If you support segregated cycling infrastructure in Hackney

Your SHEESH comment is really fucking patronizing.

I grew up in a city that has segregated cycle lanes, built from the 70s - 90s, it was a spectacular failiure.

One of the reasons for that is that car dependence was all-consuming in that location. Where I live in South London I feel that there's a similar car is the only way myopia among 'ordinary' people.

I ride with a minor my son on the roads here and I tend to avoid a lot of the more useless 'cycle paths'. It's OK. I ride very defensively.

The tone of your OP suggests you're new to London. Maybe you're not, but cycling in London isn't working for you. I would suggest that you might want to just try riding differently here for a bit before you assume it's terribly dangerous. It is a bit aggressive, but it's just how we are. In response to your SHEESH comment, one might retort: 'Have you ever cycled in the best city in the world before? Sheesh.' We're just pushy. We aint laid back, but we're bloody lovely when we get going. Maybe that's why it's an exciting, ennervating, incendiary place to live. Cycling here is wonderful. It really is. Just get into it, and forget the main roads.

If you want to campaign for something, campaign to discourage private cars from our roads, and to make the burden of proof change that so many cycle campaigns want to see. Then there'll be no need for segregation.

paging @Oliver Schick

The biggest issues really is that so far, the UK produce some extraordinary shameful design that put people more at risk.

I remember when CS7 was made, and it end up being riskier (I even documented lots of skids mark near junction).

If I ride on the road that happen to put me outside the cycle lane, I get punished by drivers who think it's against the law for not being on it.

If I ride in the cycle lane, I am severely less visible and still get exposed to a lots of poor manoverve, from driver pulling out, performing left hook, and worse, being crushed between the vehicle and the kerbs because the drivers didn't bother to check properly.

First step in my revolution would be to bring back cycle proficiency in all schools.

We don't need Cycle Proficiency, it's replaced by Bikeability which is a infinity better in many way.

I remember attending Cycle Proficiency when I was a kid, they were taught by teacher who doesn't ride a bicycle, hell I genuinely think that Cycle Proficiency actually made it worse reinforcing the sense that we're messing about with toys than actual vehicle that can be used for transportation.

Good Riddance it gone for goods, the only problem is that people still doesn't realised it been replaced by Bikeability.

If we really want the next generation to learn, teach driving instructor as well, whom can pass it to their student on how to work with cyclists on the road.

I had to resit my cycling proficiency test thanks to failing to look behind before I did the flappy-arm-stopping-signal thing.

Got my BAGA gymnastics Level 2 award though, such achievement

@Multi_Grooves

Surely training would help some conquer those fears?

This...

@Winfried

Enforced segregation of cyclists on major roads will increase driver aggression towards cyclists who choose not to use the cycle lanes, I have experienced this first hand, and often.

This...

@Vanneau

One common argument against segregated infrastructure - particularly infrastructure focused on 'conflict points' - is that by taking cyclists partly off the road it creates a greater danger from motorists who no longer expect cyclists as a normal component of road use.

This...

@dancing james

These campaigns for cycling ghettos are tedious and only aim to address a misconception of where danger is. Given that most accidents occur at junctions putting cyclists into out of sight, out of mind, segregated lanes which acquiesce priority at every road they converge with is a recipe for disaster.

This...

Look, @cyclelove, most of us know how to, and are completely competent to cycle on the road and share it with motorists every day in a safe and efficient manner. Please, don't fuck it up for us.

Can't believe I am about to utter these words... But... Have you considered cycling training?

flappy-arm-stopping-signal thing.

The irony is that this confused drivers even more.

I find it's best to simply signal a left turn to pull over.

I think the kerb nerd has run away with their tail between their legs.

Ed, one of the reasons the old proficiency doesn't work anymore is because car ownership has shot up. One car per household was the norm when I was a kid, as a result you could get by sticking to the left. Fast forward to now, with multiple cars per room it is impossible to stick to the left.

One of the highest causes of injury to cyclists (I may be wrong) is getting car doored. Amny teachers have told me about it happening to their partners/husbands that ride. This is a sizeable perception of road danger that may stop some females from riding.
When I tell them, staying out of the way of car doors is one of the most earliest things taught, they often butt in and say, "Oh no, he's been cycling for x number of years. He's very experienced."
In a nutshell you can see how and where things can change easily....drop the ego.

I've seen (non bikeability) parents riding with their children that have done bikeability and contradict everything the child knows to be correct and usher them towards the kerb, outta sight, outta mind. Often they'll totally ignore advice suggesting a better/safer course of action for road use. It is ignorance that drives this.

I've asked this before but why when Boris ultimately funds training has he continually refused to take up the course and why does he refuse to endorse the course publically?

I would suggest this is a better way to spend your energy.

the only problem is that people still doesn't realised it been replaced by Bikeability.

Fair enough. Revised first step in my revolution is mandatory (for the school to provide it at least) Bikeability training.

Vanneau

I had to resit my cycling proficiency test thanks to failing to look behind before I did the flappy-arm-stopping-signal thing.

Got my BAGA gymnastics Level 2 award though, such achievement>

The coca-cola sponsored ones?

Ed, one of the reasons the old proficiency doesn't work anymore is because car ownership has shot up.

Personally, I think it's mainly because it was an extremely vague test, that doesn't allow self assessment.

It was also hugely dependable on who's in charge, be it's teacher, fireman, or even council members.

Yeah that sounds about right. I have a vague recollection of doing some backward rolls and receiving a certificate with pale blue or orange bits around it or something. And Coca-Cola branding.

I got to level 6 think. I'll invest in a good quality towel one day and stitch them and all my swimming badges on.

The danger of cycling all comes down to going easy on drivers both legally and socially. If you hit a cyclist in most of the places listed up the thread it's not only the law which is going to be weighted against you more than here but it's a shameful thing, your family and friends will have disowned you long before you worry about a court date but here I worry the same person wouldn't need a buy a drink at his local for a month with people congratulating him.

It's not just serious stuff that's different, in france I remember visiting the courts(it's right by notre dame) and it had a huge line outside full of pissed off drivers who are forced to travel into the center of paris to pay minor fines, unlike here where a letter turns up in the post to say you have been bad and you pay it then shrug it off as "cost of motoring" while if it dicked up an entire day it wouldn't have been worth whatever you did to shave 2sec off your drive home.

It isn't that hard to work out, it's accepted/expected to drive badly and then the handful of better drivers are worn down and educated in the ways of the road

Segregated lanes are dangerous.
Have a look a the playground, sorry, cycling infrastructure here in Berlin, newly built and ancient alike, that does waht you want, and tell me that it makes cycling safer.

Separated infrastructure doesn't make cycling safer.
Respect, common sense and education make cycling safer.

Segregated lanes are dangerous.
Have a look a the playground, sorry, cycling infrastructure here in Berlin, newly built and ancient alike, that does what you want, which is getting me out of the way of car drivers, and tell me that it makes cycling safer.

Separated infrastructure doesn't make cycling safer.
Respect, common sense and education make cycling safer.

I think the kerb nerd has run away with their tail between their legs.

No, it's called sleeping.

Look, @cyclelove, most of us know how to, and are completely competent to cycle on the road and share it with motorists every day in a safe and efficient manner. Please, don't fuck it up for us. Can't believe I am about to utter these words... But... Have you considered cycling training?

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.

Building bike lanes also creates jobs and other economic spin-offs, according to a study from the Political Economy Research Institute in Amherst, Massachusetts, titled "Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure: A National Study of Employment Impacts". Researchers found that "bicycling infrastructure creates the most jobs for a given level of spending." For every $1 million spent, cycling projects created an average of 11.4 jobs in the state where the project was located, pedestrian-only projects created about 10 jobs, and multi-use trails created about 9.6 jobs.

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:

• support is continuous (1987-present)
  
• support is global
  
• support is published in credible publications
  
  

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:

• opposition is outdated ("cycle lanes/tracks are worthless/dangerous conclusions stop at around year 2000, except in UK")
  
• opposition is localised (only in UK/US)
  
• opposition is published in random web pages
  
  

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.

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.

More people riding bikes is good for everyone, and the economy

Do you really think no-one else here understands that, you patronising tit?

Let me reiterate the point I made earlier: in your efforts to get more people riding bikes, you (or at least these 'Hackney POB' clowns you are suggesting we support) are attacking the policies of the one local organisation that has presided over a substantial increase in cycling in a very challenging environment, and who has come up with a range of solutiins including infrastructure.

What you also don't seem to get is that this sort of tedious ego-led infighting in advocacy groups is both a depressingly regular feature, much as with local politics in general, and plays straight into the hands of anti-cycling elements. The fact that certain publicity hungry consultants (yes I'm looking at you Copenhagenize) have taken it upon themselves to fan the flames as a sort of cheap way of drawing attention to their 'services' has made things even worse.

Yup, the general attitude to cycling in the UK stinks.

How can we make drivers behave better?

Asking them to 'be nice' does not work.

And it's not something that can be easily enforced, definitely not with current police priorities.

Here's why I think building proper bike lanes will help:

(1) The evidence (cited above, ignoring outdated reports from 20+ years ago) shows that building bike lanes will increase the number of people cycling.
(2) The more people who cycle, the more likely it is that drivers will either be cycling themselves, or have close family members who cycle. The more 'normal' cycling becomes.

You attacking the policies of the one local organisation that has presided over a substantial increase in cycling in a very challenging environment, and who has come up with a range of solutiins including infrastructure.

They're not attacking all of their policies (neither am I), they are asking them to clarify their position on one particular aspect of them. I tried to make that clear in my first post. As does their letter.

What will make cycling better?

Strict liability and a legal definition of safe overtaking distance that is actually enforced.

Do you really think no-one else here understands that, you patronising tit?

Ouch, that hurt.

I wrote "more people riding bikes is good" because I believe that an anti-cycling-infrastructure policy prevents more people from riding bikes, not to be patronising.

Infighting on forums is tedious too... can we continue without name calling please? :)