Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

‘Segregation will save cyclists’ lives’ says Boris Johnson – stands firm on cycle superhighway plans

London Chamber of Commerce and Industry had asked for semi-segregation along cycle superhighway

A request from the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) for the city’s east-to-west cycle superhighway to be made semi- rather than fully-segregated has received short shrift, a spokesman for Boris Johnson replying: “The Mayor is of the strong view that segregation will save cyclists’ lives and that semi-segregation would not save any more road space.”

The London Evening Standard reports that the LCCI is in favour of diluting current plans, arguing that full segregation would restrict access to shops and businesses – particularly the Victoria Embankment. It instead favours semi-segregated cycle space which it feels would still reduce ‘perceived and actual dangers’ while allowing commercial vehicles close to their destinations. The LCCI’s director of policy and public affairs, Sean McKee, has also previously argued that cross-London cycle superhighways “could lead to a significant increase in traffic for other road users.”

In its submission to the consultation, the organisation said:

“There are a range of amendments that can, and must, be made to the current proposals from reviewing cycle lane dimensions to time allocated to lane usage. We urge TfL to review its current proposals and engage with interested parties to identify solutions that are pragmatic, balanced and in the best interests of the capital as a whole.”

Johnson’s spokesman said that the Mayor was listening to concerns about delays to other road users and is working with TfL to minimise them where possible. However, he also added: “Londoners support our plans, with around 80 per cent of respondents to our recent consultation in favour. A large number of London’s leading businesses have also pledged their support.”

In a related development, Royal Parks have said that pedestrians must remain the priority in the section that passes through Hyde Park and described existing cycle routes, such as Serpentine Road, the Broad Walk and Rotten Row as being unsuitable for “mass cycling”.

Colin Buttery, deputy chief executive of Royal Parks, said: “Whilst [we] acknowledge that the parks provide important transport connections for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, the parks are not transport corridors and should remain pedestrian priority areas.”

A spokesman for the Mayor said a full public consultation on this section would be carried out in the new year.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

10 comments

Avatar
bikebot | 10 years ago
0 likes

It's difficult to square the comments from Colin Buttery, with the number of congested roads running right throughout the royal parks. Carriage Drive runs straight through the centre of Hyde Park, and Richmond Park resembles a scale model of the M25. In both cases, only a tiny percentage of the traffic is visiting the park.

Avatar
SteppenHerring | 10 years ago
0 likes

I have mixed feelings about segregation generally. Inevitably, "vehicle lanes" and bike lanes must cross. How you manage vehicles turning across a segregated bike lane is a really tricky problem. At the moment, in theory, a left turning vehicle must give way to a cyclist coming up a traditional bike lane on the left of them. Often times they don't look or can't physically see them (in the case of HGVs). A segregated bike lane doesn't make this any better - in some ways it makes you worse.

Riding in the main lane in a strong primary is the best defence against being left-hooked. All cycle lanes put riders in a vulnerable position.

Avatar
Paul_C replied to SteppenHerring | 10 years ago
0 likes
SteppenHerring wrote:

I have mixed feelings about segregation generally. Inevitably, "vehicle lanes" and bike lanes must cross. How you manage vehicles turning across a segregated bike lane is a really tricky problem. At the moment, in theory, a left turning vehicle must give way to a cyclist coming up a traditional bike lane on the left of them. Often times they don't look or can't physically see them (in the case of HGVs). A segregated bike lane doesn't make this any better - in some ways it makes you worse.

Riding in the main lane in a strong primary is the best defence against being left-hooked. All cycle lanes put riders in a vulnerable position.

the Dutch have already solved this problem. Separate light phases so that left (or right for them) turning vehicles can make their turns.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/cycling-and-trucks-dutch-way/

Avatar
jasecd replied to SteppenHerring | 10 years ago
0 likes
SteppenHerring wrote:

I have mixed feelings about segregation generally...

Me too - it's probably a good thing to get more people out riding and could improve many journeys if done well.

However I can't help thinking that it is also a licence for an inattentive and bullying minority of drivers to continue unchallenged. What happens when you leave the segregated sections and rejoin the carriageway? The same aggression and behaviour that we all experience now.

I think a better way to go would be for a blanket 20mph speed limit in London and really aggressive enforcement of the law. It's about time someone in power spoke out about the behaviour of this fairly sizeable minority of drivers but all we get are schemes like this. The scheme may not be a bad thing but it isn't the cure for the aggression on the roads, nor will it stop a cyclist being injured on a non segregated stretch.

Avatar
P3t3 replied to jasecd | 10 years ago
0 likes
jasecd wrote:
SteppenHerring wrote:

I have mixed feelings about segregation generally...

However I can't help thinking that it is also a licence for an inattentive and bullying minority of drivers to continue unchallenged. What happens when you leave the segregated sections and rejoin the carriageway? The same aggression and behaviour that we all experience now.

I think a better way to go would be for a blanket 20mph speed limit in London and really aggressive enforcement of the law. It's about time someone in power spoke out about the behaviour of this fairly sizeable minority of drivers but all we get are schemes like this. The scheme may not be a bad thing but it isn't the cure for the aggression on the roads, nor will it stop a cyclist being injured on a non segregated stretch.

I think you've lost the plot here!  1

How can removing the aggravating factor (bikes) from the same space as cars make drivers more aggressive? Intimidating bullying drivers aren't intimidating or bullying when they have nothing to bully or intimidate.

Besides; they aren't building this route because of worries about bullying and intimidation. They are building it to make the roads safer and more efficient for all the users. An to rebalance the road in favor of the type of users using it (i.e. in some places 1/3rd of the traffic is bikes).

The idea of segregation is that it is numpty-proof, regardless of whether the numpty is a driver, cyclist, HGV driver. It tolerates faults by any party rather than the results of a mistake possibly being death...

If you can't segregate in one place then you can never start the process of building a segregated network that is safe and fit for the purpose of mass cycling. Using your attitude we would never ever change anything! If they get this right then the advantages of full segregation will shine out so clearly that they will want to do it everywhere. And where London goes the rest will hopefully follow.

Avatar
SteppenHerring replied to P3t3 | 10 years ago
0 likes
P3t3 wrote:

The idea of segregation is that it is numpty-proof, regardless of whether the numpty is a driver, cyclist, HGV driver. It tolerates faults by any party rather than the results of a mistake possibly being death...

My point was that it isn't "numpty proof" - particularly as, in the UK, you seem to need to be particularly deranged in order to be employed designing cycling infrastructure.

It's very easy to build infrastructure that it "segregated" but dangerous/useless. Consider a segregated lane on the left hand side running past a left turn. Do you
a) Make the cyclist give way to turning vehicles
b) Add a give-way line that means vehicles are supposed to stop mid-turn (which they probably won't)
c) Add a whole new set of traffic lights with separate phases for cyclists

The last is the safest option but also the most expensive and most aggravating for existing road users. Most junctions like this do not have traffic lights at all at the moment.

To paraphrase H.L. Mencken: to every complicated problem, there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.

Avatar
P3t3 replied to SteppenHerring | 10 years ago
0 likes
SteppenHerring wrote:

My point was that it isn't "numpty proof" - particularly as, in the UK, you seem to need to be particularly deranged in order to be employed designing cycling infrastructure.

It's very easy to build infrastructure that it "segregated" but dangerous/useless. Consider a segregated lane on the left hand side running past a left turn. Do you
a) Make the cyclist give way to turning vehicles
b) Add a give-way line that means vehicles are supposed to stop mid-turn (which they probably won't)
c) Add a whole new set of traffic lights with separate phases for cyclists
.

I appreciate the point you are making, even you have oversimplified it, within you're 3 extreme examples. There can be a world of difference in safety between two designs that at first glance look very similar.

The thing is though; this isn't a reason against segregation. Only a reason against poor design. From what I have read it seems to key thing is to make sure that everybody has a clear idea of where and when they should be, the design should help them behave predictably.

At the end of the day is the proposed design going to make it better or worse for cyclists? I suspect the vast majority of cyclists will feel (and be) safer on the segregated design and the motor vehicle drivers will breathe a sigh of relief that they don't have to worry about cyclists. I just can't see how this is going to be worse than the current mess.

Avatar
jasecd replied to P3t3 | 10 years ago
0 likes
P3t3 wrote:

I think you've lost the plot here!  1

How can removing the aggravating factor (bikes) from the same space as cars make drivers more aggressive? Intimidating bullying drivers aren't intimidating or bullying when they have nothing to bully or intimidate.

...

No, plot fully present. You've either misread or failed to understand what I wrote.

If you had understood my point you would see that I actually broadly agree with you. Segregating bicycle traffic does nothing to tackle dangerous and inattentive attitudes. The vast majority of roads will remain unsegregated for a long time so cyclists will still have to come in contact with these dangerous drivers.

I'm not sure you right when they say they aren't building this route because of bullying and intimidation; you could argue (and this is really the core of my point) that if a sizeable minority of drivers did not behave as they do then there would be no need for segregation anywhere - traffic flow etc. may be a secondary consideration or may just be justification to the "I pay road tax" brigade for the costs involved. Either way I stand by my comment that perhaps tackling these drivers and reducing speed limits in cities would actually make the roads safer and more pleasant, meaning that segregation is practically unnecessary.

Changing attitudes and behaviour is however a far harder task than building some flagship infrastructure (and reaping the benefits from the associated press coverage) despite the fact that 99% of bicycle journeys will take place elsewhere in the city on unsegregated roads.

It's long overdue that some of our elected leaders stand up and speak out against dangerous, inattentive and bullying drivers, which are the real cause of the problems on our roads. From my experience most of the near misses I have had are down to poor or malicious driving. From what we read on this site and elsewhere a large number of cyclist deaths are cause by the same thing.

Building a few nice cycle lanes might well get more people riding but it could also be interpreted as validating the attitudes of some drivers that bicycles don't belong on roads at all.

Avatar
jacknorell replied to jasecd | 10 years ago
0 likes
jasecd wrote:

It's long overdue that some of our elected leaders stand up and speak out against dangerous, inattentive and bullying drivers, which are the real cause of the problems on our roads. ...

Building a few nice cycle lanes might well get more people riding but it could also be interpreted as validating the attitudes of some drivers that bicycles don't belong on roads at all.

One approach does in no way invalidate the other. Doing both, like for decades in Holland and Denmark, achieves the desired results.

You're right in that if you'd simply removed bikes from 'car roads' and put them on 'cycle roads' everywhere (which won't ever happen), then the horrible drivers would simple go on like now, just putting some other road user in danger.

We need both.

Segregation on major roads, permeability on minor roads (i.e. dead ends for cars but not bikes & pedestrians), and a very large increase in road policing (we've lost about half across England in the last decade or so).

Avatar
PonteD | 10 years ago
0 likes

The only reason I can see for wanting semi-segregation is so they can use the cycle lane as a car park.

Well done Boris!

Latest Comments