If you support segregated cycling infrastructure in Hackney

I think what they are saying (rightly) is that we need high-quality protection on busy roads and all these other measures. Just one or the other is not enough.

Yes that is what they and you are saying. And by 'busy roads' I think you mean roads where drivers dominate and create real or perceived risk to people outside cars.

The other view, which I think is more visionary, (perhaps the vision of the Hackney LCC and council people) is that in the places where people live, work, hang out, we want to use all these tools to eliminate this type of road use and make a network where people in cars do not dominate & create danger or perception of danger.

So it looks like my comment about this all being traceable to one or two bloggers well-known for their opposition to HCC was about right, then. He was one of them.

Also, by deduction, his attitude of being an ingenue who had no idea whatsoever what HCC's arguments were was as much of a pose as I thought.

Ah yeah, fair enough. You're not mis-representing yourself as having had cycle training, but Mark has mistakenly assumed that you have. Anyway, good response. I hope he amends his opinion of cycle training based on this (he he).

I think it's a shame that all this has to boiled down to either being for infrastructure or for cycle training, as a binary choice. There's really nothing wrong with doing cycle training and also campaigning for better infrastructure simultaneously, and it weakens all of us to have this kind of internecine squabbling - q.v. bojo saying that elephant and castle doesn't need to be fixed because it's "fine if you keep your wits about you", for eg.

There's really nothing wrong with doing cycle training and also campaigning for better infrastructure simultaneously, and it weakens all of us to have this kind of internecine squabbling

I have to agree with that and that's why the attitude of some pro-infrastructure campaigners in Hackney has puzzled me, given that HCC themselves have taken a nuanced position that appears open to discussion depending on local needs.

The whole point is that no single approach is a panacea and things are best worked out as part of an ongoing dialogue with the relevant Public Realm people - backed, ideally, with proper education. I dream that strict liability would be added to that but don't hold out much hope for it.

I don't think the other view is separate though, it's a view that Mark Treasure and CEoGB would both endorse, I'm sure.

The whole mini Holland in Walthamstow looked to be a great trial of filtered permeability creating genuinely nice streets (though I only saw pictures), but we should keep an eye on the poor standard of the other boroughs' trials, which I believe will be less inspiring.

I would like to think you are right.

My experience of those people ,including Mark Treasure, is that they spend so much energy attacking people who repeatedly articulate that (other) view and misrepresent that view as some kind of vehicular cycling fascism, energy which could be directed at working together towards that view.

As a cycle trainer, obviously that is the area where my emphasis is and where I can do stuff. The fact that I don't sign their petitions or opine on their infrastructure suggestions doesn't mean that I don't support good design ideas that will improve public realm

When you think about it, people who oppose Segregation mainly because it would cause more problem for those who choose not to ride in a cycle lane/path.

However, the other option of education and law changing will actually help both camp in the long term rather than just those who want segregation.

Why did you choose lfgss to argue your case? #clickbaiting>

I honestly had no idea that it would turn into such a... robust... debate. And I had no prior intention to write a blog post, that happened as a result of the discussion here.

CycleLove (the blog) was something I started because I wanted to celebrate bike culture in all its forms. If you dig around on there you'll find lots of stuff about fixed gear riding. And in a roundabout way, CycleLove became something to promote cycling without being a typical 'pro-cycling' campaign. Basically just by talking about interesting people doing stuff on and around bikes.

I think cycle training is a good thing, and I've pointed a lot of people who read my blog in the direction of their local council's training scheme.

I think that protected cycling infrastructure can be a good thing if done properly.

I don't think that cycling infrastructure is a magic pill that will fix everything, or that it should be everywhere, or deny that people will have to ride in traffic some of the time. We need it in places and not in others.

Not sure who the person calling himself "Crap CycleLanes" that posted on my blog is, but I agree with you that "Lots of cyclists find cycle lanes more of a hindrance than a help".

But...

(1) I don't think we should dismiss cycle lanes because they've been (thus far) badly implemented in the UK.

(2) The evidence from the rest of the world (see my blog post) suggests that well-designed protected cycling infrastructure enables more people to enjoy riding a bike.

(3) Dedicated some road space to cycle lanes doesn't (and shouldn't) have to mess things up for people who are already cycling, isn't 'letting motorists win', and won't make drivers behave more aggressively towards cyclists. (Not possible seeing how bad it is already).

PS. Some of my earlier posts on this thread were cunty and I apologise for that.

If someone can find me a good example of a segregated cycle lane which can support both buses stopping and pedestrians accessing the bus stop, without causing either to cross the path of cyclists, then I might support their integration.

However they are managed, they will always put cyclists at greater risk of vehicles turning, of drivers not seeing cyclists and of enforcing the marginalisation of cyclists to segregated areas in the minds of other road users.

Even well-built, they'll be a poor solution to a problem best dealt with by making the regular, existing roads safer.

That's pretty reasonable. You should've said that earlier

I didn't really know what I wanted to say earlier... otherwise I would have :)

If someone can find me a good example of a segregated cycle lane which can support both buses stopping and pedestrians accessing the bus stop, without causing either to cross the path of cyclists, then I might support their integration.

I think that's impossible...

But if you watch the below, there are 10 examples of how to do it with as little conflict as possible. (And also, some amazing 3.5m wide cycle lanes :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ0lT7KeRls#t=58
,

I think that's impossible...

You're right, and a video showing 10 examples with absolutely no pedestrians or buses using the stops isn't much help either. When a bus load of commuters and school kids piles off, halfway down the CS7 at 1730 and no-one steps off in to the tidal wave of nodders then it might be a feasible thing.

I think I'm taking the anti-segregation argument to the next level: Even when implemented as-best-as-possible, if not perfectly, they're still a poor solution.

What time of a Sunday morning was that filmed at ?

Even when implemented as-best-as-possible, if not perfectly, they're still a poor solution.

(if put in the wrong place).

@cyclelove it's not a bypass the rural area those paths are from will have a bus with a bike trailer(rather common across europe outside cities). You cycle upto the bus stop and then take your bike with you and cycle away at the other end.

But those paths do all bypass a bus stop.

That trailer is the business.

I think I'm taking the anti-segregation argument to the next level: Even when implemented as-best-as-possible, if not perfectly, they're still a poor solution.

But what would be a perfect solution? No matter how much you calm motor-traffic on the roads there will always be some and a percentage of that will (unfortunately) be driven less than perfectly and that will make a substantial number of people reluctant to cycle. Much of anti-segregationism seems to be based on wishful thinking about how people actually view cycling. Yes, cycle training definitely helps, but if you want cycling to be open to everyone you have to separate it, in at least some locations, from motor traffic.

Just goes to show I how much attention I pay on here, I didn't realise you were James from the cyclelove website/blog (duuurrrrrrr).

Shame it's coming to an end, was a big fan. Well done dude.

Anyway I've been a bit obtuse in my points on here, I should have just have said this:

....driver education, strict liability etc - because these will make an effect on the 98% of roads that still won't have infrastructure. Also, irrespective of infrastructure, cycle training becomes more vital as more people cycle. Even with infrastructure, they'll still need to know how to use that 98% of roads without infrastructure safely....

I didn't realise you were James from the cyclelove website/blog

Haha, the clues are there if you look hard enough, although looking at my profile I had lost the link that I used to have to my site... fixed now.

Thanks man, sad to be bringing CycleLove to close. Still exploring options for the website though, eg a cycling brand taking it over, or using it as dedicated a platform for bashing vehicular cyclists. (JOKE).

You could make the segregated lane big enough for a bus and have normal bus lay-bys within it for overtaking purposes.

And then remove the segregation so that if the buses start queueing up you can still cycle past.

Edit: or put a painted cycle lane on the right-hand side of the segregated bus/cycle lane.

Fucking kerb nerds, coming on here, listening and being reasonable. Don't you realise we're an edgy subculture?

Well this is all a bit fucking congenial isn't it? Almost as if we're all on the same side or something...

At least we can all agree on helmet wearing.

nb, there is a sub forum on page 2 of the forums, called something or another that has links to lots of the new tfl consultations, ie old street, archway, NS/EW superhighway: http://www.lfgss.com/microcosms/586/