-
The main issues is that so many people talking about improved cycle lane, proper segregation, etc.
But no one talk about drivers, at all, like they're not a problem.
Lots of people don't want to cycle because the road felt very dangerous with drivers going at high speed between traffic light, jumping red light endangering peds, text driving all the time etc.
If we address those issues, people would feel much more comfortable to ride on the road without getting worried about receiving punishment pass.
-
This is an absolutely lovely picture. If the full segregation was going to look like this, I would happily support it. But lets take a quick look at what the artist hasn't included that we know will happen.
There isn't a young child weaving all over the place having lots of fun while their parent calls out that maybe they want to stay on the left hand side of the bike lane. Or maybe their racing ahead and pulling skids and U-turns without really looking as to who else is about.
There isnt' a large group of cyclists riding along in an ever bulging, slow moving peleton because they really want to ride together. They also isn't a cheery died in the wool socialist who interprets your bell ring or polite request to get past as a reason to tell you that there's no reason to rush because you're on a bicycle and tries to engage you in a long spiel as to why you should join them.
There isn't a cyclist stopped right in the middle of the lane checking their satnav, GPS unit, text messages, setting up an assault on a strava segment.
There isn't a parent riding along slowly as their kids tool along the footpath. They don't want their kids in the cycle lane because lat week someone came blasting past, probably trying to win a srtava segment.
The roots of the plane trees haven't cause the path to bulge up into a rutted uncomfortable ride, even at about 3mph. The council haven't promised to definitely look at the issue as soon as possible but can't prioritise it at the moment because the path is still technically rideable.
The council streetsweepers haven't used the lane as a good place to push all the fallen leaves and the snow so that people can walk along the Embankment safely.
It was sub-zero over night but the spray of the road gritters doesn't reach the cycle lane.
The pavement gritters haven't touched the cycle lane because that's definitely part of the roadway and is the responsibility of the TfL. It's an arterial route you see. TfL haven't gritted it because they're too busy gritting the roads to keep traffic flowing but they reckon they might get to it in time for the commute home. They didn't get to it for the commute home because the Mayor's office ordered them to grit certain non-arterial routes because they're really dangerous. The council still don't think they're responsible for the gritting and haven't got the budget for it. The cycle lane has been a sheet of ice all day that no one can use.There's no cyclists dismount sign where the lane traverses a road.
There's no cyclists dismount sign because there's an important monument, pop-up exhibition, excavation, flim crew doing a piece about the cycle lanes. There isn't a gaggle of PCSO's who have been ordered down there to make sure there is dismounting because a mate of the local police Borough Commander had a bit of a whinge.There aren't any pedestrians in the cycle path. They aren't merrily walking along the uni-directional different coloured strip that they've gravitated to.
There aren't any skaters in the cycle path on their way to the Undercroft. There aren't any skaters who have discovered the cycle lane is a great runway up to a fantastic grind.
There isn't a walking tour of London parked up in the cycle lane so as they don't block the pavement.
There isn't a pedestrian rushing across because they've just spotted an available taxi.
There isn't a pedestrian slowly stepping backwards into the lane while they try to photograph every landmark in London all at once.
There isn't a pedestrain who's.... Actually WTF are you doing you massive weapon?The driver of one of the coaches hasn't started unloading luggage out onto the cycle lane. The passengers from the coach aren't all swarming about the cycle lane looking for their luggage.
There isn't an ambulance at the end of the cycle lane cause all of those parked up coaches obscure the view and a driver in a hurry didn't see, therefore didn't think about the cyclists in the cycle lane. It looked alright because the rest of the road junction was clear. The cyclist didn't see the car nudging just a smidge over the speed limit because their view was obscured by coaches. There isn't an extra coach parked up closer to the junction because they were told they absolutely must drop everyone off here. There isn't a driver standing over an injured cyclist saying "sorry mate, I didn't see you".The bike racks aren't full up with abandoned bikes. The bike racks hasn't been stripped of bikes by a gang with a transit and a high powered angle grinder.
There isn't a Royal Mail van parked in the cycle lane.
There isn't a police officer, councillor, council officer, PCSO or indeed anyone else there to stop all this inevitable nonsense from happening and help ingrain the function of segregated cycle lanes because they don't have the resources.
There isn't a member of Hackney PoB there watching it all fall to shit and the brief spike in rider numbers fade into the distance because it isn't the utopia that they felt they needed to promise in order to get the project in place. There isn't a tattered spreadsheet of budgetary reallocations that mean the cycle lane won't get maintained properly. There aren't any infrastructure changes on the roadway because the cycling money got spaffed on a white elephant. There aren't the shattered dreams of a cycling heaven because it all got fucked up when this project wasn't done properly and now this, and a lot of other things will never happen again.
There isn't a little crowd of Taxpayers Alliance, Keith Peat and UKIP MPs laughing at the bikewankers who got it all wrong while Petronella Whatsherface from the Daily Mail lauding the demise of the cycle lanes because they caused her grandmother to break her legs several times.
It probably sounds rather negative that. It is, but except the last couple, they've all been based on real occurences. But each one of these things will slowly erode at the desirability of cycle lanes and a lot of "new" cyclists will stop cycling because it just doesn't feel as safe as promised. If you don't address all of these things and make sure that they get future-proofed full-segregation is doomed to a shitty failure. This isn't a build it and they will come type of deal. So go on, how are you going to address all of these problems?
You are reading a single comment by @cyclelove and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
edscoble
The_Seldom_Killer
@cyclelove
To be clear — I've been cycling in London for 5 years. I love it and am ok with taking the lane etc.
But this isn't about me or anyone else on this forum, it's about the rest of the population, who are scared to cycle in traffic, and generally missing out on all the great stuff about riding a bike. Kids. Grandparents. Everyone in between.
They don't want to cycle like a vehicle would (nor at the same speed), they want to get from A to B without fighting for a place on the road.
Denying the majority of people the chance to ride a bike because we're worried about them slowing us down seems pretty selfish to me.
You seem to saying that the cycle superhighway plans for Embankment (for example) are a bad idea? That it would be better to keep it as a motorway like it currently is?
I'll admit the updated CS plans aren't perfect but they are a quantum leap from the current situation of 'paint on road = cycling lane'.
More people riding bikes is good for everyone, and the economy.
In response to the research linked to earlier about cycle 'paths' being dangerous (50% of which is pre-1990 and no longer in population circulation anywhere other than the UK) here's some evidence to the contrary:
===============================
Well, I did some digging and it seems Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Wales, as well as UK and US and OECD believe cycling infrastructure (cycle lanes and cycle tracks) increases cycling and/or safety enough to recommend investing in it. (I didn't even try counting the authors.)
Few observations that caught my interest about the studies regarding cycling infrastructure:
As I don't have the energy or real interest in looking for the counterclaims (I'm sure someone can provide them) I'll just make few similar observations though with less material backing it up:
Much of the rest of the world including quite a bunch of (presumably) smart people seem to have come to the conclusion cycle lanes and cycle tracks are very much worth every penny. Comparing the credibility between the camps I can't say I'm surprised.
I firmly believe separated infrastructure is a fundamental part of a functional cycling environment and there's plenty of research to support that theory. But if cycle lanes and cycle tracks really are as useless and dangerous as some try to claim then you should have no trouble proving with abundant research how omitting infrastructure leads to even more and safer cycling.
I'm looking forward to the research proving how the rest of the world is wrong.
.......................
Sweden: "In mixed traffic, the risk per cyclist seemed to decrease with an increased number of cyclists; on a cycle track, the risk seemed independent of the bicycle volume. However, for left-turning cyclists, the picture was totally different; cyclists on the carriageway face a 4 times higher accident risk than cyclists on separate cycle tracks. Linderholm finally suggested that cyclists should be moved onto the carriageway some 30 metres before the intersection, but that if left-turning cyclists exceeded 20 per cent of cyclists going straight ahead, it was preferable to build a cycle track across the intersection."
Denmark, improved cycle track design: "At all junctions, the number of serious conflicts was reduced from the before to the after period. Behavioural studies showed that the modified junctions had changed the interaction between cyclists and motorists in a way that appeared to promote traffic safety."
Two-way cycle tracks: "Ekman and Kronborg (1995) produced a report based on an international literature review, and interviews with experts from Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. The conclusion was that one bi-directional cycle track was cheaper to build than two one-way tracks, one on each side of the road, but that bi-directional tracks were, however, less safe for cyclists, since it made merging with car traffic before the stop line at a junction impossible."
Denmark: "They concluded that cycle lanes and cycle tracks were safer than no cycle facilities between junctions. There were however problems with parked cars on cycle lanes. It was recommended that separate cycle tracks should be built on road links when the volume of motorised traffic was high and when speeds were also high."
Denmark: "ensure acceptable safety levels: This is best achieved by constructing, wherever possible, segregated paths, designed in such a way as to encourage their use by cyclists."
Anon, 1998. Safety of vulnerable road users. In PROGRAMME OF CO-OPERATION IN THE FIELD OF RESEARCH ON ROAD TRANSPORT AND INTERMODAL LINKAGES. OECD, pp. 1-229.
"High quality, integrated bicycle routes (on and off road) should be provided to meet the challenge of increasing Australia’s participation in active travel and recreation."
Bauman, A. et al., 2008. Cycling: Getting Australia Moving: Barriers, Facilitators and Interventions to Get More Australian Physically Active Through Cycling, Dept. of Health and Ageing.
Costa Rica: "new infrastructure is being put in place to protect vulnerable road users, including [...] cycle tracks" "The creation of networks of connected and convenient pedestrian and cyclist routes, together with the provision of public transport, can lead to greater safety for vulnerable road users. The routes will typically consist of footpaths or cycle paths separate from any carriageway, pedestrian-only areas with or without cyclists being admitted, footpaths or cycle tracks alongside carriageways, and carriageways or other surfaces shared with motor vehicles."
Denmark: "Bicycle paths have also been shown to be effective in reducing crashes, particularly at junctions. Danish studies have found reductions of 35% in cyclist casualties on particular routes, following the construction of cycle tracks or lanes alongside urban roads."
Cameron, M., 2004. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Injury Prevention, 10(4), pp.255-256.