Great Day for London - Great day for London cyclists

[hairybuddha]

Looks like our "Cycling Mayor" has finally got serious about cycling: http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... hnson.html

Great to see the rhetoric finally backed up with funding commitments and proper, city wide planning. The CS5 link to Lewisham will be fantastic for the local community. Time to dig that old clunker out of your shed.

[hairybuddha]

The plans in full: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/ ... 0FINAL.pdf

[stuart]

Forgive me for suggesting this is another piece of cynical window dressing.

Our promised Sydenham Superhighway (CS6) due in 2015 appears to have been quietly dropped whilst the TfL 'improvements' to Sydenham Road are making it even less cycle friendly.

Judge by what they do, not what they say ...

Stuart

[biscuitman1978]

Our promised Sydenham Superhighway (CS6) due in 2015 appears to have been quietly dropped ...

Are you sure? It's still listed at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/15832.aspx and referred to in the Dec 2012 document at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... ys-faq.pdf

[hairybuddha]

Forgive me for suggesting this is another piece of cynical window dressing.

It's certainly true that previous initiatives under Boris have amounted to little more than that. But this is already on a scale the likes of which this country has never seen. The £900M has already been committed. That's £18per head of population, very similar to the kind of investment in places like Denmark and the Netherlands.If Boris and TFL succeed in getting even half of this stuff built it will make an enormous difference.

[stuart]

Our promised Sydenham Superhighway (CS6) due in 2015 appears to have been quietly dropped ...

Are you sure? It's still listed at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/15832.aspx and referred to in the Dec 2012 document at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... ys-faq.pdf

Well I do live in hope. but there is no mention in this document which is really about Crossride and CS5.

What worried me was the Sydenham Road 'improvement' did stuff that would have to be undone if and when CS6 arrived. When I queried this it was clear CS6 did not feature. When pressed on who was responsible for resolving conflicts - silence.

Delighted to eat my words but we have had rather a lot of grand promises, lovely artists impressions and p**s poor or no implementation. This seems to be promising less than last time. If that is making it more realistic that may be an improvement.

A quick flick through does rather give the impression of hopeful intentions rather than researched, committed and fully funded improvements. Even then it is implicit of borough buy-in. Now remind me what Lewisham did to its sole dedicated cycling officer ...

Stuart

[hairybuddha]

Yes, sadly Lewisham does not have a good tale to tell. I'm far more excited about the prospects for Central London than for the boroughs. Could easily conceive of this coming to a grinding halt at the gates to Lewisham! Much like the CS2 at the edge of Stratford...

[stuart]

But this is already on a scale the likes of which this country has never seen. The £900M has already been committed. That's £18per head of population, very similar to the kind of investment in places like Denmark and the Netherlands.If Boris and TFL succeed in getting even half of this stuff built it will make an enormous difference.

Its not the amount, is the effectiveness that counts.

We spent £150m on LCN+. Was that value? Or would most cyclists (and motorists) been happier if it had been spent on filling in potholes?

The single greatest improvement in London Cycling infrastructure happened by accident. The last Mayor's large expansion of the Bus Lane Network. Absolutely necessary so buses could take up a greater part of moving people around the city. Lanes wide enough, enforced and not blocked with parked vehicles. Cyclists benefited without it costing the taxpayer a penny extra. Bargain all round. But not planned.

Stuart

[hairybuddha]

I would disagree. The amount is very important. The main reason that cycling infrastructure in this country is so poor is that it has been consistently underinvested in for decades. The effectiveness of investment is irrelevant when you are spending more than 10x less than in countries where this stuff is done properly.

The other thing that has been lacking is political will. This strategy has buy in from the very beginning from The Mayor's office and TFL. Of course they can't make this a success on their own but I think it's a very encouraging start.

[stuart]

I agree the quality is all important. One reason I am strongly against many cycle lanes is, unlike elsewhere, they are skimped on in the UK. Too narrow (usually not even built to the minimum width) routed exactly where you should not ride hence dangerous yet give the impression to motorists that we should be in them. A bit silly when the government's own cycle training handbook tells us to ignore them.

Bus lanes are invariably better cycle lanes than cycle lanes. Useful to buses too

Spending money on bits of infrastucture is not, in itself, going to make cycling easier and more attractive. 5% high quality junctions against an ongoing 95% deteriorating ride will not nirvana make.

Indeed when you look at it - its how we could change road use behaviour along the 95% of the route that would make a real difference. In the end it isn't what you do about cycling that counts. They will remain marginal for the forseeable future. It what you do about motorised traffic. How you give the streets back to people whether they be on foot on buses or saddles. Cars are very useful, lorries and vans are essential. They also use up a lot of inessential time and space, pollute and kill. Tackling that is the real issue so we get a better balance between convenience and cost to the community.

Get that right and cyclists will be accidental beneficeries.

[hairybuddha]

Completely agree about the behaviour of motorists needing tackled. Of course the two need not be mutually exclusive. You can create a genuinely high quality cycling network (i.e, not the kind of lanes that you refer to) at the same time as taking measures to improve the standards of driving (and cycling) at large.

Of course, if you create an environment that encourages more cycling, then you begin to create the situation that most motorists are also cyclists (rather than only the other way round, as currently) and the standards of driving and improved attitudes towards cycling will be the accidental consequence

I would much rather have a governing authority with a well costed plan than one that just hopes that cycling will improve by accident.

[stuart]

We don't need road engineers to give cyclists space. Compliance with Highway Code rule 163 would create more space and safety then any infrastructure. The problem is that most motorists (and many cyclists) ignore it. Changing attitudes is harder than laying concrete but much more effective.

The Dutch did it. We look at their wonderful segregated systems and swoon. But Dutch cycle friendliness is just as strong where there is no separate infrastructure. Throwing money does not buy you consideration. Indeed in the UK a real problem is with the pure random hatred one encounters on the road with that depressing cry of 'you don't pay road tax'. Weird.

Is there anybody else about interested in this HB?

Stuart

[hairybuddha]

On this forum? Apparently not....

The Dutch mantra for 30 years now has been segregate where possible and reduce the speed of motor vehicles where segregation is not possible. It is the building of the infrastructure that has created the attitude, not the other way around. I think you speak a lot of sense but the idea that we can educate road users and everything will be OK is in my opinion fundamentally misguided. That's why we need to have things like speed bumps and speed cameras.

At least we can agree on the need for more cycling amongst the population and better motorist behaviour - However we might get there

[Tim Lund]

On this forum? Apparently not....

Brief emergence from retreat - I'm interested in cycle lanes.

[hairybuddha]

Thanks for your contribution

------------------
Admin: Topic began to career out of control and is now down the Pub as Bikes & BigBadWolves:
http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=9076
This remains for serious contributions ... if any

[wrightie]

Whilst not being against cycle lanes, as someone who’s commuted daily by bike for almost 30 years, I can’t help feeling this plan much like the superhighways, will be poorly executed and provide few real benefits. Covering parts of the road with a slippery blue strip (who’s bright idea was that) and a broken white line, merely lulls cyclists into a false sense of security. Over the last 8 years we’ve witnessed a massive increase in cycling, whilst at the same time I’ve seen a huge decrease in the skills and standards of the riders. A unexpected benefit has been a noticeable change in driver behaviour, most now take into account the unpredictable nature of these cyclists, and consequently give us all more room. Using CS7 from Merton to the City during peak times is far more dangerous than the alternative, the stats prove this. Oddly the danger is fellow cyclists as opposed to motor vehicles, although its the cars that kill! Walled segregated sections are attractant’s for broken glass and other puncture causing debris. They take space away from other road users and IMO are poorly maintained. CS3 around Tower Gateway is a confused mess, with an unmarked lane on various pavements indicated by a few signs on lampposts, causing confusion amongst pedestrians. Whist it improves along Cable Street, there’s no consistent right of way, each junction becoming a game of Russian roulette! Plus I personally don’t cycle at speed on a shared path and much prefer using the road as it feels safer, somewhat defeating the objective of a superhighway. The cycle friendly contra-flows, implemented on one-way streets, are the cause of frequent arguments, they’re so poorly marked that neither motorists or pedestrians expect oncoming cyclists. Instead of throwing money at poorly planned traffic segregation, corralling road users away from each other, simply changing the law bringing the UK in line with other cycle friendly European countries would be of greater benefit. Stricter liability in favour of soft bodied road users, changes attitudes and over time behaviour. This just feels like a big expensive headline grabbing gesture, coming from a Mayor who’s done very little for London during his 2 terms. They need to sort out what’s already in place and finish what’s been started, e.g. continued removal of railings at the roadside, contraflows, etc…

[hairybuddha]

I think you put forward a really interesting critique of the Cycle Superhighway project (although, perhaps a para break or two might help ) and I agree that the CS's currently in place are mostly token gestures badly implemented. Having read the document I'm encouraged that this time it might very well be different. It's the duty of all of us who care about this stuff to hold The Mayor's Office and TFL to their promises...

I find it interesting whenever this debate bubbles up that people often favour initiatives like chanes to legislation and training for drivers over introducing proper continental standard infrastructure. Speaking personally, I'm quite happy to take my chances with the traffic. But that makes me (and you) an outlier. Changes to legislation and driver training are not going to achieve the kind of modal shift that our societies need. As we have seen on the continent, only proper, segregated infrastructure will achieve this.

Many of your other points are addressed in the document. The current CS highway scheme is going to be rethought and redesigned. Although there will be improvements to cycle lanes, you will not be obliged to use them. If the strategy is carried out successfully, this will not be "throwing money at poorly designed infrastructure" it will be throwing money at well designed infrastructure, to world class standards.

I agree with you that TFL and the boroughs need to continue the good work they are doing on improving streetscapes but that is a separate issue and there's no reason why this would stop because of yesterday's announcement.

p.s before anyone asks, no I don't work for TFL or have shares in cycling infrastructure company!

[stuart]

As we have seen on the continent, only proper, segregated infrastructure will achieve this.

I think you overstate your case here. I assume you are primarily speaking of The Netherlands and Denmark?

Both countries have amazing segregated facilities. But many roads, towns and villages are unsegregated. And none the worse for that. Indeed it was Holland that initiated the shared space concept for residential areas. Segregated facilities can be good. But they are not good in themselves and simply having them does not create a cycling culture. Should I mention Milton Keynes or Stevenage?

But just in case you think I'm completely anti-cycle lane - there is a local opportunity that was missed in spades: Southend Lane through Bellingham.

Built as a dual carriageway to become part of the South Circular - is four lanes are now totally inappropriate to a residential area passing close to one of the largest schools in the borough. Indeed because of the restricting railway bridge - their capacity could not be fully utilised by motorised traffic.

Any Dutch/Danish authority would have made the inner lane into a reserved cycle lane. That would have made a journey stress free and motorised traffic would have benefited too.

But no. For some inexplicable reason the inside lane was mostly turned over into a free parking zone. One that is not even needed as there was sufficient space in front of the homes for off-road parking. Lewisham then narrowed the outer lane to a vehicle width with numerous pinch points.

I used to cycle that road a lot. Now I do not dare. I am a strong assertive and experienced cyclist. I just do not know how to cycle it safely. If i follow the Government Handbook I should adopt the primary position (middle of the lane). This keeps me clear of the parked car door zone and stops any following car trying to squeeze by pushing me back into the zone or coming too close.

Of course there is a hill so 15/20 mph is good hard going for a cyclist but frustrating to following motorist who assumes I am not blocking for safety but to annoy them. Well the second is certainly achieved. For me it is an option which I choose not to take. Getting new people onto two wheels then asking them to do primary is simply not on.

And when did you last see a kid cycling to Sedgehill?

Oh and I took one of Lewisham's Bikeability Trainers to have a look in case my assessment was wrong. He agreed. Lewisham had turned the road into a cycling death trap. And cyclists not appreciating death just, like me, now drive that road. (Oh and Eagle - cycling alongside on the pavement is not really an option either - too many illegally parked cars on it!).

The message is that Lewisham could have left it as it was, painted the lane or put in a segregated barrier. All would have worked. The issue is they did not think at all. Thinking does not cost money. And when you give people money without thinking the results can be even worse.

Stuart

[hairybuddha]

Can't disagree with what you've said re the roads that you have mentioned. Though I'm not sure what you're driving at if you'll pardon the pun. Surely Southend Lane would be improved for everyone if it has a segregated cycle lane?

In the Dutch/Danish example, segregation is always the primary choice, then reduction of motor vehicle speeds where segregation is not possible. In more rural towns and villages, cycle paths tend to follow canals and railway lines and are often great distances from the nearest road. In addition, the cycling routes are often the most direct and attractive routes available. Which is where the Milton Keynes example falls down.

The point I am making is that one of the reasons that Dutch/Danish motorist attitudes towards cycling is so good is because cycling is normalised in their cultures. First came the infrastructure, then came the increased numbers of cyclists, then came the cultural shift in attitudes. In this country, we will not achieve the critical mass required to make the curtural shift without properly designed infrastructure where cyclists are segregated and protected, especially at major junctions and on major roads.

Perhaps we can offer up Southend Lane as a candidate for one of the first phase of 'mini-Hollands'...?

[stuart]

Southend Lane is an oddity. At the end is Britain's second most hit railway bridge. This precludes double decker buses and it is only served by an odd low frequency bus service.

Most similar roads, in contrast, are major bus routes and that inner lane would have been a bus lane. And all would be fine for cyclists. No segregation, no expense, more cyclists. Result!

The problem with segregation is that it is inefficient. It reduces the availability of roadspace for all. Where space is not at a premium that is not a problem but it does not apply to most of London. To take the example from the cover of the TfL booklet. It shows the embankment reduced from 4 lanes to three. That means the current coaches parked in one of those lanes go where? (You will notice they haven't takenspace for motorised traffic). Also it suggests the artists impression is misleading in being stretched horizontally. You are going to fit a two way cycleway into less width than a single lane (because of the barrier). I've been along the Embankment in a group of 100 cyclists comfortably. I'd hate to try that on the cycleway particulary if a good number are coming the other way. I think i might stick to the road.

And going back to your Dutch/Danish model - their major cycleways are much wider. Ours are built to fail - particularly if they really did attract more cyclists.

Stuart