If you support segregated cycling infrastructure in Hackney

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

Hmm. Are you sure? We have very little properly separated cycle track, so I have doubts. And only a couple of properly separated junctions on these But there are generally about 12-18 deaths a year, so you could easily give a list of specific incidents to back this up (and maybe an account of what happened in each case, so design could be improved..)

'The idea of segregation being the solution for all cycling problems has been vastly oversold, '

Sorry, by whom? And how? Well-designed protected lanes and junctions make it possible for people who don't dare to cycle on main roads right now to use the fastest, most direct routes. That's pretty important. We also need well-designed crossings of main roads, and traffic removal from minor roads - but there are many place where minor roads just don't go where people want to go..

The narrow section of Kingsland Rd (Hackney's eternal example, ignoring all the other roads in the borough..) is tricky (but not impossible - a central two-way track is one feasible option. not perfect, but nothing will be..), but there are miles and miles of A-road in London where protected lanes are pretty easy to put in place.

Kingsland Road is closely paralleled by some excellent (and equally direct) routes on quiet backstreets though. Putting a segregated lane in the restricted space available on KR itself seems like a solution to a nonexistent problem: a lot of effort better invested elsewhere. As far as the rest of London goes my experience is mostly with the south, but in most cases there I can think of viable parallel routes to the main roads which only require a bit of Hackney-style innovation to bring them up to scratch.

I agree that cyclists who don't want to take the main arterial roads deserve to have the 'fastest most direct' alternatives, either by clearly signed use of good quality side routes (my own preference) or by a separate route where necessary. It should be a reward, if you like, for choosing a mode of transport that minimises pollution of the urban environment. The problem is in the context of the whole 'segregation debate', the desire for a quick direct journey keeps being used by the likes of Copenhagenize as part of their polemic against vehicular cyclists rather than as a concern of a lot of utility cyclists of all kinds.

That's a very good view, right now the new design of Vauxhall mean that those who don't want to take part in the huge road populated by drivers going at high speed will have to take ages by going onto pavement, wait at several traffic light and then get to the end of Vauxhall.

There's something wrong with this if it take longer for a cyclists to get to the other end than a drivers stuck in traffic jams.

The problem is in the context of the whole 'segregation debate', the desire for a quick direct journey keeps being used by the likes of Copenhagenize as part of their polemic against vehicular cyclists

How? The main point that I've heard is that if you put a segregated cycle route parallel to a route that cyclists actually want to use, they won't use it. Therefore, put the segregation on the actual desire line or don't bother at all.

No, cycling has plummeted there [Beijing] 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 did and you did. Fair play. I said I'd be more convinced and I am slightly more so but I never said it would be the end of the discussion . jv's comment aside, I still think Beijing is poor evidence because car use is increasing and, as I said before, bike use has never really dropped so they've never gone through this stage of making active design decisions to rebuild cycle use.

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

It is frightening. As usual with segregation on a main road where drivers wish to turn left and cyclists wish to go straight, and the fact in UK law there is no indication or law or even cultural understanding to suggest that drivers turning left have to give way to riders on their left who wish to go straight on, there is clearly more conflict than if the lane wasn't there.

I suppose there is actually less conflict on the A10 since drivers turning left there know they a crossing a bus lane and tend to really check their nearside mirror to do that. Segregation on A10 would make matters riskier at junctions

In response to the various other posts I think my pro-segregation thoughts can be summarise fairly simply:

1. Nobody is arguing for crap infrastructure
   
2. Nobody is arguing for poorly maintained infrastructure
   
3. TfL can't necessarily be trusted to do things right, but much of what is being proposed is better than what has gone before, we should maintain pressure on them to, as Boris said, "do it right or not at all"
   
4. A change in motoring culture is absolutely necessary for many reasons (reducing motorist and pedestrian KSIs, reducing pollution etc.)
   
5. A change in motoring culture will be accelerated by having more cyclists on the road. I think people will behave differently if there's a reasonable chance that the cyclist in front of their car is family or a friend and if they will be out on a bike tomorrow.
   
6. The current gradual increase in cycling numbers isn't fast enough to induce #5. Segregation in specific places will increase cyclist numbers and will work in combination with direct measures to change motoring culture (e.g., strict liability, proper enforcement etc.) to accelerate a motoring culture change.
   
7. Not every road needs to be segregated (most small roads should be made safe for cycling simply by being made safer and more pleasant for everyone), but unless you make certain stretches of busy road objectively and subjectively safer you will exclude a large number of people from cycling e.g., people who want to ride with their kids to school/the park/the shops etc.
   
8. Cycle training is a good thing to help people ride with other traffic
   
9. Cyclists should not lose the right to ride on the road, but inconvenience to the small percentage of people who currently like to cycle fast, should not be a reason to exclude the majority from cycling.
   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX85gExq6Y8

small percentage of people who currently like to cycle fast

Having asked 'how' peoples desire for a fast, direct route is deployed in this kind of argument, you've just made my point for me.

Pro segregation writers have used this reductio ad absurdem technique - people arguing against them just want to 'go fast' and can therefore be discounted. However as was shown above, and particularly by the suggestion that protected routes should go along main roads, rather than back streets, I think the idea of having a fast and direct journey is actually a consideration for many people, including some who favour segregation.

From what I've seen in London creating a path alongside a busy arterial route is always likely to bring cyclists into conflict with roads feeding into that arterial route, pedestrians, bus stops etc and is therefore an inferior approach to creating a quiet, direct route on roads parallel to the main one. It's both safer and, yes, faster.

In fact because of the segregation, and because it has to end prior to the turn, it creates a wide sweeping junctions for drivers turning left so they can do so at speed

Also I have ridden in that cycle lane and am wary of going at all fast, too near the pedestrians for speed since they may step into the cycle lane. To go fast along Stratfford high steet you'd be better off on the road and suffer the occasional beep from drivers (as I have experienced there many times) because I am not using the provision for cyclists. And remember that bikes are machines capable of speed so provision must provide for fast cycling

I was in Stevenage yesterday actually. It's not true that it wasn't well maintained, there were “sweeping and snow-clearing procedures” and they recognised that “surface maintenance is probably more important to the cyclist than to the motorist and the speedy repair of any imperfection is necessary.” And the council still clears glass and debris and resurfaces them when required. Here's part of the network yesterday:

The problem with Claxton's scheme wasn't the quality of the cycle paths, it was the quality of the roads. He also built an excellent road system so the people of Stevenage got in their cars because it was easier (and because car culture).

From Stevenage Council's cycle strategy:

“Stevenage has a fast, high-capacity road system, which makes it easy to make journeys by car. Residents have largely been insulated from the effects of traffic growth and congestion and generally there is little incentive for people to use modes other than the private car…Stevenage, with its extensive cycleway network, has largely the same level of cycling as other Hertfordshire towns, where facilities for cyclists are less developed. This seems to suggest that the propensity to cycle depends on factors other than the existence of purpose built facilities.”

Claxton's scheme is a proof point that if you want people to cycle in Britain, segregation alone isn't enough. You also need to disincentivise car use.

Another reason segregation is no panacea.

Having asked 'how' peoples desire for a fast, direct route is deployed in this kind of argument, you've just made my point for me.

I don't think so.

Pro segregation writers have used this reductio ad absurdem technique - people arguing against them just want to 'go fast' and can therefore be discounted. However as was shown above, and particularly by the suggestion that protected routes should go along main roads, rather than back streets, I think the idea of having a fast and direct journey is actually a consideration for many people, including some who favour segregation.

(FYI, that's not what reductio ad absurdum means.) I've never said that people's views should be discounted because they "just want to go fast". I've also said that cyclists should maintain the right to use the road, so you're welcome to go as fast you like in amongst the other traffic. What I'm arguing is that, at present, a minority of people who like going fast are arguing against segregation on the grounds that it will mean that they have to go slower. Someone explicitly said this earlier in this thread (I'll ref it in a moment). Firstly, this is not true (as they should still have the right to use the road), but it's also an argument for the convenience of a minority against the basic right of the majority i.e., by arguing that a minority should be able to able to cycle fast, you're preventing the majority from being comfortable to cycle at all. How do you think those two sides of the argument should be balanced?

From what I've seen in London creating a path alongside a busy arterial route is always likely to bring cyclists into conflict with roads feeding into that arterial route, pedestrians, bus stops etc and is therefore an inferior approach to creating a quiet, direct route on roads parallel to the main one. It's both safer and, yes, faster.

But people won't use a less direct route. This has been shown in Copenhagen. So your proposed solution isn't a solution at all. Plus, if you're aiming to move cyclists to quieter routes, no segregation should be needed there anyway.

an argument for the convenience of a minority against the basic right of the majority

My argument is that a majority of utility cyclists want a quick and direct journey. It is the likes of Copenhagenize, as I've said, that try and cast this shared aim as just a desire to 'go fast' when it's used as part of a pro road cycling argument.

As for 'people won't use a less direct route' - well my point is that a parallel quieter route between a and b can be just as direct as the main route between a and b. Perhaps even more direct in some cases. You just need to show people it's there, something not done terribly well on a lot of the LCN routes at present.

This is more straw man. That is not considered good infrastructure. The track should move back from the mouth of the junction with cars crossing at 90 degrees... cf the track on blackfriars in the NS plans...

I fully agree that track upto stratford is not great, and said so as much when it first came up on this forum...

The tracks in holland are fast, at least above 10mph average. And the pro segregation argument is for using the main direct roads.

As for 'people won't use a less direct route' - well my point is that a parallel quieter route between a and b can be just as direct as the main route between a and b. Perhaps even more direct in some cases.

Why not both? Segregation where you have to mix with lots of lorries and busses, filtering and quietening (is that a word?) where the traffic is more local.

We're all allowed to have opinions, right? Well here's mine, from a perspective of just some guy who likes riding bikes.

1. I don't know what the solution to getting more people riding is, I don't know if more segregation is better or worse, I've not ridden a bike in Holland or Copenhagen. But I have to say I absolutely cannot stand whoever the fuck these people who insult, belittle and deride people who aren't totally behind segregation, lycra wearers and the like. People like copenhagenize and people in smaller groups go out of their way to attack people who've made huge positive differences to cycling in this country, who have more or less dedicated their lives to improving conditions for cyclists and cycling in general, when as far as I know these people have done fuck all themselves other than making a lot of noise on the internet. Seriously, who the fuck are these arseholes?

2. My concern with the many of the pro segregation arguments are that people don't ride because of a perception of it being dangerous. A: I think that's just an excuse many people use and they'd still use their cars most of the time because it's more convenient and; B: I know plenty of tootlers and non-lycra wearing, non 25-35 'testosterone driven males' who ride bikes every day in London. My ex rides a sit-up dutch style bike and she was scared of starting to ride but got free training with her local council, got the confidence and wondered what it was that she ever worried about.

3. I currently live in a city (Helsinki) that has a really shitty segregation system. I have to share with pedestrians, blithe dog walkers, motorised scooters and those fucking rollerbladers with sticks thing. And also cyclists coming in the other direction on a cycle path 1.5m wide. If I try using the road, I will get shit and could get fined. And yet tons of people cycle, because they don't know any better - and because running a car is absurdly expensive.

Why are people just repeating the same? No one wants crappie infrastructure. Repeatedly criticising dodgy unacceptable stuff isn't advancing the argument. The "anti" argument in this thread is lacking a certain sophistication.

Re the claim that about 10% of cyclist deaths happen in roads with segregation: this should be (i) related to the volume of cyclists in those roads and (ii) stated with the appropriate margin of error. This is, of course, an absolutely trivial point.

I am a firm proponent of full segregation, although I think that it would be much more cost effective to start by placing a daytime ban on lorries. These are the types of vehicle that really make the roads shit for everyone, not just cyclists. I'm well aware that this will be countered with the 'economy innit' argument, to which the only answer is that, yeah, it is true that modern cities are build for the business and not for the people who actually live there.

@hairnetnic
There is strong view on this thread which isn't anti segregation but pragmatic and open to different solution for different places and circumstances. Some of the pro-seg people seem to not accept the multiple solutions necessary to get more people riding, and insist that 'space for cycling 'can only be obtained with segregation. And have defined when this is necessary (Speed and traffic density formula) in LCCs space for cycling guidance rather than a more nuanced approach which assess the function of a location and looks at many ways to reduce danger, real or perceived

In fact @jezston point about how expensive running a car in Helsinki, and @fox comments about the empty cycleways in Stevenage because driving is so easy there both suggest that the stick rather than carrot approach is probably what will do it. It is easy to justify not cycling (with excuses such as perception of danger, no showers at work, got to drop kids off before work, weather, bad knee, got a puncture, pollution, need special clothes etc etc) when driving is seen as easy and cheap

MuckBulligan

Re the claim that about 10% of cyclist deaths happen in roads with segregation: this should be (i) related to the volume of cyclists in those roads and (ii) stated with the appropriate margin of error. This is, of course, an absolutely trivial point.

I am a firm proponent of full segregation, although I think that it would be much more cost effective to start by placing a daytime ban on lorries. These are the types of vehicle that really make the roads shit for everyone, not just cyclists. I'm well aware that this will be countered with the 'economy innit' argument, to which the only answer is that, yeah, it is true that modern cities are build for the business and not for the people who actually live there.

Why should someone that cycles to and from work on night shifts be subjected to HGVs with the added danger of a lack of visibility?

Drivers are now forced to sit an SUD (safe urban driving) course to drive in London and are getting better. No matter how good, how understanding they may become, we still have hundreds or thousands of that lost generation of cyclists* that still undertake at junctions despite the flashing lights and loud alarm. This leads us back to the issue of cycle infrastructure...

*Lost generation = Along with our milk it was thatcher that ended cycle proficiency.

Why are people just repeating the same? No one wants crappie infrastructure.

People are repeatedly describing different bad examples of segregation, not repeating the same. Surely all these examples of failures are useful to those who are pro-segregation, so they can come up with a flawless system? It's like we're doing your research for you.

Is it me or had indicating gone out of fashion these days??

no its lazy fuckers all over the place without the decency to let others know what theyre doing
@MultiGrooves massive reps, especially for your consideration that even whether youre pedalling or freewheeeling youre exhibiting intentions.
#roadcraft #survival