Boris Johnson must “get on with” building Cycle Superhighways following“tidal wave of support”

belgravedave wrote:

Points 2 and 3 have been pretty much what I've been going on about. It's point 1 which is pointless.

That's too dismissive. Please explain your reasoning as to why you consider it pointless.

At the moment, you only support half the network, the quietway. So you either believe that main roads should continue to be dangerous for most cyclists, or you believe that every single road should be a quietway.

A quietway is a 20mph road with low traffic volume. Low traffic volumes cannot be imposed. Imposing 20mph speed limits on major routes, which today may have multiple lanes and a limit of 30, 40 or 50mph is not politically deliverable.

Transforming the major A roads through London into something that has the traffic volume and space of the Exhibition Road is not a realistic achievable goal.

belgravedave wrote:

As for parents not feeling safe about letting the children cycle on shared space roads does that mean they will drive their kids to 'The Superhighway' and then let them cycle up and down it?

No, they connect to them via quieter roads. In terms of London, the LCC position is this.

1) Provide segregation on the main high volume routes to protect cyclists from large vehicles on roads which have a significant speed difference.

2) Away from such routes, the speed limit should be 20mph as standard. Rat runs on such roads should be closed whilst allowing permeability for cyclists.

3) Supporting the other national campaigns regarding law, enforcement, liability, policing, etc.

belgravedave wrote:

*Better add IMHO just to keep bikebot happy.

If you remember those points, so that the discussion moves forwards rather than repeats, I will be happy.

belgravedave wrote:

Congokid, I cycle up Exhibition Rd all the time, it's a wonderful road. Lots of space and very slow moving traffic. I agree the cost was outrageous but we don't need the fancy paving (that was just architects being allowed to run wild).

You should read the points raised in the aseasyasridingabike blog and respond to those, he describes the criticisms of such schemes as well as anyone I've read.

Exhibition Rd is not safe(r) because it is a shared space. It isn't a shared space, that's a myth.

The relative safety is because of the relatively low volume of traffic. Shared space does not provide low traffic volume, it depends on it. Shared space is a current fad in urban planning that is raising a lot of concerns regarding it's use with even quite moderate traffic levels.

belgravedave wrote:

Congokid, I cycle up Exhibition Rd all the time, it's a wonderful road.

I cycle along it occasionally as well. I can't say it feels much different now from how it felt before it was redesigned. Other user experiences as recounted on those blog links I provided also appear to vary significantly from yours.

The road is supposed to cater for pedestrians, too, but it's obvious that they don't feel they have quite the same freedom to 'share'.

belgravedave wrote:

Lots of space and very slow moving traffic.

There is space, but one of the benefits of shared roads such as this is supposed to be higher traffic speeds than before, according to Simon Jenkins' article.

He writes:

An alliance between drivers and disabled lobbyists has required a visual divide where the kerb used to be, thus implying separate corridors reserved for pedestrians and drivers. This reduces confusion and increases traffic speed, making the space more not less safe for the disabled.

I'm not sure that's actually the case, however. Providing delineated corridors for vehicles to use gives drivers carte blanche to own the lane, drive at speed and effectively bully everyone else out of the way. A sense of 'confusion' on the other hand helps keep speeds down. And the idea of 'separate corridors' effectively means the space isn't shared at all. This is supported by this report currently on road.cc which says:

Painted bike lanes make no difference to the speed and closeness with which drivers pass cyclists ... if roads don't have centre-line markings, drivers pass cyclists more slowly.

It seems that ideally a shared space shouldn't have markings or delineated areas on it at all. Otherwise, drivers develop a false sense of confidence and entitlement, up their speed and make the space very unappealing and potentially dangerous to all vulnerable road users.

But are you a very naughty boy?

No problem with someone posting opinions. However, something for you to consider is that you're trashing the hard work of people who have been campaigning for years, and these would be people that have done the research, gathered the evidence and canvassed the views of thousands of cyclists. All the things you don't want to do, I guess you just want people to agree with you.

People have replied to you, and you don't seem to engage with them on the arguments. In fact your attitude comes across as pretty cynical and dismissive towards others. Even here, you feel the need to call the scheme a Superhighway in quotes and call it a waste of money, rather than address the criticism of your own suggestion which is many times more expensive per km.

Has the thought occurred to you, that you might be coming across as a little bit rude?

ironmancole wrote:

Just to throw my tuppence in on the segregation dispute my feeling would be that seperation might fuel the 'them and us' mindset that already causes such tension and ultimately discriminatory behaviour.

I've been told by a particularly pleasant chap in his van to #uck off as "you're only a cyclist" after he'd nearly put me under the wheels of a following bus when he decided a last minute lane change wasn't worth abandoning simply because a cyclist, as opposed to a human being, was between him and his newly decided change of direction.

Sadly this is commonplace on our roads and MP s continue to back this type of behaviour rather than offer any kind of assistance that might give Jeremy Clarkson and his dribbling clan of monoxide sniffing cronies any cause to raise an eyebrow.

To my mind segregation is a distraction rather than the cure, which is simply to address the massive cultural issue this country has that currently allows me to get in my golden diesel wonder chariot right now and kill anyone that has the audacity to distract me from updating twatter whilst moving at an insane speed on my selfish route from A to B.

Until road users share road space with the greatest responsibility and duty of care demanded by those doing the greatest harm widespread segregation schemes (although absolutely useful) surely give die hard motorists more ammo when they see us 'in their way' and execute the infamous but terrifying punishment pass.

Segregation works really well in the Netherlands and Denmark. Segregation does not lead to more confrontation. Segregation leads to more people cycling because they feel safe to do so. More people cycling leads to an increase in the 'safety in numbers'. More people cycling makes it more likely that a driver may also be a cyclist (or family members or friends are). Hopefully segregation should eventually lead to less confrontation.

Joeinpoole wrote:

Segregation works really well in the Netherlands and Denmark. Segregation does not lead to more confrontation. Segregation leads to more people cycling because they feel safe to do so. More people cycling leads to an increase in the 'safety in numbers'. More people cycling makes it more likely that a driver may also be a cyclist (or family members or friends are). Hopefully segregation should eventually lead to less confrontation.

Segregation works really well in these places because cycling is prioritised over motorised transport, particularally in urban areas. Cycles have priority at junctions and the bicycle truly has become the most convenient form of transport for short journeys. The distinction is political and social willingness to embrace the bicycle and I suspect that if the Dutch or Danes were to design intregrated infrastructure it would still prioritise bikes in a way that is imposible in the UK with current attitudes.

Take a look at a Dutch roundabout that has segregated cycle lanes. Motor vehicles entering or leaving the roundabout have to yield to bikes using the bike lanes. Compare this to a UK roundabout with segrgated lanes (most likely shared with peds) and you will see that the priority is reversed. The same applies to cycle lanes that cross side streets.

On the whole I believe that segregation in the UK serves motorists and does nothing to advance transport cycling. In particular all of these footways that are being converted to 'shared use' are really the pits.

Al__S wrote:

The coach operator objection is hilarious- they go for the "big numbers" by claiming "almost" 50 million visitors to London by coach.

However, that number clearly includes:
N[...]
if they were even slightly honest, they'd have produced numbers for the coaches that actually use these stands.

According to the Office of National Statistics as reported by the BBC there were 16.8 million visitors to London in 2013. Not sure where the coach operators have found the other 33 million.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27323755

B

Most of Exhibition Road is so-called "shared space" but in reality it is still totally dominated by motor traffic. The only difference from before is prettier paving.

Part of Exhibition Road near to South Kensington tube is actually quite nice, but here it has been virtually pedestrianised with motor traffic discouraged.

The whole "shared space" thing is a bit of a con trick to try convince people that a 7 year old on a bike can happily share the road with an HGV but that isn't going to happen.

The only way that shared space can deliver some benefits is if motor traffic speed and volumes is reduced substantially so it no longer dominates, but that hasn't been done for most of Exhibition Road.

belgravedave wrote:

Not sure why your trying to make this discussion so personal.

You're taking it personally.

If you actually want support for your position, here's a basic lesson of campaigning. No one will rush to your support and your arguments will be pulled apart and challenged. If you're not prepared for that, then you'd best quit now. Remember, at the moment you're amongst friends, the gentle knocks you'll get here are nothing.

belgravedave wrote:

But anyway getting back to your original comment. Research and the conclusions reached from them have to be independent and impartial otherwise they are worthless.

No, it's anything that stands up to examination. As with a court argument, positions are formed by the quality of the evidence and the number of people that are convinced by it.

belgravedave wrote:

So let's campaign for an area of London to be stripped of road furniture and try out the same system as Exhibition Rd (which must be the real future for roads in Central London) and see what happens to the accident rate.

Don't take it personally, but if you actually expect anyone to support you, you are being hopelessly naive. You haven't even bothered to research the accident rate yourself.

I gave you this advice once before; build your own case.

That's not being rude, it's advice, it's what campaigners have to do. And your reward for the hard work will be criticism, it's a hard ride (pun intended).

belgravedave wrote:

try out the same system as Exhibition Rd (which must be the real future for roads in Central London) and see what happens to the accident rate.

Exhibition Road was also hailed by Simon Jenkins in the ES as the future of London's roads back in January 2012, when the work was almost completed.

Unfortunately, just two weeks later, the first serious collision involving a man, who suffered head injuries, and a lorry was reported.

I don't know what the rate of incidents has been since then, but it's clear that the road is not particularly well done, as one blogger reported even before the road was completed, and has not made all of the road any more attractive for vulnerable road users. For most of its length, Exhibition Road remains dominated by motor traffic. I don't think it would encourage anyone nervous about cycling in traffic to use it, or let their kids use it.

That's the acid test. Not KSI statistics.

Blimey, I'd forgotten quite how expensive Exhibition road was. £29m for 820 metres. The full East-West route is almost 30km and the budget for both routes is about £50m.

And as it's not actually shared space, something that's impossible without a massive reduction in traffic volume, all that buys is a nice looking road surface.

For those outside London, come see yourself how shared this space is - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.50172,-0.1745571,3a,90y,176.96h,92.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZptsLUTHkHcvwasVrpLJOw!2e0

Quote:

I think the super highway will make cycling on other roads in London more dangerous.

And you have research to support that?

Some report that shows that drivers behave more dangerously in towns that contain a significant level of segregated paths on main routes, once they are off those routes.

I think we would just like to be assured that your position is evidence based, rather than just an opinion.

belgravedave wrote:

Spend the money on police, junctions, regulation of lorries and most importantly more legal protection for cyclists.

We already have most of that but there is little will to implement it properly or enforce it. That's what the UK has been trying to do for the past 40 years to little effect.

With police budgets and manpower being cut almost every year I don't see them deciding to focus on making life any safer for cyclists. In fact every recent initiative has just focused on penalising cyclists.

The number of dangerous London junctions described by TfL as being targets for change has dropped alarmingly, and work on other roundabouts that supposedly follows Dutch practice has soaked up budget for cycling with little or no benefit to cycling. Current practice in the UK for cycling infrastructure at junctions is to ignore them completely and I don't expect that to change soon.

Even the proposed regulation concerning lorries (which are only a part of the problem) is being fought against by vested interests and will take years to happen. How effective it will be if it ever comes to pass remains to be seen.

But the main thing is that none of what you mention has been proven to encourage people who are nervous about cycling in traffic to get on their bikes and do it, or permit their kids to do it.