U
User169
Guest
thomas said:Seemed to hold a good primary position
Not sure I'd advise criss-crossing tram tracks like that though. Cycling into an offy with a pretty girl on your bike on the other hand!
Why don't we advocate Segregated cycle routes?
- Thread starter chap
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Not sure I'd advise criss-crossing tram tracks like that though. Cycling into an offy with a pretty girl on your bike on the other hand!
mangaman said:
I live near-ish to Wimbledon, and there's already cycle routes most of the way to the Tennis Club. NCN 20 and LCN 29, plus Wimbledon Common.
(map, the club is the green bit with the two red circles.) I've had a look at the proposed route, and I actually use a part of it that's marked for improvements on my way to work.
I think London (and other cities) would benefit from some longer-distance direct roads being closed to motor vehicles. For example, Charing Cross and Tottenham Court Roads provide a good north-south route for cars. Why not make Charlotte Street and Greek/Frith Street (just west of the big road) or Wardour Street and Cleveland Street (bit further west) cycling and walking only? When I first heard Boris say "cycling superhighways" that's what I imagined.
OP
OP
chap
Veteran
- Location
- London, GB
skrx said:
One can never have too many routes to the All England Tennis Club
I am completely with you whe it comes to the need for longer-distance direct routes. Although, I have to admit, my strong view on this has softened somewhat on reading many of the posts here.
For London, I think that junctions esp. around Oval, need to be seriously revised, HGVs need to be dealt with accordingly (ideally limited to certain hours of operation in the city and restricted to certain routes throughout London.) With regards to the Charing Cross route, some parts are fast and would benefit from wider allowance for cyclists, however I think a lot could be sorted by simply signing alternative routes for cyclists.
This would come in very handy if a good set of plain, clear, and distinctive signs were placed directing cyclists to the following stations:
- London Kings Cross/St Pancreas
- London Waterloo
- Paddington
- Victoria
- Euston
- Charing Cross
If these were to direct cyclists through quieter parts and were well posted, clearly within sight of each other, then the transformation would be wondrous.
Chap - to take the question of railway termini in a slightly different way....
For all that I'm a fan of cycling on main roads, I'll readily admit that you've got to be made of pretty stern stuff to take the A501 which links Paddington to Marylebone, Euston, Kings Cross/St. Pancras and Liverpool Street. Grimshaw uses the A501 to make a case against cycling on roads, and while he's entirely wrong to do so, you can see where he's coming from. Steve W and I have led cyclists unaccustomed to London traffic through the Euston underpass and I'm not sure they enjoyed it...
Now we can make a very good case for re-jigging the A501 to make it more congenial to cycle on - but before we do that we have to consider what the A501 is supposed to be. At the moment it's supposed to be a strategic route, skirting the West End and the CC zone, moving medium and long distance traffic east west across central London, linking the A12/A13 with the A41/A1 and the A40. The assumption is that people take the Circle Line.
In practice there's a good deal of bus traffic, although little of it uses the A501 in a strategic way, and a good deal of light commercial traffic and taxi cabs, which, one imagines is primarily local. There's also a huge number of private cars.
There's no real way in which the A501 serves the parts of London it bisects. It's a smelly stop/start canyon, stripping the streetfrontages to either side of pleasure.
Now the irony is that billions are being poured in to Crossrail, which will, some time in the future (the latest date is 2017), take passengers from Paddington to Canary Wharf or Stratford. For a small proportion of that, and in a fraction of the time, the A501 could be civilised, could be carrying trolleybuses or bendybuses and could have a wide continuous red-tarmaced lane to give cyclists the same opportunities they enjoy on the A24 or the A13. The Kings Cross/St Pancras area could be re-jigged to give pedestrians half a chance of crossing the road without feeling as if they're venturing in to a warzone.
The reduction of private car and taxicab traffic along the A501 would make London a nicer place. It would cut carbon emissions. It would be not wildly expensive. It would, almost by accident, make cycling to and from six railway termini less unpleasant. It would, critically, increase the capacity of the road.
I'm not saying that one should not support measures specifically designed to assist cyclists - but cyclists have got to get hold of the idea that, actually, it is our potential to provide part of the solution that matters, not the activity of cycling in and of itself. A city that has a decent bus service, first class footpaths and decent public space could also be a cycling city to rival any other cycling city. Hiding cyclists on paths behind industrial estates (I'm thinking of the Wandle Way) doesn't actually do much to make the city a happier more congenial place....
For all that I'm a fan of cycling on main roads, I'll readily admit that you've got to be made of pretty stern stuff to take the A501 which links Paddington to Marylebone, Euston, Kings Cross/St. Pancras and Liverpool Street. Grimshaw uses the A501 to make a case against cycling on roads, and while he's entirely wrong to do so, you can see where he's coming from. Steve W and I have led cyclists unaccustomed to London traffic through the Euston underpass and I'm not sure they enjoyed it...
Now we can make a very good case for re-jigging the A501 to make it more congenial to cycle on - but before we do that we have to consider what the A501 is supposed to be. At the moment it's supposed to be a strategic route, skirting the West End and the CC zone, moving medium and long distance traffic east west across central London, linking the A12/A13 with the A41/A1 and the A40. The assumption is that people take the Circle Line.
In practice there's a good deal of bus traffic, although little of it uses the A501 in a strategic way, and a good deal of light commercial traffic and taxi cabs, which, one imagines is primarily local. There's also a huge number of private cars.
There's no real way in which the A501 serves the parts of London it bisects. It's a smelly stop/start canyon, stripping the streetfrontages to either side of pleasure.
Now the irony is that billions are being poured in to Crossrail, which will, some time in the future (the latest date is 2017), take passengers from Paddington to Canary Wharf or Stratford. For a small proportion of that, and in a fraction of the time, the A501 could be civilised, could be carrying trolleybuses or bendybuses and could have a wide continuous red-tarmaced lane to give cyclists the same opportunities they enjoy on the A24 or the A13. The Kings Cross/St Pancras area could be re-jigged to give pedestrians half a chance of crossing the road without feeling as if they're venturing in to a warzone.
The reduction of private car and taxicab traffic along the A501 would make London a nicer place. It would cut carbon emissions. It would be not wildly expensive. It would, almost by accident, make cycling to and from six railway termini less unpleasant. It would, critically, increase the capacity of the road.
I'm not saying that one should not support measures specifically designed to assist cyclists - but cyclists have got to get hold of the idea that, actually, it is our potential to provide part of the solution that matters, not the activity of cycling in and of itself. A city that has a decent bus service, first class footpaths and decent public space could also be a cycling city to rival any other cycling city. Hiding cyclists on paths behind industrial estates (I'm thinking of the Wandle Way) doesn't actually do much to make the city a happier more congenial place....
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
dellzeqq said:
The funny thing is that the A501 isn't actually, by some chalk, the best way to get across town. I commute between Marylebone and (roughly) Liverpool Street. I ride a Brompton and do not really exert myself. I stop at every red traffic light. I have a very pleasant journey on quiet roads (thanks to that nice Mr Livingstone's congestion charge). I end up on Holborn and Cheapside - not so quiet, but wide and not over-trafficked.
Someone who gets the same train as me commutes to somewhere in the same sort of vicinity. Being the British Commuting Middle Classes we do not, of course, talk to each other to discuss our routes.
But here's the funny thing. He rides a lightweight road bike. He never stops at the lights. He goes via the A501, ducking south somewhere in the Kings Cross area. I regularly see him overtaking me, head down, at great speed, storming through red lights somewhere in Bloomsbury. Given our respective riding styles and routes, if he has taken more time than me to get there I think I win.
But I'd be delighted to see the A501 improved. It's a hell-hole. Someone very close to me works on the north side in the Euston area and doesn't bother crossing it unless she has to for exactly the reason you've identified.
I cycled the A501 from Paddington to Old Street a few weeks back, and it was fairly unpleasant but uncomplicated. I always end up on main roads in London - not so much through preference as for ease of navigation. For non-Londoners the problem with finding one's way about through pleasant back-streets in the centre of town is that one is apt to aim intuitively for a particular direction and be thrown off course by things like one-way systems. I don't want to have to stop and get the AtoZ out all the time. And I rarely follow cycle route signs because they send you down pavements and on all sorts of preposterous wiggly detours. I realise that visiting cyclists are a low priority compared to resident ones, but it would be nice if, when emerging from railway stations, there was road signage addressing cyclists' needs rather than the choice between major traffic arteries and horrible bike paths. As an aside, I find that the most useful way of navigating around London, for those that have some idea of its geography, is to look at bus stops, which tell you both where you are and where you are headed.
I had entirely forgotten just how stupid that cycle path was until last night when I tried using it. Unlit oncoming cyclists, pedestrians, no obvious indication whether the light sequences will leave you open to left-hook, and the (fairly recently introduced, I think) oh-so-cute crossover near the eastern end where eastbound and westbound cyclists swap sides.dellzeqq said:
The ringroad's not that bad further west (baker st, regent's park) where there is bus lane, but does seem to get more fraught as one approaches euston. I usually avoid the underpass and go straight across the junction at street level.
stowie
Legendary Member
It is interesting that freewheeler, who write the excellent crapwalthamforest blog (and sometimes really p!sses off local councillors as a bonus!) is a huge advocate of segregated cycle provision on the Amsterdam model.
I am somewhat ambivalent to the provision of dedicated cycle lanes, but this is probably for two reasons
1) Existing cycle lanes are generally poor, sometimes downright dangerous. They are not linked up in any coherent way, and when most needed at difficult junctions, for example, they disappear and chuck you back on the road anyway.
2) I am used to cycling on urban roads and generally are not intimidated by them (although there are exceptions).
If you consider the type of cyclist on this forum, I suspect that they mostly fall into the category of being at least as experienced as myself and many will have years of high mileage cycling under their belt. But if the government want cycling to be widely used, then they will have to address the issue that most people are simply too intimidated by the conditions we cycle in for it to be a serious consideration.
You can try to convince motorists that giving cyclists large amounts of consideration is the right thing to do, but, judging from the general sentiment, this is a huge task. I think Freewheeler thinks it is impossible.
Finally, we don't like cycle provision because it marginalises cyclists in nearly all cases. We don't have priority on even cycle lanes crossing side streets, most provision is poorly thought out and poorly maintained. But what if the provision was carefully implemented and gave us priority where required and made life easier, surely everyone would approve?
I am somewhat ambivalent to the provision of dedicated cycle lanes, but this is probably for two reasons
1) Existing cycle lanes are generally poor, sometimes downright dangerous. They are not linked up in any coherent way, and when most needed at difficult junctions, for example, they disappear and chuck you back on the road anyway.
2) I am used to cycling on urban roads and generally are not intimidated by them (although there are exceptions).
If you consider the type of cyclist on this forum, I suspect that they mostly fall into the category of being at least as experienced as myself and many will have years of high mileage cycling under their belt. But if the government want cycling to be widely used, then they will have to address the issue that most people are simply too intimidated by the conditions we cycle in for it to be a serious consideration.
You can try to convince motorists that giving cyclists large amounts of consideration is the right thing to do, but, judging from the general sentiment, this is a huge task. I think Freewheeler thinks it is impossible.
Finally, we don't like cycle provision because it marginalises cyclists in nearly all cases. We don't have priority on even cycle lanes crossing side streets, most provision is poorly thought out and poorly maintained. But what if the provision was carefully implemented and gave us priority where required and made life easier, surely everyone would approve?
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
Segregated routes are a load of bawlocks. I don't want segregation, and will actively campaign against it.
Chap says it's good in the netherlands, but I wonder how much actual riding he's done there? Quest velomobiels were specifically made at 76cm wide so that they don't have to use the cycle lanes and can choose to hit the road instead.
Chap says it's good in the netherlands, but I wonder how much actual riding he's done there? Quest velomobiels were specifically made at 76cm wide so that they don't have to use the cycle lanes and can choose to hit the road instead.
thomas
the tank engine
- Location
- Woking/Norwich
BentMikey said:
I am too, but I can see that in places there may be benefits to it.
Within cities, get rid of cycle lanes, just lower speed limits and a few other things will help.
Between towns (out of built up areas), where fast, busy lanes are the order of the day I can see a use. Certainly, where I posted a bit of my commute, if that had a separate bike lane which was well designed, I would use it. That road would not be used by children or people who weren't that experienced (brave, or stupid) without some type of provision.
Ultimately, a change of attitudes would probably be just as good as better cycling facilities.
The problem that will (and already is evident) is that any facilities will no doubt be really crap. For that reason I'd probably join you!
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke UK
As dell says the Tavistock scheme doesn't really cut the mustard. Narrow, hazardous for pedestrians and downright dangerous where it crosses side roads.
They're digging it up round Byng Place a the mo but that will do nothing for the junction with Gordon St.
They're digging it up round Byng Place a the mo but that will do nothing for the junction with Gordon St.
I agree with thomas on this matter, cycling lanes are good for open roads as fast cars can be somewhat intimidating as they come speeding past, and therefore they help split the cycling traffic with the regular traffic. In towns there is often such a problem with large quantities of traffic that cycling lanes, even if present are often useless. It is the case close to were I live that the distance between the cars and the kerb means that I have often clipped wingmirrors due to the lack of space on the road.
There really needs to be more emphasis in driving tests, to consider cyclists on roads in major towns and cities, otherwise these problems will continue to occur.
There really needs to be more emphasis in driving tests, to consider cyclists on roads in major towns and cities, otherwise these problems will continue to occur.
Similar threads
