If you support segregated cycling infrastructure in Hackney

It's not like the A5 at all. In fact the section between Dalston and Shoreditch has pretty low traffic density even at rush hour, space for drivers has been taken away, pavements widened, the section in Dalston opposite Ridley road Market has been treated to create a sense of 'place' where people shop, crossing from the station to the market, driver priority has been blurred and even the road surface indicates pedestrian priority here. Drivers generally move through carefully because of a lot of pedestrian activity on the road.

I suppose, since you are expressing a view on this issue you really ought to have a look. The treatment there may be transferrable to parts of the A5, especially if there is a quiteway and especially if there is a strong function of 'place to hang out' rather than transit

Well the concept of quietways was in my head just a repeat of the non-cycle friendly cycle routes through Westminster and Brent, Hackney is relatively new to me.

Why don't you come for a guided tour. I'd be happy to show you the sights. Good beer here too :) (As a scientist you ought to do research to check out your theories)

I suppose, since you are expressing a view on this issue you really ought to have a look.

haha, subtly put, but I haven't really expressed a strong opinion on Hackney per se, more of a general comment on segregation has a distinct and useful and necessary place on the roads of London.

The treatment there may be transferrable to parts of the A5, especially if there is a quiteway and especially if there is a strong function of 'place to hang out' rather than transit

Now that is dangerous talk. some roads should be about transit, the A5 is a major route through NW london, suggesting that 'place' can replace 'transit' is pretty wishful thinking. Some roads should be about fast efficient movement of people and goods, trying to convert every road to 'place' is a fools errand.

Yet that is a knotty one. Places like Swiss Cottage, Finchley Road, has clearly both functions and transit is the dominant one and this is accommodated by a gyratory which is difficult for people not in cars. It may be the case that where the transit function is limited, such as removing some car-space, people seek alternatives (traffic evaporation).

I know that TfL are prepared to be bold and are considering such things (See their Cycle Design Standard, which while not ideal, and not always referred to by road engineers, does explore this)

Disagree. I cycle both quite regularly. The A5 through Kilburn and the A10 through Dalston Kingsland are pretty similar. The A10 has a bit of added placefaking... but more or less the same levels of motor traffic. Both routes will need protected lanes and junctions to allow cycling by the majority of current non-cyclists.

chameleon

Just to note that confidence is not always a good thing:

youtube.com/watch?v=WxgUr75e­Ca4

Some very confident cyclists there...

That is merely impatient, ignorant cycling. If he did a course with me he'd have asked himself some pertinent questions like, what are the perceived benefits of trying to squeeze down the side of that lorry? Does the road bend or stay straight? Are there any junctions ahead that it could turn into?
But as many here say, training is only so good. Meh.

yes MG you know how to survive and spread LOVE
#rep

edscoble in reply to @Jezston

I wonder if this is why cabbies hate cyclists so much.
Because unlike people who take public transport, there's very little reason why cyclists need taxis apart from a last resort (something like a puncture, or if you're @Multi_Grooves).>

My best mates a cabbie.. #etc

Only took you 7 days, that's fast!

life on the streets
dedicated

fuck all the rest

Disagree. I cycle both quite regularly. The A5 through Kilburn and the A10 through Dalston Kingsland are pretty similar. The A10 has a bit of added placefaking... but more or less the same levels of motor traffic. Both routes will need protected lanes and junctions to allow cycling by the majority of current non-cyclists.

Look at google street view, compare the A10 passing Dalston Kingsland: Single lanes, no centre line markings, and textured surface, bike racks -replacing railings, and the A5 passing Kilburn Road Station: multi lane each way, tradditional road markings, pedestrian railing etc] and the difference is so evident. And where would you fit these bike lanes on kingsland road?

Dis^.
I the thought Kingsland Rd/Kilburn Rd a strange comparison.

_Leon

yes MG you know how to survive and spread LOVE
#rep>

I don't like the "survival" angle you used, it might have been a little more apt in 2009 but not now. The overwhelming majority of my journeys take place without incident or accident and I get to my destinations in good cheer. I my comment came across as churlish, that was unintentional.

I can't help but feel that most of the of the issues I see, read about, watch on youtube and hear recounted could be solved by getting folk a little more street wise and getting to grips with the basics of psychology of fellow road users. Those that are most vocal about how limited training is are the ones that have never done it and will not contemplate doing it themselves, yet make the most noise for segregation.

It also strikes me there are loads that wanna ride in a bubble of safety, whilst listening to music, be able to tweet and pay little/no attention or interact with anything around them. If this infrastructure were to suddenly arrive and given what we've seen historically from the non-London cycling engineers would you want to be velokettled® into these cramped spaces with such a riders?

The idea of making roads useable for anyone between 9 - 90 is great but given the city's age, peculiarities and dimensions I can't see it. Next best thing is to make yourself the best rider you can be. It would surely iron out so much of the problems and fears of riders and potential riders. I just don't get why doing a course is seen as such a blight on your character. (I'm not saying that you can only be considered good it you've done bikeability either.)

The classic argument thrown back is that the roads only work for fast, strong and agile cyclists aged 20-35. But given the dutchtank I'm riding currently [usually very slowly] I've tried out the principles and they still stand up, if anything, the rides are more pleasant. I'd like to see cyclists get a little more uniform/predictable on the roads, surely such a thing would help inch the environment to a better place for all users?

I'd like to see cyclists get a little more uniform/predictable on the roads, surely such a thing would help inch the environment to a better place for all users

This is a sound point. It's here that the most extreme version of the segregation argument tends to tie itself in knots: it's pushing the idea of 'making cycling safer' on the one hand, while refusing any suggestion of actually trying to cycle in a more organised / predictable way, despite this being one way of making cycling a safer activity in general, because then cycling in some way is no longer something 'anyone can do'.

exactly. placefaking. the actual (motor) traffic is pretty similar.

multigrooves, vanneau

you can cycle as predictably as you like, be as experienced as you like, wear flashing lights, and still there can be some incompetent driver who drives into you from behind:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/cycle-death-daughter-may-prosecute-driver-9925170.html

The solution is to stay out of the way then?

Surely a change in law and attitude would go a much longer way?

Not sure what your point is. Dangerous drivers also kill pedestrians. There are segregated spaces for people walking yet drivers still manage to crash into and kill people on pavements too. It seems absurd to assume segregation into cycling ghettos will ensure drivers won't crash into people on bikes.

As @edscoble points out what is really needed is a change in the law and how these things are prosecuted will change driver attitudes.

@dancing james... , @edscoble

i am sure drivers would crash into and kill many more people on foot if there were no footways. similarly, protected space on main roads would reduce the number of people on bikes killed and injured. nobody's saying that it'll be prevented entirely...

(and, sure, better law/prosecution will help too. but it doesn't do much for incompetence..)

i am not sure 'ghetto' is an accurate term here, btw. these are protected lanes on main roads. do we talk about the footway as a 'pedestrian ghetto'? or bus lanes as 'bus ghettos'? or the east coast main line as a 'train ghetto'? sometimes it's just safer to separate traffic of different speed/momentum..

My understanding is that recent experiments where the space becomes more shared and less segregated result in fewer KSIs.

train ghetto

lolz.

you can cycle as predictably as you like, be as experienced as you like, wear flashing lights, and still there can be some incompetent driver who drives into you from behind:

So you are saying that we design our urban environment to accommodate and even facilitate incompetent or dangerous people. It's like saying that we need to separate women from men since there may be a rapist amongst the men. Would it not make more sense to remove the incompetent and dangerous from the public.

do we talk about the footway as a 'pedestrian ghetto'?

No, in the same way as fish have no word for water. But if you try to look at how we divide the road up without preconceptions, that's exactly what pavements are. Their function is to corral peds out of the way of cars so that drivers can have clear roads. They "protect" peds by restricting their movements to narrowly defined safe areas and crossing opportunities, leaving the rest of the road for the free movement of motor vehicles.

(If you haven't read the history of the American jaywalking laws, now would be a good time)

@skydancer

everyone makes mistakes from time to time (just some more than others). it is good to organise things so they are not lethal. this has nothing to do with women and men, unless you think it's possible to rape by mistake.

@brokenbetty yes, or perhaps they protect pedestrians by restricting motor traffic movements to narrowly defined through routes and crossing opportunities, leaving the rest of the road for free pedestrian movement. the exact degree of priority and amount of space given to pedestrians is entirely a political decision, and has nothing to do with the benefits of separating traffic of different speed and momentum.

@dancingjames

link to experiments?