are things the Dutch would run a mile from and rightly so.

 

[dellzeqq]

I read 'clear space' as cycle lanes. As in.......nothing in the way. Not parked cars, delivery vans, buses, pedestrians, whatever. The bit about 'dedicated space' sort of backs that up. And the website does say...

Where a main road has high volume or speeds of motor traffic cyclists will be given protected space. This includes ‘separation,’ i.e. cycle-only tracks that are physically separated from main carriageway, as well as physically ‘protected’ lanes on the road itself.

Now that's my reading, and it could be that something else was meant, but I'm willing to bet that if you asked 100 Londoners what was meant by 'clear space' almost all would suggest something like the above. Which, plainly, (and mercifully), is not going to happen

the 'Continuity' thing is a bit special. Nobody gets to make 'continuous, unobstructed journeys' across London, and there's no particular reason why they should. If that's what people want they should move to Milton Keynes.

I suspect that this is a putsch by a bunch of self-publicising self-gratification artists, and that sense will prevail.

 

[Red Light]

I read 'clear space' as cycle lanes. As in.......nothing in the way. Not parked cars, delivery vans, buses, pedestrians, whatever.

I read it as much wider than that and space for example like in the photo at the top of the LCC page on it. But I do agree lots of people think it means cycle lanes and tracks and a lot of campaigners for those think its Christmas.

the 'Continuity' thing is a bit special. Nobody gets to make 'continuous, unobstructed journeys' across London, and there's no particular reason why they should. If that's what people want they should move to Milton Keynes.

Remembering that almost no-one cycles in Milton Keynes despite the ability to do continuous journeys on segregated cycleways from anywhere to anywhere in the city using the Redways.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Nobody gets to make 'continuous, unobstructed journeys' across London, and there's no particular reason why they should. If that's what people want they should move to Milton Keynes.

That's a bit harsh ....

 

[dellzeqq]

That's a bit harsh ....

Sorry. I meant Swindon

more of the same...

Cyclists will be given dedicated space away from motorised traffic on main roads (or where not possible, priority over motorised traffic) so that they are not endangered or intimidated by motor vehicles passing near them; in particular cyclists will not have to overtake motorised vehicles on the outside on main roads

 

[Richard Mann]

It's useful in that it raises the sights, but delivery is another question.

Let them make some noise. We need roads that are fit for large numbers of people to cycle quickly and safely. We can worry about the precise details of how in due course. If people want to build tracks that will only have to be ripped out later, then let them. Just as long as they're doing some more sensible stuff as well, so we can compare effectiveness and value.

Richard

 

[StuartG]

There's plenty of space on most of our quieter residential streets. All we have to do is stop people treating what should be a shared public space as their personal and private garage facility. Give the kids somewhere to kick a ball too.

Oh and make it easier for motorists to actually motor ... but despite car clubs this is something that appears to be a political impossibility despite the obvious benefits for many if not most people.

 

[dellzeqq]

It's useful in that it raises the sights, but delivery is another question.

Let them make some noise. We need roads that are fit for large numbers of people to cycle quickly and safely. We can worry about the precise details of how in due course. If people want to build tracks that will only have to be ripped out later, then let them. Just as long as they're doing some more sensible stuff as well, so we can compare effectiveness and value.

Richard

I don't think they will (and. speaking as a precept payer I fervently hope they don't). £140M on LCN+ has proved to anybody who's interested that you can waste an awful lot of money on cycling. The Cycling Superhighways are a far more successful (and far, far, far more visible) way of spending less dosh.

Of course, Johnson will respond by saying that the LCC can 'go Dutch' if cyclists pay for this stuff.

 

[Red Light]

It's useful in that it raises the sights, but delivery is another question.

Let them make some noise. We need roads that are fit for large numbers of people to cycle quickly and safely. We can worry about the precise details of how in due course. If people want to build tracks that will only have to be ripped out later, then let them. Just as long as they're doing some more sensible stuff as well, so we can compare effectiveness and value.

The one thing I would like to see from this experiment if its done is some proper monitoring. So at least lets know as a result answers to the two key questions

1. do they attract people to cycling (and that's new cyclists not just cyclists displaced from other routes) and
2. are they safer.

Because its an ideal chance to ab initio gather the data that everyone argues about.