- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
New Cycle Superhighways - Visualisation of proposed segregated two-way cycle track on Tower HillBusiness group head says segregated cycle lanes will cause cyclists to crash
The head of a group representing more than 200 business and other organisations with major operations in London says she is opposed to segregated cycling infrastructure – because she believes it will lead to crashes between faster cyclists and those who are slower on two wheels.
Baroness Valentine, chief executive of the not-for-profit advocacy group London First, also defended its opposition to Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s flagship East-West and North-South Cycle Superhighways, currently under construction.
In an extensive interview with the Guardian's Dave Hill, she drew a parallel with the Congestion Charge Zone introduced by Johnson’s predecessor, Ken Livingstone, saying that in neither case had the impact on the city’s traffic been fully addressed prior to the projects being implemented.
“We’ve found it very difficult to work out what the real consequences of the cycling superhighway are for congestion,” she said. “It’s precisely what Ken did when he first put in the congestion charge in.
“He took a load of road space out for buses - which with hindsight turns out to have been a very good thing - and he took a load out with pedestrian schemes, and before you could blink you were back nearly to the same level of congestion as before the congestion charge began.
London First was joined in opposing the Cycle Superhighway plans last year by the likes of property company Canary Wharf Group and the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association, with one of the chief areas of concern being the impact of the infrastructure on journey times for motor vehicles.
Transport for London (TfL) presented its own figures of forecast delays for a variety of journeys to attempt to address those concerns, but opponents remained unimpressed, and Valentine continues to harbour misgivings.
“We’re now going back to gridlock,” she said. “I think it’s incumbent on the GLA and TfL to just be sure that they are taking everybody’s concerns properly into account. I’m not clear whether that’s being done.”
In October, responding to criticism of the project by Canary Wharf Group and others, British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman noted that the Cycle Superhighway proposals enjoyed support from businesses and other organisations such as NHS Trusts across the capital, and described opponents as “old men in limos.”
It’s an accusation that Valentine rejected as “rubbish,” adding; “TfL ought to be better at listening to customers, cyclists and all people on the roads.
“As a cyclist, you do get very angry about the way the traffic treats you, that cars cut you up and buses get in the cycle lane.
“Part of the reason cyclists have got so aggressive is that they’ve been so badly treated for a long time.
“When one of them gets killed on a junction where TfL has been told several times it’s unsafe, that’s not a good place to be. Quite a lot of your big picture answers to road problems actually come just from listening, talking and finding out what really does and doesn’t work.”
She told the Guardian that she has been cycling in Central London since she was 14 years of age but insists that physically segregated infrastructure will not improve cyclists’ safety – instead, she fears it will make matters worse.
“I’m a tootling-across-Central-London cyclist as opposed to a superhighway sort of cyclist,” she revealed.
“I’m not interested in segregated lanes. You are being herded like cattle. I’m about the slowest cyclist in London and I always think the thing most likely to knock me off my bike is another cyclist going very fast right at my elbow.
“That would be more of a worry in a segregated lane. I suppose they are meant to prove you’re taking cyclists seriously.”
Besides Canary Wharf Group, London First’s membership list includes a number of organisations that backed the Cycle Superhighway plans through the Cycling Works website.
Those include Royal Bank of Scotland, which has 12,000 employees in London, the law firm Allen & Overy, property owners The Crown Estate, and professional services firm, Deloitte.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- john_smith 11 min 20 sec ago
Well done you. Why be polite to a fellow commenter when you can be rude to him instead?
- Paul J 14 min 56 sec ago
Cause the idea of having batteries be in a standard size is _so_ innovative! Ridiculous patent system.
- pockstone 29 min 39 sec ago
Aldi and Costa(I think?)have form on this one. Something very similar was done to a stretch of the Canal Rd./Stanley Rd. cycle path in Bradford. I...
- giff77 43 min 29 sec ago
At least in the Netherlands parking your bike at the train station appears to be plentiful and requires a ticket to gain access. Compare that to...
- andystow 1 hour 22 min ago
There's a good Youtube channel of a London-based cyclist who uses one, and I think sells them. It's been over a year since any new videos, though.
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 27 min ago
Yeah - I was meaning blocked by the green-light flow of traffic.
- andystow 1 hour 30 min ago
I've never found a bus system that didn't have a learning curve. I've ridden buses in at least:...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 56 min ago
Agreed - I was just going on ones which IIRC were mentioned incidentally as supporters e.g. I think I read RNIB (who certainly were against these...
Add new comment
58 comments
Because, as said, we are never going to cover the entire country in segregated lanes, so I'd rather drivers could drive sensibly without them, rather than our being safe in cities only because it's that much harder for drivers to harm us. We need them to not be doing things that put us at risk of harm in the first place. Infrastructure is the helmet debate of road planning. It assumes that problems are going to arise and then suggests a solution that won't help in a lot of cases anyway.
I mean hey, maybe we will find £500bn down the back of the sofa and we can cover the country in cycle lanes, but I'm not holding my breath. Given we can't even get the NCN in decent nick...
Oh dear - I fear M'lady has not got her thoughts straightened out before speaking. For example (speaking of Ken's Kongestion Charge™)
“He took a load of road space out for buses - which with hindsight turns out to have been a very good thing - and he took a load out with pedestrian schemes, and before you could blink you were back nearly to the same level of congestion as before the congestion charge began.
So, proof positive that you can take space away from cars, move people into other forms of better-in-every-way transport, and still have the same functional-enough access for trades, deliveries and the filthy rich in their limos.
I'm sure she went to a very good school, but I will volunteer to be hit by an average cyclist if she will volunteer to be hit by an average tipper truck. Fair enough?
You make a good point. Her argument boils down to thinking that the point of the congestion charge was to make her journey in her own limo faster. I think that speaks volumes about how seriously she should be taken on this subject.
Is London First a local branch of Britain First? They both spout the same amount of nonsense.
Cycling in London I feel like it's "be quick or be dead", feels like the only way to be safe is to be fast. But when I've been cycling in Holland, Belgium or Austria on segregated paths I've felt completely different. You can look around and take things in, enjoy being part of the cycling crowd. I definitely didn't cycle as fast or as, how can I put it, 'intensely' maybe?
The other thing is that on the continent the use of a bell is normal and doesn't lead to a punch up. If we can get used to the sound of a ringing bell meaning "faster rider approaching, keep left" then that should solve a lot of the potential crash issues with mixed speed cycle lanes I reckon.
Some of you guys are not good at listening. Here is the first point made:
“TfL ought to be better at listening to customers, cyclists and all people on the roads." (And on the pavements, one might add.)
So what's not to like about that?
Transport works better in Groeningen, Amsterdam, Copenhagen etc because the needs of various modes are in better balance—and because there are fewer people wanting to move around. London is a hard problem because its infrastructure is grossly overburdened.
Contributors to the debate in this forum need to try a bit harder.
She's suggesting that the policy decisions that lead to the superhighways now under construction weren't based on listening. They were.
It's also worth remembering who she is. London First is a lobbying group, she's not an impartial witness to the process.
Not a very progressive view from Baroness Valentine. Getting hit by a cyclist is rarely fatal, unlike getting hit by a car or truck.
Hopefully she will read these comments.
Did I get that right? She is more concerned by a bike at her elbow knocking her off in a segregated lane than a car, taxi, motorbike, bus being at her elbow in a non-segregated lane....
I know which I'd prefer.
if i am to fall off my bike i would rather it be in a place where I'm unlikely to be flattened by a lorry or bus wheel
Does anyone else think the pit lanes, for want if a better description, they have in Majorca are genius?
just like the crashes every 5 minutes in the netherlands?
Yes wouldn't it be horrible if things that were much faster than you came whizzing past without leaving enough space.
No-one would want to cycle in a London like that.
As far as I am aware, Ms Valentine does not have to use the cycle superhighway if she prefers not to. She can continue to ride on the road, and try her luck with cars and tipper trucks instead if that is what she wants.
And surly the risk of bike on bike collision is the same on the superhighway as it is now on the roads?
ALSO -
One thing I never understand is the general assumption that cyclists all want to crash into things. If we are not crashing into peds, then we are busy willfully crashing in to cars or other bikes. I just don't get this assumption. As a cyclist, if I crash into something - I AM GOING TO HURT MYSELF. Yes I know accidents do happen, and yes there are a small number of idiots out there - but the idea that we cycle round looking for things to constantly crash into is just plain daft. Makes me think that Ms Valentine is not the cyclist she claims to be.
I hate myself for agreeing with her, but she does have a point about cyclists passing other cyclists too close. I've noticed it on sportives and busier cycling locations like Boxhill. Surely as a cyclist you understand that cyclists can't always ride an arrow -straight line and need say a foot either side to manoeuvre in. It pisses me off when cars get close, but usually you hear them coming whereas a bike can brush past you and the first thing you know is when they come into your peripheral vision.
STRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
so slow cyclists are in danger from faster ones, what about cars and trucks?????
Because being hit by another cyclist is sooooooooooooo much worse than being hit by a car/van/bus/tipper truck.
Aaaaaaw bless! They just don't get it, do they?
Yeah, it's a load of old nonsense. I can point to examples of existing segregated infrastructure in London and it simply doesn't happen.
The very fast guys either take to the road, or wait for an opportunity to pass. I'd say there is a bit of a problem with some London cyclists not giving others enough passing distance, but that's not a case of fast vs slow cyclists. It's just inconsiderate riding, and you get it on the road already.
so the fast guys take the road and instead run into the likes of Mr Angry Land Rover driver, if people pop a blood vessel about not using a rubbish cycle path, what do you think they are going to do when theres a proper segregated lane in place.
instead of dismissing her out of hand, we should be trying to understand why she feels the very thing that ought to making cyclists like her, ride more in London, isnt the right approach in her view, because if she thinks it, you can bet others like her will think it and be put off by the same reasons.
and I do think there is a point about how we get all types of cyclists interested in using it, the very thing about the Groeningen video, is everyone looks to be cycling the same way at the same speeds, & thats not Londons cycling community.
The lesson of the Groeningen video is that cities get the cyclists they deserve. Behaviour is a product of the environment. If you start modelling the environment in support of bad behaviour, it's a rapid downward spiral, basically where road planning policy has been for sometime.
Except for a few locations, the cyclesuperhighways are 4m wide, even the new quietways are being designed to 3m, I really can't see that there's going to be much of a problem.
A lot of the old bits of segregated cycletracks you'll find in London today were built back in the 80's and are at most 2.4m. With those it's better to use the roads if your much faster than other users.
I read the article earlier. She doesn't have any suggestions for cycling policy, it was just negative comments about the current plans.
But how did the Netherlands get like that? By never having any dedicated infrastucture? By just carrying on as we have been doing for decades?
(Personally I don't want a 'cycling community' I want a better transport policy for everyone, where there's no more a 'cycling community' than there is a 'pedestrian community' or a 'driving community').
This is just a string of bogus, non-evidence based arguments.
The worst wind-up merchants/trolls are often the ones who claim to be cyclists but almost certainly aren't, before arguing against the interests of people who actually do cycle.
I am a cyclist but ....
Fascinating that an organisation representing business is concerned only about cyclists safety. Money talks. Names of business's represented. Avoid.
Her comments sort of imply that the segregated lanes are going to be too narrow...
“I’m not interested in segregated lanes. You are being herded like cattle. I’m about the slowest cyclist in London and I always think the thing most likely to knock me off my bike is another cyclist going very fast right at my elbow.
“That would be more of a worry in a segregated lane. I suppose they are meant to prove you’re taking cyclists seriously.”
also this comment just suggests that the congestion charge is set way too low:
“He took a load of road space out for buses - which with hindsight turns out to have been a very good thing - and he took a load out with pedestrian schemes, and before you could blink you were back nearly to the same level of congestion as before the congestion charge began."
It took quite a long time for the number of cars to creep up again and if you look at what happened to public transport costs in the same time it's now the same price to cross London in a car £11.50 as three cash trips on the tube. If you come into London from Zone 3 or 4, the 1 day travelcard is more expensive than the congestion charge.
"“I’m not interested in segregated lanes. You are being herded like cattle."
This is hilarious! So youre not being herded by the carriageway into going where it determines? (Unless youre one of the vehicles that cause the +350KSI's mounting the pavement- but who's going to let the man tell them where to drive?!)
So would she rather have a faster cyclist or a 10 tonne HGV?
Seeing as there have been 6 cyclist deaths in London so far, all caused by HGVs, and most of those are women, she is in the group that statistically are at higher risk of death, even more so if she cycles around Holborn.
In happier news, from this morning, they have set the traffic to single lane counterflow along the stretch of the Victoria Embankment between Westminster and Horse Guards Avenue so the cycle way will start going in soon!
The segregation has occurred on Vauxhall Bridge as well!
https://twitter.com/citycyclists/status/605432570633981954/photo/1
just as a thought, did she watch that vid I posted in the forum about Gronnigen. A Separated traffic is about changing habits and it works elsewhere. Surely in the UK we are not that in love with speed in these kind of traffic ?
Pages