If you support segregated cycling infrastructure in Hackney

There is, but plenty is segregation.

In what order?

More of this "Go Dutch" bollocks? Really?

Skinny segregated cycle lanes with kerbs on either side are a fucking joke. Time after time we see that the dedicated infrastructure that is actually deployed is shit. So let's go for something else.

We need strict liability, properly enforced. Try the Spanish example, 1.5m minimum overtaking distance, that is stringently enforced and the public are educated about.

Just repeating the same shit infrastructure again and again is clearly not working.

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhabgvIIXik

The Oval lane is a perfect demonstration of why I kept arguing about 'infrastructure' solutions in this thread. What a total dog's breakfast.

Spain? Loads of people cycle there do they?

Main roads - segregate, local roads - filter.

where priority is given to the driver- this is not progress.

You see, if you really did want to have this kind of segregation, it strikes me that this is completely the wrong way to handle bus stops.

If I were forced to design this facility, I'd keep the bike lane going straight on as it was and retaining priority. I'd then have the bus exit the road across the lane to a bus stop but having to give way to cyclists in the lane. Then for the bus to return to the roadway, it would have to give way to cyclists in the bike lane but have priority over cars in lane 1. Where the bus returns to the road, the bike lane would be widened out so that if a bus were stalled by traffic, cyclist would be safely able to manouvere safely around the rear of it.

You reduce eliminate almost all of the risks listed and replace them with one of a professional driver occuring on a limited frequency.

Spain? Loads of people cycle there do they?

Explain how this means the 1.5m overtaking rule is not something we should follow?

Well the priority goes with the lights but there's more of them and they have a larger political voice.

It is progress, the situation in the Netherlands took 40 years to build, ours is approximately 3 years old.

So let's go for something else.

We need strict liability, properly enforced. Try the Spanish example, 1.5m minimum overtaking distance, that is stringently enforced and the public are educated about.

Yes, but something else as well. At the moment we perpetually facilitate people's ability to drive everywhere and the result is that they choose it over other modes of transport. While these kinds of laws are great and should be introduced, we should also be working on taking away people's a) incentive to drive and b) desire to drive in the most expedient manner possible (i.e. fast and flowing). We have a simple, functional problem with the volume of motorised traffic that, as yet, we aren't really trying to address.

No, I haven't claimed that.

Modal share of cycling in Spanish cities: 0-1%, in the Netherlands 20-30%. Let's try the dutch way eh?

Trying to replicate a situation in another country by introducing bad and dangerous infrastructure is not progress. The segregation in the Netherlands is supported by strict liability for drivers- something that would cost a fraction to introduce and would provide immediate benefits across all roads.

I agree with strict liability, I would like to see it introduced, though it exists already to some extent already in the UK. A re codified law focused on transport would be a good thing though.

I used to think the bus stop bypass was jokes. Then I started using the one in Camden. Actually works quite well, for me.

Yeah, that's bad logic. We don't have the long history of cycling infrastructure and culture of the Netherlands. Whilst we may want to target the same modal share, we have to consider our own current history and culture and determine the best way to develop in a way that suits us. Simple mimicery of the Netherlands isn't automatically the best solution. We shouldn't want to be like them, we should want to be like us but with a comparable modal share. That's what will be more achievable and sustainable.

Lack of education and stricter laws for drivers and cyclists is not an excuse for segregation, if money was spent on integrating and educating road users we wouldn't be having this conversation and cycling wouldn't be seen as such a negative mode of transport.

If money was put in the right place more people would be taking cycling up and it would be brilliant. Unfortunately because most of us are just going about our business day to day, integrating and being a part of traffic we don't have a voice, we are not complaining.

The people that are being heard are the people that are using poor education as an excuse for segregation, lining developers pockets who clearly don't actually give a shit about cyclists when you see the end result of these "improvements".

Now we're having this conversation on the internet about infrastructure that is meant to promote cycling and instead we are all talking about how dangerous it is.

What a misguided waste of time and money.

Simple mimicery of the Netherlands isn't automatically the best solution.

It's a pretty good guess. Strict liability, stickers, cycle training, passive encouragement have done nothing elsewhere. Segregation has.

We shouldn't want to be like them, we should want to be like us but with a comparable modal share. That's what will be more achievable and sustainable.

I don't know what you mean.

We don't have the long history of cycling infrastructure and culture of the Netherlands

The Dutch had large multi lane roads and no infrastructure as late as the seventies. Then they started to build cycle tracks. A lot of what they built at first has been replaced and refined since, you've got to start somewhere.

Just an observation, and in no way expressing support for or against segregation, but there isn't currently any mechanism or mandate to educate existing drivers. If you begin now on educating new drivers then it'll be 30-40 years before they achieve a behavioural critical mass that affects the whole of the driving populace. Just waiting for bad drivers to die off isn't a good policy. What are you proposing for the education of existing drivers that is better than that?

We shouldn't want to be like them, we should want to be like us but with a comparable modal share. That's what will be more achievable and sustainable.

I don't know what you mean.

We're different. We have a different national identity, a different national psyche, a different national approach to travel and transport.

Take for example coffee. Both Spain and the Netherlands drink lots of coffee and so do we. But the experience of cafe culture in all three countries is very different to the others. Sure there's some cross over between the three but if you were teleported into a typical coffee shop in any of the three but didn't have any language indicators you would still have a very good chance of knowing which one you were in.

A pretty good guess is, again, poor decision making. It means we don't really have an understanding of the risks we're taking and how to manage and mitigate them. And yes, we have to start somewhere. But instead of starting in the Netherlands, or Spain, or any other country out there, how about we start here.

Start with TV/Radio, like the THINK adverts for motorcyclists and larger vehicles.

Simple things, a 20 second advert showing how to overtake using the correct distance and a reminder of what kind of penalty a driver is likely to receive if they are charged for dangerous driving.

Another example for cyclists, clearly showing the dangers of undertaking large vehicles.

I watch a lot of TV and I've seen nothing like this, there's plenty of THINK! Motorbike advertising on TV and Radio, we need to do the same for cycling.

The higher level of awareness and normalisation the public have about cycling as a key mode of transport on our roads the more it will be taken seriously.

And put the adverts on during:

• X factor
  
• Britain's Got Talent
  
• Football (England or Champions League on ITV)
  
• Jeremy Kyle
  

We're different. We have a different national identity, a different national psyche, a different national approach to travel and transport.

Another thing to add, I think, is that our history of urban planning has been very different. London has little in common with the majority of cities on the continent.