If you support segregated cycling infrastructure in Hackney

+1 would #rep

Hey @cyclelove - wrong crowd bud!

LFGSS is all about people who want to see riding a bike as a counter-culture anarchic activity. If you want to advocate mass cycling and the neccessary road environment to get there, you need to talk to a different group of people.

I want to see driving a car as a counter-culture, something not mainstream, an anti social activity, and roads across london (not cycle lanes) reclaimed for riding and riding as fast as I like.

car-alleycat anyone?

Hey @cyclelove - wrong crowd bud!

LFGSS is all about people who love to ride bikes and are competent and safe enough to do so in the city of London. We're not here to force cycling down the throats of everyone in London or to promote the segregation of road users, if you have such a problem with cycling in town then you need to talk to a different group of people.

Any main route that's not safe for someone who is (say) 15 or 65 to cycle.>

Hey, I'm over 65 and I cycle on every road in Hackney and I haven't died yet - problem solved.

While we are bashing each other with obscure research I recently came across this selection showing that the increase in casualties at junctions on segregated routes cancels out the reduced casualties on links.
Danish RoadAdministration,(1994). Cyclists’ Behaviour in Urban Roundabouts, Notat 13.Danish Road Administration, Denmark.
Danish Road Administration,(1996). Trafiksikkerheds-effektenafcykelbaneribyområder (The Traffic Safety Effect of Cycle Lanes in Urban Areas). Rapport 50. Danish Road Administration. Denmark.
SWOV, (1994). Towards a sustainable safe traffic system in the Netherlands. Research Activities No.1, March 1994, pp8–9 &16. SWOV. Leidschendam.
Transport Research Laboratory, 2011. Infrastructure and cyclists’ safety (Report PPR580).

That view is also supported by Dutch cycling guru Tom Godefrooij one of the authors of the original CROW infrastructure guide

Political campaigning divisions aside (of which I have no knowledge whatsoever) I find some of the assumptions "on here"about the capability of other cyclists pretty bizarre sometimes, I have to say.

I fit pretty neatly into the vehicular cyclist mould. I'm in my early 30s, I ride 140 miles a week and can hold a decent pace. I feel pretty comfortable taking the lane. My wife is the polar opposite. She is physically smaller and weaker. She doesn't cycle any real distance and so is pretty slow. The concept of taking the lane is never going to appeal to her.

At the end of the day, vehicular cycling can be a safe option for slow cyclists, but it's never going to be a pleasant one 100% of the time. No matter how many ad campaigns you run and rules you put in place there will always be the occasional incident where you get tailgated by some fat cunt in a white van screaming obscenities at you. I am resigned to dealing with that shit. I love cycling, so it would take a lot to put me off. My wife on the other hand could be put off for life by something like that. She would feel much more comfortable in a segregated lane. That is simply a fact.

Of course nobody on here is particularly obliged to help my wife out, but I am (and I want to), so I support segregated infrastructure. They are not a silver bullet but they meet a specific need in a specific scenario.

Kind of telling that the Embankment example is of a long run beside the river - no crossroads to spoil the flow, and no hint of what provision is made for cyclists to join/exit the path.

If you're a proper vehicular cyclist then stop moaning about segregated infrastructure. Carry on in the road like you have been. No one's forcing you into the cycle lane. You say you worry about 'more aggressive drivers'. They're already fucking aggressive. You can deal with it. It's not actually that dangerous. You do it every day.

"A small, yet vocal, group that is male-dominated, testosterone-driven and that lacks basic understanding of human nature. They expect that everyone should be just like them - classic sub-cultural point of view - and that everyone should embrace cycling in traffic and pretending they are cars. They are apparently uninterested in seeing grandmothers, mothers or fathers with children or anyone who doesn't resemble then contributing to re-creating the foundations of liveable cities by reestablishing the bicycle as transport."

@cyclelove Ha, that pretty much sums this place up ;)

Although the argument is undermined by the description of this group as "small"... How many is small? And how much larger is the imaginary group who will start cycling on the new cycle lanes? Answer: It's imaginary.

I'm sorry to see you get shouted down on here, but you've taken the argument to possibly the most hostile place possible. When I said "don't expect us not to grumble" it was a subtle warning about the name-calling you'd probably attract.

@jimmy_james for the reasons you outline, I would definitely support limited cycle lanes for specific routes in london, NOT on arterial roads, but perhaps around schools, parks, and definitely in / through parks. More opportunities for those less confident or experienced to cycle in London would be great, but not at the expense of the safety of thousands who already cycle each day.

The open letter says "Bus lanes do not constitute cycling provision: more cyclists are killed or seriously injured by buses than they are by lorries in London.". I don't know about seriously injured but more cyclists are killed by buses than HGVs? Isn't that patently untrue?

@IdealStandard, come on Tim, that's a caricature of LFGSS. Admittedly at times it seems designed to put as many people off cycling as possible but there's a range of views on here. It's just bad luck that some of the noisier anti-segregation people are characters you would run blindfold across the A10 to avoid.
I had the interesting experience of cycling from Downs to Mitch last night with a dozen polo players. If you want to make a real difference to cycling safety in London, have a chat with your friends. Give them some of those cheap lights that campaign organisations always have to hand. Most of them have helmets already though so no worries on that score.

big thread tl:dr
@IdealStandard no, theres lots of 30 year road riders on here that know you wont get segregation this lifetime
10years ago there wasnt any where near as many campaigners asking for segregation
you know who you are

You're dead right. I'm fine cycling most places. My kids are not. Cyclists are not a homogenous group, and have different needs. Not recognising that is naive.

Bus lanes do not constitute cycling provision: more cyclists are killed or seriously injured by buses than they are by lorries in London.

Not true at all, as Will said.

Hang on:

11 April 2014 Figures published today show a comparison between the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured by Heavy Goods Vehicles, compared to major injuries and deaths caused by buses. Lorries cause far more fatalities, but the figures suggest that some years, buses are causing more major injuries to cyclists per km.

https://www.london.gov.uk/media/assembly-member-press-releases/green-party/2014/04/news-from-darren-johnson-am-buses-as-dangerous-as-lorries-for

I'm an undecided voter, good arguments on both sides.

@Skülly, I know you're South but have you used the segregated lanes between Bow Flyover & Stratford? IMHO it's not perfect and I worry about cars turning left across the lanes but it's a big improvement on how things were before. It's also got my 70 year old father-in-law back on his bike when he goes down to the shops.

@edscoble same in Alicante, my favourite place to cycle

I think the figure does not account the number of buses we have in London vs. the number of HGV, someone said that HGV account for 5% of traffic in London, yet involved in 50% of cycling fatalities*.

*figures are rounded to the nearest 10 as I've yet to find the source.

Found it;

HGVs are substantially overrepresented in cyclist and pedestrian accidents. Between 2008
and 2012, 53 per cent of cyclist fatalities in London involved lorries, though they make up
only around 4 per cent of the traffic.

jv

@cyclelove good thread I agree about cycle lanes. You only have to visit somewhere with good cycling infrastructure to see what a difference it makes for making cycling inclusive with grannies going to do their shopping and kids going to school.

Cycle training is not any kind of alternative. I'd like to know if the usual line of its safer riding in the centre of the lane is a real evidence based policy or just someone's theory.

I'd like to see more work done in the north of the borough of Hackney, green lanes is pretty horrible to cycle on and it would benice to link Finsbury and Clissold parks for cyclists.>

"Cycle training is not any kind of alternative."

Have you ever bothered to do the course? If not, then you have no frame of reference. You're like child that wonders in halfway through a movie and....
Your comment is incredibly ignorant. Most of the children I work with are better riders by the end of the course than the overwhelming majority of adults I see on the commute into school. Most of the woes I see from said adults would be cured by doing the free course but sadly their egos will not allow them to do it. There's a weird mindset with cycling that makes people think they should already be able to do it and if they can't shame and embarrassment stops them from getting further help. [its as simple as riding a bike...]

I worked with two mothers with young children that were in a bit of a jam: They didn't drive and public transport wasn't amazing where they lived. They had bikes but found Jamaica Rd to be a problem. We did the course and they 'got it'. They understood their rights & responsibilities, how to best to use Rotherhithe roundabout, decision making of when the "magic paint" is of help to hinderance and in turn dealt with 2 notorious left hooks (st James' Rd/Abbey St junctions) and learned about the psychology of sharing the roads. They are now regular cyclists with their kids everywhere. Please do not write off the whole field before you have any kind of a clue about what it is about.

" I'd like to know if the usual line of its safer riding in the centre of the lane is a real evidence based policy or just someone's theory."

Maybe fat Dave from the pub made such a postulation....But it is a crude and inaccurate distillation of the principle of bikeability. Heres a scenario:

You're riding down a narrow residential street with parked cars. First thing is to stay out of the way of potential opening car doors. This may leave you in the middle of the road- by default- but you are simply staying out of the door zone.

You turn into a much wider road, again with parked cars. Again, you stay out of the way of opening car doors. However the road is wide enough for vehicles to overtake you safely. Who in their right mind would suggest belligerently sitting in the middle of the road? This is an important distinction to make. You only need to stay away from the car door opening zone to be safe but I've heard many use the lazy description you used.

The only time 'riding in the middle of the road' would/should be suggested would be roadworks narrowing the lane to strictly the width of one vehicle. Then you DO NOT want to invite a chancer to think they can squeeze by, likewise through traffic islands...All of the bikeability kids understand this. The majority of adults do not.

It strikes me that most grown ups want to be able to ride in a bubble where they do not have to think or interact with fellow road users, where they can listen to tunes, read sms and tweet on the move rather than understand the dynamic nature of our roads. If you really want to tackle to low uptake you need to understand most of what hold folks back is psychological and is based on hearsay, media sensationalist headlines and precious little facts. More end up in A&E from gardening mishaps...yet no ban on secateurs. I imagine fashion is a large part of it. Funny hats and neon yellow. More people seen riding in their everyday garms would help. Better media portrayal i.e. people like Erin O'conner regularly pictured on her bike (not just the Tweed run). Alongside this for Boris to publicly push the bikeability courses.

In addition, I'm mid thirties and can be quick. As I'm getting older my tastes in bike are getting broader and more practical (slower). I have been experimenting with what I preach and moving at a much slower pace in traffic and it works. Of course nothing is perfect but with adequate communication with fellow road users I have little conflict. If anything, it's riding faster that leads to issues.

The times when speed is safer are on busy roundabouts, and at narrow points on fast roads. It makes you alot more confident to be able to negotiate certain situations at the speed of the traffic. Perhaps these dangerous areas need to be looked at specifically, for those who less confident on the roads, rather than trying to take cyclists off the roads entirely.

reckon your campaign could be more constructive if it specifically advocates and debates the benefits of a segregated cycle lane on the A10 then,

initial thoughts:

1. are there alternative quiet routes (e.g. LCN R10) that could be promoted instead of disturbing existing infrastructure?
   
2. would building a segregated cycle lane on the A10 represent the best value for money for public expenditure on improving cycling? (vs. say promoting / improving the London Cycle Network!!)
   
   

my current view is that cash would be better spent improving the London Cycle Network on quiet routes for people who travel at slower speeds, more leisurely on bicycles, and that this is better suited to Lundun-town than segregated cycle lanes;

1 Attachment

Perhaps these dangerous areas need to be looked at specifically, for those who less confident on the roads, rather than trying to take cyclists off the roads entirely

Thing is that this is exactly what HCC seem to be advocating anyway - the depiction of them as completely anti-infrastructure is a bit of a red herring. HCC 'management' as far as I can see have actually invited people to work with them, if they're unhappy, and to make site visits and suggest specific areas where they want to see new infrastructure. The problem is that people would rather whip up a Twitter campaign or write snide 'lol Trevor Parsons lol lol' comments on blogs rather than actually engage, and it's this in particular that gets my LFGSS-faux-outrage glands going.

my current view is that cash would be better spent improving the London Cycle Network on quiet routes for people who travel at slower speeds, more leisurely on bicycles, and that this is better suited to Lundun-town than segregated cycle lanes

This is my view as well. Much of the LCN is very quiet, somewhat underused and would be a great resource if the road surfaces were improved, along with a few Hackney-style tweaks. Seems affordable, achievable and (importantly) sustainable.

No. Most of what holds people back doesn't seem to be 'psychological'. If you ask people who try cycling and give up, the overwhelming reason appears to be the stress of near misses (this is anecdotal, but there's some formal research ongoing). One can prevent some of these through assertive riding, but one can't control really aggressive drivers, or the incompetent, or inattentive. Cycle training can help somewhat, but in general, the busier the road, the less use it is (because cyclists will encounter higher numbers of vehicles, and more aggressive/incompetent/inattentive drivers - and those drivers will be paying more attention to the motor traffic than to cyclists..).