If you support segregated cycling infrastructure in Hackney

Uh, I've been cycling in London for twenty-odd years. I fully support protected infrastructure, as long as it's done bloody well (ie 2m lanes minimum 2.5 preferably, well maintained, with protection maintained in time or space through junctions.).

I recognise this might make some routes a bit slower for some of the people on this forum (myself included). However, it opens them up to a mass of people who just wouldn't cycle otherwise (and training is good, but doesn't help enough. it's the near-misses that put people off.)..

And, you know what, the joy of the open road in London, forget it. Actually, we're never taking the lane. We're just filtering through 18 inch gaps between stopped buses. It's no fun at all. If someone wants to build me a 2m lane to bypass all that, good on them.

As for disputes within cycling groups - outside Hackney LCC, and this forum, that discussion is over. LCC (centrally) has made a (democratic) decision to back high quality protected lanes and junctions on main roads. If we don't want public division, we should all be backing that democratic decision..

This discussion came up in another thread here in which @edscoble and I exchanged a few posts. From about #167 is the relevant bit.

we

We are not all "we"

Your "we" is LCC members.

See my second point though: Not to mention the ammo drivers will be given when you choose not to cycle in the designated lane.

I must be one of the few cyclists who doesn't have this desire to have more people cylcing in London. I honestly couldn't give a shit that some people choose not to cycle. In fact, if I'm being entirely honest, I choose my commuting times dependant on how busy the roads are with cyclists, not cars.

Nope. My 'we' is all involved in cycling activism in London. Including those who were making noises about divided activists earlier in this thread..

That's why we should spend a lots of time with educating drivers, than figuring out how segregated we need to be.

Spain is an excellent example of this, they also have a 1.5 metres rules when it come to overtaking cyclists (least in Basque Country).

Not just that, the local government went as far as to make a tv adverts on educating drivers how to overtake cyclists (video showing CGI of a driver slowing down, perform maneuvers with lots of space, then slowly accelerate after completion the manoverve).

This result in the majority of drivers in Basque Country taking more care than I expected, with only two extremely rude awaken, by two ironically British drivers.

Imaging how much of an impact drivers in the UK will have once they have tv adverts informing them to give cyclists lots of room, and that it's legal for them to not ride on the cycle lane/path.

I agree that that sounds like a much more appealing solution for all.

A serious campaign for better driver behaviour is always welcome - and it's needed, because we're unlikely to see protected lanes on more than 1 or 2% of London's road network in the near future. But even better-behaved drivers still make mistakes. Protection on the bits of the network with both heavy bike and heavy hgv traffic is the best way to make sure that those mistakes don't result in death or injury for others.

If we don't want public division, we should all be backing that democratic decision.

Nothing wrong with public division. It means that people can see we're all different with different wants and needs. People can see we're having robust debate on what we want, what we're asking for and why we're asking for it.

A democratic decision doesn't mean that opposition to the voted option suddenly disappears or should no longer be heard. Cycling needs totalitarianism like it cars need a bag of sugar in the petrol tank.

Ask me about my new idea for complete road safety.

But even better-behaved drivers still make mistakes.

That they do, we can either wait for a very long time for an extremely well designed cycle lane that actually protect cyclists, or make a strong adverts aired throughout the UK.

The latter (hopefully) will lessen the risk.

Notice how many skid marks on the brand new "Cycle Superhighway" that revolutionised cycling, it's predominate around junctions;

I must have misread what you wrote in that case. It looked as though you were stating that everyone should abide by the decision of a single activist group, irrespective of their involvement, or inclusion, in that group. Because they had a vote. So everyone else should shut up.

Why is there heavy HGV traffic in London at all? Train everything in underground.

In any case, the 'divisiveness' of people like 'Hackney POB' lies in the fact that instead of, say, achieving their goals by setting up a group to influence the policy of HCC by promoting examples of high-quality cycling infrastructure, they start issuing public demands that HCC complies with their view or they tear up their membership cards, or run single-issue blogs ranting on about the organisation's betrayal of their cycling ideals.

It's this kind of stuff, rather than the existence of different viewpoints, that no doubt has the Public Realm people in local authorities smirking into their tea.

@The_Seldom_Killer

Ask me about my new idea for complete road safety

What's your new idea for complete road safety?

Nope - I'm replying to Vanneau. Who seems to imply that people asking HCC (which is funded by LCC, and comprised of LCC members) to go along with (democratically established) LCC policy is divisive. It seems to me that, in this context, HCC's refusal to support LCC policy is what's actually divisive..

As for other campaigners. I would presume the majority of campaigners in London are also LCC members. If they want to be effective in influencing policy, non-LCC members will join forces with these. If not, not.

As per my my previous comment. Reckon I can get it sponsored by Tate & Lyle.

This succinctly states my opinion on the educate or build argument but exactly opposite.

I think we'd have to wait longer for an education campaign to work and have to keep repeating it as new drivers need educating and reminding (add it to the driving test to help) but tracks of a good enough quality to protect cyclists (perhaps like the one pictured on the Embankment, nothing like CS7 please) is an instant option and lasts many years.

I'm not saying don't educate, anything would be better than the status quo.

Classic LFGSS faux outrage.

The cheeky fucker. I want real outrage and I want it now.

tl;dr

Great post, you articulate the problems very well. Personally I've seen all of these things at some point. Have some improvised #rep

Phew ... hot in here
Good comments above why we need to reclaim public realm from motor culture, a job going well in Hackney and a work in progress, and with some segregation like whole bike streets and permeable network for cyclists. We need education for drivers and cyclists, we need enforcement of poor driving as well as speed reduction and a walkable/cyclable environment where the car (driver:) isn't king.

Hackney LCC and the council are doing a great job

@cyclelove you'd do well to look at what works in Hackney, why more and more people are riding here and direct your efforts to getting other boroughs to do what hackney has done rather than internecine fighting within LCC groups:

And finally:
http://drivetoworkday.org/2013/10/09/hackney-london-the-worst-place-to-drive/

For the record, I was referring to those complaining about cyclelove.

Classic LFGSS vague & oblique passive aggressive criticism...