If you support segregated cycling infrastructure in Hackney

Indeed. It has been quite good to have this discussion in more than 140 characters. This faux debate has been flaring up on twitter with many making the point that most of the people arguing agree on most things: wanting more people riding, fewer driving and those that have to drive have to behave when sharing space with those not.

@cyclelove choice of posting here was perhaps counter intuitive but clever

If all (or at least, the vast majority) drivers were considerate, attentive and law-abiding, and that consideration was backed up by strict liability, excellent road conditions and a wide culture in which cycling was prevalent, people wouldn't be reluctant to cycle. You could learn in a park or similar, and then take the road in the knowledge that you would be safe and catered for.

That's the perfect solution.

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.

Make it 2 lanes wide, for overtaking buses, or other cyclists. Reduce the car-part to 1 lane in either direction, with no parking, stopping or passing places. Massively increase emissions taxation and VAT on new cars registered in London. Every petrol station will randomly fill 10 petrol tanks a day with sugar.

I'm not quite sure where I lost the plot there.

If all (or at least, the vast majority) drivers were considerate, attentive and law-abiding, and that consideration was backed up by strict liability, excellent road conditions and a wide culture in which cycling was prevalent, people wouldn't be reluctant to cycle. You could learn in a park or similar, and then take the road in the knowledge that you would be safe and catered for.

That's the perfect solution.

Ok, a few problems:

1. One terrible driver is enough to get you killed if you're mixing with larger vehicles
   
2. Mixing with large vehicles just feels unpleasant
   
3. There may well exist routes that are necessary to cycle, where it's not feasible to sufficiently reduce traffic speeds
   
   

All of these would mean that certain people would still be reluctant to cycle amongst the traffic. I can't imagine that people would be hapy to send their kids off to school on their bikes, even in the situation that you describe, so it would fail.

If your aim is simply to define into existence a non-segregated road situation in which everyone feels happy to cycle, then I think you are describing something that is unattainable. The reason it's unattainable is that it requires a key ingredient that you have not included: dramatically reduced motor traffic volumes. In the absence of a vastly improved public transport system (and London's is already pretty good) the only way to reduce motor traffic volumes is to get many more people on bikes. So the proposal becomes circular i.e., we need to get many more people cycling by getting many more people cycling.

To put it another way: Can you give an example of where such an environment has been created in somewhere with comparable amounts of motor traffic?

To put it yet another way: Do you honestly believe that it's easier to change driver behaviour i.e., change some fundamental aspects of human nature, directly or to build some decent cycle infrastructure?

@ffm

Drink driving was commonplace but through education it has hugely reduced and is socially unacceptable these days.

Other aspects of peoes raid use can be similarly changed, it just requires stricter laws and more enforcement.

You can't eliminate poor road users but they can be reduced considerably.

Yes. Unfortunately, there are (in the foreseeable future) always going to be roads (often the most direct) with heavy bus traffic (and Hackney council are very very keen on buses. no traffic reduction there..), and there's always going to be deliveries. And it's on those roads that HCC and Hackney Council are saying 'we just can't do protected lanes' where they should be saying 'we maybe can't work out how to do protected lanes everywhere, but we're going to do high quality protected lanes and junctions wherever and whenever we can..'

You can't eliminate poor road users but they can be reduced considerably.

...which should be done for many reasons...

...but would still not be enough to create mass cycling...

...unless you accompany it with some decent segregated infrastructure.

The thing is that even with segregated infrastructure nearly everyone agrees that people will still need to cycle on un segregated roads.

So the segregation will not solve the problem. However tackle the source of the problem (poor driving ignorance and intolerance) and the roads would become a much nicer place. This would encourage more cycling, reducing the volume of cars and then freeing up more space to create segregated space.

The thing is that even with segregated infrastructure nearly everyone agrees that people will still need to cycle on un segregated roads.

Yes, I agree with that too. Even if we start building it now it would take decades to build all the segregated infrastructure that could be useful. So at least in the short-term (and very likely in the long-term) people will still need to share the road.

So the segregation will not solve the problem. However tackle the source of the problem (poor driving ignorance and intolerance) and the roads would become a much nicer place. This would encourage more cycling, reducing the volume of cars and then freeing up more space to create segregated space.

The segregation alone will not solve the problem, and I agree that things like strict liability, social unnacceptability of driving like a douche, and better driver training regarding cycling will make the roads nicer and mean that fewer places will need segregation. But segregation is exactly what is needed to solve the problem in those places where, even if all the vehicles are driven perfectly, traffic is simply too heavy and too fast to be a nice cycling environment. Most potential commutes suffer from this problem: 90% pleasant side streets, 5% horrific rat-runs/dual carriageways, 5% badly designed junctions. That 10% is plenty to put the vast majority of people off cycling to work.

I'd be more convinced if you could give an example of a high-traffic-volume, non-segregated mass cycling city.

Beijing

Beijing

But cycling never dropped in popularity there (I'm guessing) so we're not starting from the same situation. Beijing never had to do what we're trying to do i.e., build cycling up from a very low modal share.

No, cycling has plummeted there as car ownership has increased but it is still in the top 20 cities for cycling as a mode of transport.

You asked for such a city, I gave you one!

I'd be more convinced if you could give an example of a high-traffic-volume, non-segregated mass cycling city.

imagine that bike trailer in U.K
go on
just for a minute
like the thousands of Euros who have a bike at either end of their train commute-
cos it makes sense
(thats also why in Euro country train stations its full of half wrecked abandoned step though bikes and not fixie skidder fashion items.......................)
as you where good thread

Loads of segregated bike lanes in Beijing, shame about the pollution though

The anti segregation bias here is really disappointing and appears to be, as far as I can work out, based on (i) bullshit scare-mongering about being forced off the road and have to ride with the nodders and (ii) a purely ideological stance that building any cycle-specific infrastructure is just cowardly capitulation in the war against motorists. Roads shouldn't be handed over to motor vehicles but that doesn't mean that all segregation is evil.

Is it? Historically cycling infrastructure design/funding/implementation has been undertaken by people who:
(i) do not cycle
(ii) have no little interest in cycling
(iii) have egos the size McCarthy's rear tire in term of listening to those who know.

I know because I've dome some work with staff at TfL. I know someone working there who confirmed how difficult and long winded it is getting sensible outcomes in a timely fashion. Why would I want to trust them now to suddenly get it right? Just look at that steaming pile of shit that is the proposal for Deptford Bridge. You really trust them now?

How you never had a driver give you shit or pass too close because you've opted not to use the glass strewn 15" cycle ?

Does anyone remember Stevenage dutch-style cycling town?

Less than 3% of the population ride now, real shame, it could have easily been more, all because the council follow exactly what other did; not doing a thing to it (cleaning and maintaining the cycle path is a priority).

Looking at the video, you'd be forgiven to think you're looking at another country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoA-YOMaBaM

If all (or at least, the vast majority) drivers were considerate, attentive and law-abiding

Roll on robo-cars

But Holland
But Copenhagen

Oh, clearly segregation is not the answer

But, but think about the children

Stevenage’s extensive network of separated cycleways are now used by just 2.7 percent of residents. There are safe cycle routes from homes to schools, but only a tiny proportion of Stevenage’s children cycle to school. Some children use the cycleways to get to school (Eric Claxton’s great grandson among them) but no more than the national average i.e. numbingly low.

I love that post. It's absolutely fascinating. I feel terrible for Claxton - what he missed seems bloody obvious, now, with hindsight - for the residents of Stevenage the bike was the solution to a problem nobody had.

chameleon in reply to @MultiGrooves

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..).

How many of them did you ask had bothered to take up a free course...anecdotally?

I'm talking about the many that have never tried cycling because of their perception is that the roads are too crazy or dangerous. That IS psychological. You're wrong. It can control the inattentive/incompetent ones to some degree.

I also disagree about the busy road thing. Like country roads I fear the residential/quieter roads for inattentive, tailgating bellwipes. In comparison the Euston Rd - despite the sheer number using it- feels like a breeze. There is that much going on it forces your attention. The facts are most incidents happen within a square mile of home due to familiarity breeding contempt.

It been said that junctions are the most frequent spots for accidents. My year 6s now understand that when passing a junction they're not turning into, to pull away a little. They know by doing this, they force the attention of drivers behind and get into the line of sight of drivers wanting to pull out from the side rd. They know to keep their pedals in motion to psychologically tell fellow road users their intention. They also know to make eye contact with who ever is on the junction wanting to pull out as well with anyone behind. IT gives a strong indication of what may be about to happen.

Tell me how many adults you see doing this?

There is so much that can be done by people to control traffic around them if they only empowered themselves....for free. Bikeability will help you make moves out of choice and not ignorance like the guy below:

Riding home a couple of nights back, I'm taking it easy entering the cut going east. Another cyclist just ahead of me is moving a little more rapid. There are two lanes of traffic in front of us. Several car ahead of us in the left lane turn left. I stay in the centrally on the right to go straight ahead, he decides to dive to left of the left turners whilst he wants to also go straight and quelle surprise almost gets taken out and has a pop at the driver. It's 8pm, pitch black with a cacophony of lights in any of the mirrors the driver may have bothered to check. Common sense says when passing a large junction like this with vehicles having already turned into it, trying to undertake there is maybe not the most sensible course of action.
A free bikeability lesson could have left him a little more clued up. Instead he'll moan about "that cunt that nearly took him out" to his missus or mates and about how London really needs to change and how terrible it is for cyclists thus spreading the perception.

An unfair projection on him maybe but given the amount of blank looks I get when telling peeps about the free session and give them leaflets or the classic: "No thanks, I've been doing this for years I know what I'm doing."*

It was as clear as day how much he'd benefit. It is just as clear from the overwhelming majority of stuff I see how many could and would benefit if only they'd get over themselves. Yes there are some situations where idiots prevail but not as many as I keep reading/hearing about.

1 Attachment

I'd be more convinced if you could give an example of a high-traffic-volume, non-segregated mass cycling city.

@chameleon does have a point. Perhaps Cambridge is an example. Though you could argue that where there is a high traffic volume it is better to reduce that volume through reducing road space and speed rather than accepting that as a constant and defaulting to remove cyclists to their own dedicated space

However places where there is a separate bike network and mass cycling that LCC people are looking to such as cities in Denmark and in Holland have built theirs in the early 70s before they became as motorised as London, they didn't then build for motors like we did, creating inner city A-roads like motorways. Also these place are so much smaller than London.

And even in these places segregation is a small percentage of the total network and many other means are used to make cycling pleasant such as Law, culture, home-zones, cycle streets, cycle training, filtered streets ... a range of measures like those which HCC are working with the council to put in place in Hackney.

Much of the Hackney approach is being taken up by TfL (see their new cycle design standard), and segregation does form part of the list of measures that a borough/ TfL can use.

It is clear that London's Streetscape has changed dramatically over the past few years, many of these changes have focused on public realm improvements and many have reduced space for motors.

examples of main roads changed for the better include : Upper Street, A10 Dalston, Oxford Street, Walworth road, etc
Some boroughs have gone further than others.

And it is, as I have stated a few times, a work in progress and in the right direction, to change a car centric culture through infrastructure, behavior change through education, and through law and enforcement (which is probably the area that needs much more work -and is an area that TfL is beginning to recognise, to the extent that TfL are pressuring DfT to revise the Highway Code)

Phew, thankfully things have cooled down a bit in here. It is probably healthy to have this sort of bust up now and again, as long as we continue talking. If people had made the connection between @cyclelove and his blog he might have got the respect he deserves.
We really should be arguing about the quality of our streets/cyclelanes instead of blasting away at each other. In my view the real problem is the crap quality of the 'cycle' infrastructure that is put in, far too often all the money is wasted by leading people to the same (or worse) dangerous junctions where most of the crashes happen. About 10% of cyclist deaths in London happen to riders at junctions on routes with separated cycle paths, I find that to be a frighteningly high percentage. I worry that the 'segregated' route on Stratford High street has set up half a dozen very hazardous junctions, before you get to the mess at Bow roundabout.
The idea of segregation being the solution for all cycling problems has been vastly oversold, especially to people who don't cycle. It doesn't follow the segregation is necessarily bad, I think the planned East West route along the Embankment could be better for everyone and will attract more people to cycling, but it will not be worth it if they don't do something prevent these new cyclists being mashed by lorries when they get to the Tower Hill and Aldgate one-way traffic systems.
The video of 10 bus stop by-passes from David Hembrow made me weep (again). What relevance to those designs have to the narrow bits of Kingsland road where there is very little pavement space, less than 12 metres road width used by almost 1000 cyclists and 5-6000 bus passengers in peak hour. There are very complex problems there which cannot be sorted with trivial solutions.

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?

Yes, absolutely untrue. It is one of those internet myths which needs de-bunking. I have tried to do that in my comment to Hackney People on Bikes

Aldgate one-way traffic systems

Aldgate is going to be dug up and made two way in the spring or sooner, It's a city scheme not TFL.

cf. https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/transport-and-streets/transport-planning/transport-projects/aldgate-area/Pages/changes-to-the-highway-and-traffic.aspx

cf. https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/transport-and-streets/transport-planning/transport-projects/aldgate-area/Pages/changes-to-the-highway-and-traffic.aspx