-
I don't know what the Camden group think about this, as I don't read their mailing list. There's absolutely no chance of segregated tracks on TCR, so I don't think anyone in their right mind would campaign for those there. You never know, people might try.
What aspect of the blog post are you interested in? I certainly disagree with the claim that 'there is nothing like having to share space with buses for reducing the feeling of subjective safety for cyclists'. This is simply nonsense. The division of space that David suggests likewise wouldn't work:
The pictures suggest that possible solution in the space could be a two-way road for buses and taxis, then a separating island, and then a two-way tack for cyclists. But this would probably entail moving the massive central lamp columns (which I recall from past discussions have always been an issue in Tottenham Court Road). Alternatively one could have two single-direction cycle tracks on the outsides of the carriageway.
Actually, the pictures suggest that the greatest width of carriageway space that could be achieved here would be about ten metres. Nine metres, one 4.5m lane in each direction without a central reservation, would be ideal. This would work fine with the lighting without having to put in a full-on central reservation. Shockingly enough, the space would be shared with buses and people riding along would also have to look out for pedestrians crossing the street (people's ability to cross the street is vital for any commercial street, for fairly obvious reasons, so that facilitating this will undoubtedly be one of the aims here; segregated tracks would make crossing quite considerably more difficult, as well as impossible for certain people with mobility difficulties).
-
Not sure that this is the right thread to move the discussion from the Aldwych Rider Down thread, but it is at least partly about a gyratory. First quoting in full, then chopping up for a reply.
two way would certainly help... and, true, a painted cycle lane wouldn't do much.
but also, there's plenty of space here to separate cycles and other traffic entirely. which would eliminate the kind of interaction between cycles and stopping buses that seems to have caused this accident...
Well, that was bound to come up. :) It wouldn't bring any advantages, chameleon, and would only generate a set of problems which in Central London is insurmountable. People often think that all that is required for segregated cycle tracks is space. However, the main things that are required for them to 'work' (i.e., for them not to cause so many problems) is low levels of frontage activity and low levels of side street interaction. There is no chance of either of these things ever happening in this area, not that segregated tracks would be desirable here even then.
The issue here isn't bus-cycle interaction; that is often demonised way out of proportion. The issue is the interaction between all four lanes (or five at the Kingsway junction, I think) that causes cyclists to be timid about getting in the right lane. Once the street is made two-way, this issue will disappear in an instant.
One shouldn't try to apply segregated tracks as a blunt, non-specific remedy. There is a place for them in certain environments, where they can have specific purposes, but Central London, by and large, isn't one of them. You could have such tracks in unusual streets like Lambeth Palace Road, for instance, but not in a lot of places. There are a lot of myths surrounding their benefits, and for many people they are a kind of ideal that fills them with hope. However, the reality of street design in London is hard work without any panaceas.
(By the way, we've been through this sort of thing many times in various guises. Back in 1997, LB Hackney came up with a design for contraflow segregated cycle tracks all around the Shoreditch gyratory. The local group then made a principled decision not to go for these but to hold out for full two-way working. Strategically, this has always been the right move. Compare this to the decision by the Camden local group in the 1990s to support segregated tracks. In the time since then, they've managed to get two tracks in, both of which will probably not last that much longer, and have achieved virtually no change in the traffic environment of central Camden, in marked contrast to what's been happening in Hackney. The Camden group are now campaigning much more strongly for permeability, following Hackney's example.)
oliver, what's your evidence base here?
cycle-bus interaction is a big problem - maybe not for you, but for many other less experienced or confident cyclists, certainly. it has resulted, as you know, in several recent deaths and injuries in central london.
protected space for cycling isn't a blunt, non-specific remedy. it's a very specific remedy where cyclists interact with heavy bus and hgv traffic (which is many places in central london). car/cycle accidents at 20mph or less tend to be less serious - and cars have better visibility. cycle/hgv/bus accidents, even at low speeds, often kill and maim. it's just true that safety here, where traffic is mixed, depends mostly on the competence and alertness of the driver of the large vehicle, and to some degree on the competence of the cyclist, and neither of those can be guaranteed. it's better to rely on safety by design.
the majority of cyclists (and those who would like to cycle) feel safer (and, in most cases, it appears, are safer) when not mixing with buses/hgvs
have you been to manhattan recently? many miles of new protected space for cyclists - often on avenues with plenty of frontage activity and side streets - appear to have resulted in a significant increase in cycling.
http://transportationnation.org/2011/07/28/breaking-new-york-city-biking-is-up-14-percent-from-2010/
what is needed, certainly, is a degree of imagination in terms of the re-thinking of roads and junctions, and a political willingness to take space away from private cars.
(and, obviously, you're right - it's way better to remove a gyratory entirely than try to fit it out with cycle lanes.... but that doesn't mean that protected space shouldn't be part of the redesign..)
-
Archway has one I hate.
Relative to the general choking grimness of cycling on the holloway road I don't mind the Archway roundabout too much. The lights mean the traffic is pretty slow and the bus lanes mean things don't get too tight. That said it'll be good if it is changed, although it ain't gonna be any time soon.
-
What aspect of the blog post are you interested in?
I was more interested in the "going dutch" vote and the LCC's plans to be honest. Interesting posts though, thanks for that.
Personally I do think you could fit segregated tracks down TCR, but would only support it if they were up to dutch standard and not Tavistock place standard. I've done a fair bit of cycling in Holland and generally prefer cycling down a main road in Amsterdam than I do in London. As much as I do enjoy cycling in London.
I live in Hackney so might pop down to a meeting some time - do you just turn up and join in?
-
I certainly disagree with the claim that 'there is nothing like having to share space with buses for reducing the feeling of subjective safety for cyclists'. This is simply nonsense.
Exactly how is this simply nonsense? Where is your evidence?
You yourself campaigned vociferously that cyclists sharing space with motorcycles did reduce the feeling of subjective safety for cyclists.
Given that motorcycle/cycle collisions are conisderably rarer and less damaging than bus/cycle collisions, I wonder how you justify your so flippant dismissal of this argument?
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html
-
I generally don't find E&C north difficult - only occassionally at specific time of day: a late night 'rush-hour' of people either going out late or going home from being out I guess, you get a wierd dazzling lights effect and people don't seem to be able to see you always (coming from me who is not afraid of flashy-flashy-lights-in-the-middle-of-your-lane action) and the driving is super-erratic. That's when I feel nervous. Daytime and regular rush-hour not too bad. Something about the openness of the surroundings means drivers tend to give you a bit of room. Maybe cyclists look a bit vulnerable in the sea of lanes and non-lanes. The south roundabout has been hugely improved - I really didn't like it before going south towards kennington, with cars turning into walworth rd.
New Cross - don't like westbound at Amersham Arms, with cars aggressively over-taking to head south.
The south side of Westminster Bridge round the new hotel - took some getting used to (was alarmed the first time I went round there to be confronted by a double-decker bus heading straight towards me, the drivers around me also seemed to do a bit of a double-take), but is now fine.
The change at Russell Square actually makes turning from south to west a bit uncertain now - it isn't that obvious that it's a green light both ways there, I've often seen cyclists nip through first before oncoming traffic, sometimes the oncoming cars are expecting them, sometimes not.
Generally I find the taxis at Aldwych quite considerate about turning left, but it only takes one mistake, and I have been cut up there several times. The road surface is bad, it's dark and shadowy because of the trees and buildings, there are pedestrians waiting to step into your path at every turning...
Mostly, I am extremely grateful for being able to avoid peak rush-hour commuting.
-
I was more interested in the "going dutch" vote and the LCC's plans to be honest. Interesting posts though, thanks for that.
Personally I do think you could fit segregated tracks down TCR, but would only support it if they were up to dutch standard and not Tavistock place standard. I've done a fair bit of cycling in Holland and generally prefer cycling down a main road in Amsterdam than I do in London. As much as I do enjoy cycling in London.
even dutch standard is still much too small, bear in mind amsterdam is a lots smaller than London, the average dutch commuter is 1.8 miles, whether the Londoner is roughly 5 miles.
-
oliver, what's your evidence base here?
For what specifically?
cycle-bus interaction is a big problem - maybe not for you, but for many other less experienced or confident cyclists, certainly. it has resulted, as you know, in several recent deaths and injuries in central london.
Well, show me your evidence that it is a big problem. I'm quite aware of recent crashes and deplore them, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is a big problem. There may well be such evidence, but buses and HGVs don't show up very clearly in the stats.
protected space for cycling isn't a blunt, non-specific remedy. it's a very specific remedy where cyclists interact with heavy bus and hgv traffic (which is many places in central london).
As you know, this is not how it is generally portrayed. The bloggers' view is that it's 'the only thing that works (with the implication "for everything that's concerning about cycling")', in all conceivable situations, and that it has to be everywhere. It is blunt and non-specific, as it is meant to address all problems at once. It's just blogs, of course, so they're not to be taken too seriously, as they're full of poor-quality information, but that is generally the argument put forward today.
Your own argument may be only that segregation is to be pursued for the specific purpose of reducing crashes or 'increasing safety', but that hides the fact that 'safety' is a fairly complex concept (and a very misleading one) and can't be considered in specific isolation. While they talk about 'safety' all the time, such specificity also doesn't appear to be in the view of most people advocating these measures.
(For the record, segregated sidepaths (it's worth clarifying that we're only really talking about sidepaths here, as this is the only aspect of 'segregation' that people are normally at loggerheads about) have only been shown to reduce crashes (and not reduce cycling) where such networks are well-near complete or complete, where cyclists have priority at junctions, and where cyclists are banned from using the carriageway (i.e., where separation is so complete that any interaction is nearly designed out); in all other scenarios, segregated tracks contribute to increased collisions at junctions. I also happen to think that the crash rate in the Netherlands is surprisingly high compared to some of the elevated claims that are made on-line. It is still commendably low, but not as low as you'd expect from some of the flannel that you read about it.)
car/cycle accidents at 20mph or less tend to be less serious - and cars have better visibility. cycle/hgv/bus accidents, even at low speeds, often kill and maim. it's just true that safety here, where traffic is mixed, depends mostly on the competence and alertness of the driver of the large vehicle, and to some degree on the competence of the cyclist, and neither of those can be guaranteed. it's better to rely on safety by design.
Some of what you say here is true, but what appears to be meant as a conclusion does not follow from what goes before. For the record, again, from what I've seen, there is no serious crash problem with buses in London (but as above, I'm perfectly open to being corrected on that). The crash problem that we do have is with HGVs, and it is, again, a very specific problem (mostly to do with left hooks) which warrants specific intervention. It does not warrant complete separation of these modes (the blunt instrument), and certainly no mode of intervention whose key weakness is junction treatment. There are no guarantees in life (and certainly no blunt and all-encompassing ones). For the record, addressing driver competence, driver working conditions, vehicle design, etc. (see the LCC's 'No More Lethal Lorries' action plan) is by far and away the most effective way of addressing the potential for such collisions; you simply do it at the level of the perpetrators, as there are far fewer of them than potential victims.
(For what it's worth, Amsterdam has an HGV problem, too:
Biking: Watch out for trucks turning right. In 2006 four of the six (6.33333333) people who died in Amsterdam bike accidents were killed by trucks turning right.
From: http://www.tobysterling.net/2007/12/bike-accident-deaths-in-amsterdam-and.html
I believe the picture is the same all over the world. Of course, the Netherlands have a lower crash rate than other countries, but the HGV problem is very serious even there.)
the majority of cyclists (and those who would like to cycle) feel safer (and, in most cases, it appears, are safer) when not mixing with buses/hgvs
Oh, don't get me wrong, we all like motor-free streets (in Hackney, we've just had one created, in Goldsmith's Row). There's no argument with that. (Again, your lumping together of buses and HGVs doesn't do justice to the relative risks associated with either.)
have you been to manhattan recently? many miles of new protected space for cyclists - often on avenues with plenty of frontage activity and side streets - appear to have resulted in a significant increase in cycling.
http://transportationnation.org/2011/07/28/breaking-new-york-city-biking-is-up-14-percent-from-2010/
No, I've never been to NYC, but of course I'm aware of what's happening there. There is, as ever, no evidence that it's the cycle lanes/tracks specifically that have caused an increase in cycling. (The evidence from all over the world only allows the conclusion that the absence, presence, quantity or quality of cycle facilities is completely irrelevant to any increases in cycling. Cycling has increased significantly in a lot of places that haven't built much by way of facilities.)
One key aspect of the NYC cycle lanes/tracks is that in a number of places they permit two-way cycle traffic (while the street remains one-way for motor traffic). Prospect Park West, in the picture with the article to which you linked, is an example:
You can see what a huge advantage this connectivity creates for people who cycle compared to congested one-way conditions for drivers. You can do that under the conditions pictured, e.g. little frontage or side street activity (other places in NYC may have more of those, but generally conditions in Manhattan are much more uniform and predictable than in busy London streets on much older street patterns).
This, permeability, is generally one of the factors that can be directly and specifically shown to cause increases in cycling. Another demonstrable factor is high-level political support (many people do follow what people in government say), and of course the sensational urban realm interventions like Times Square (as of now, we can only dream of those in London). Cycle lanes/tracks are an unimportant sideshow in the big overall picture of which policies are effective, whether you're in NYC or in the Netherlands. It'll be interesting to see if the growth in NYC is sustained. In London, we've had roughly about 10-15% growth per year since 2000 (by the best measures we have, which aren't very good), with much weaker Mayoral support than over there, e.g. little appetite for daring public realm interventions.
what is needed, certainly, is a degree of imagination in terms of the re-thinking of roads and junctions, and a political willingness to take space away from private cars.
Try not to think so much in terms of 'space'. That's really not very important and is a massive red herring. Try to think more about the principle of through traffic. The ability of driving large polluting carriages through most streets is the main concession to motor traffic in London. When you address that, you've won most of the battle. You can give as much space as you like to driving; as long as there's only a coarse-meshed network of through routes for motor traffic, as well as a fine-meshed network for cycle and pedestrian traffic, people won't drive as much. When people talk about 'space', they normally don't challenge the idea of permeability for motor traffic.
(We are, by the way, agreed that considerable changes to infrastructure are required. We may just disagree on their nature. I only mention this because I sometimes get accused (rather bizarrely) of being an 'integrationist' and not wanting infrastructure changes. I want much bigger and more wide-reaching changes to infrastructure than any 'segregationist' I've ever met. (I put these terms in inverted commas because I'm not into pigeonholing people.))
(and, obviously, you're right - it's way better to remove a gyratory entirely than try to fit it out with cycle lanes.... but that doesn't mean that protected space shouldn't be part of the redesign..)
It does mean that, actually. When a gyratory is returned to two-way operation, there is very little purpose left for segregated tracks, which are mainly effective as contraflow facilities, or for unusual scenarios such as a tight turn around a blind corner. There are very few specific purposes to which segregated tracks are suited outside of a gyratory system. You can still call them in as a blunt instrument, of course. ;)
-
Relative to the general choking grimness of cycling on the holloway road I don't mind the Archway roundabout too much. The lights mean the traffic is pretty slow and the bus lanes mean things don't get too tight. That said it'll be good if it is changed, although it ain't gonna be any time soon.
Yes, that project is a long-running open sore. It is, after all, on the A1.
-
I was more interested in the "going dutch" vote and the LCC's plans to be honest. Interesting posts though, thanks for that.
Ah, OK. Well, I'll happily answer that question in person rather than on here, if that's OK with you. :)
Personally I do think you could fit segregated tracks down TCR, but would only support it if they were up to dutch standard and not Tavistock place standard. I've done a fair bit of cycling in Holland and generally prefer cycling down a main road in Amsterdam than I do in London. As much as I do enjoy cycling in London.
Well, it's just not going to happen. People often don't understand that most of Central London is much like the very centre of Amsterdam, where the tracks stop, too, only over a much larger area. The density of activity (as opposed to population density, which is a red herring that is sometimes brought up) is sky-high in Central London, which is one of the busiest urban centres in the world. That has major implications for what you can do.
I live in Hackney so might pop down to a meeting some time - do you just turn up and join in?
Absolutely! You need to be an LCC member to vote in decisions, but meetings are open to all, especially those who want a taster. I hope you can make it. I should flag up that we tend to have long meetings, but of course you don't have to stay for the whole time. :)
-
If you really mean that, get your hair cut and stop buying skin-tight jeans. :-)
It's the future, Niall, it's just taking its time. ;)
-
Exactly how is this simply nonsense? Where is your evidence?
You yourself campaigned vociferously that cyclists sharing space with motorcycles did reduce the feeling of subjective safety for cyclists.
Given that motorcycle/cycle collisions are conisderably rarer and less damaging than bus/cycle collisions, I wonder how you justify your so flippant dismissal of this argument?
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html
I didn't actually do much campaigning on the motorcycle issue. I certainly share the view that it is a poor policy decision to permit motorcycles in bus lanes, but as 'safety' isn't, to me, a leading concept, I'm mainly interested in the issue for other reasons. My views on this don't create any inconsistency with my views on bus traffic.
Buses carry something like 30% of London's road traffic by passengers. If you were to divide the number of bus/cycle crashes by passenger trips and compare that to the number of motorcycle/cycle crashes by motorcycle trips and you will see that the former number will be much lower. Unlike motorcycling, buses are a highly capacious and effective mode of urban transport (obviously still not anywhere near as good as cycling). They are currently the only mode with enough political importance in London to generate a lot of specific facilities, which have contributed a great deal to cycling in London. I'm obviously aware that people have always complained about buses, and if you read carefully you'll notice that I didn't deny that there is a problem, but there certainly isn't a 'big' problem. As far as I'm aware (but note that I also said I'd be happy to stand corrected), there's simply no evidence to support that claim.
I'm not sure why you link to the Hembrow page--are you suggesting that I flippantly dismiss his (entire) argument on that page? Much of what he says about perception of danger is true, but as usual I lose him somewhere along the way and at some point out comes the bizarre and predictable conclusion that there has to be separation everywhere. Or at least that's what I thought it said, but I'm getting tired. :)
-
I generally don't find E&C north difficult - only occassionally at specific time of day: a late night 'rush-hour' of people either going out late or going home from being out I guess, you get a wierd dazzling lights effect and people don't seem to be able to see you always (coming from me who is not afraid of flashy-flashy-lights-in-the-middle-of-your-lane action) and the driving is super-erratic. That's when I feel nervous. Daytime and regular rush-hour not too bad. Something about the openness of the surroundings means drivers tend to give you a bit of room. Maybe cyclists look a bit vulnerable in the sea of lanes and non-lanes.
It does have a very poor collision record for cyclists. I looked at the figures some years ago.
The south roundabout has been hugely improved - I really didn't like it before going south towards kennington, with cars turning into walworth rd.
Well, for starters it's not a roundabout any more. :) It's still a very capacious junction, clearly better than before, but the original proposals were watered down.
The south side of Westminster Bridge round the new hotel - took some getting used to (was alarmed the first time I went round there to be confronted by a double-decker bus heading straight towards me, the drivers around me also seemed to do a bit of a double-take), but is now fine.
I think that whole area is still a total disaster and the local authority should have intervened there much more strongly.
-
even dutch standard is still much too small, bear in mind amsterdam is a lots smaller than London, the average dutch commuter is 1.8 miles, whether the Londoner is roughly 5 miles.
I'm not sure what you mean Ed. What 'Dutch standard', and why do you bring in figures for average commute length? (The figures for average commute lengths from the Netherlands that I've seen varied between 1.8 and 2.7km (I think, but would have to check, it could be miles), and for London it's altogether more difficult to find any kind of meaningful measure. What isn't in doubt is that average commutes into London are much longer than in urban centres in the Netherlands, just saying by how much exactly is pretty difficult (and actually not that important).
-
Exactly how is this simply nonsense? Where is your evidence?[URL="http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html"][/URL]
I forgot to reply directly to this bit. It's nonsense because you can't single out buses as the greatest perception of danger-creating cause. People don't tend to distinguish much between different kinds of motor vehicles when they complain about their general perception of danger, they just cite all kinds of motor vehicles. When they do make specific complaints, e.g. on pretty much any cycling forum, or when talking to people at stalls, the main complaints are about taxis, minicabs, or private cars. Buses are in the mix, but not very frequently.
-
I forgot to reply directly to this bit. It's nonsense because you can't single out buses as the greatest perception of danger-creating cause. People don't tend to distinguish much between different kinds of motor vehicles when they complain about their general perception of danger, they just cite all kinds of motor vehicles. When they do make specific complaints, e.g. on pretty much any cycling forum, or when talking to people at stalls, the main complaints are about taxis, minicabs, or private cars. Buses are in the mix, but not very frequently.
That's better. A proper argument :-)
However if, as we are, you were discussing a scheme which was specifically about buses sharing a road with cycles and you asked the same questions you would get a higher number of people singling out buses rather than vehicles in general. I expect bus speeds on such a road would be a lot higher for example, so it's likely that the perception of danger would increase substantially.I linked to the article, by the way, because it was a decent argument in favour of the proposition that the perception of cycling safety is enhanced when there aren't buses (or any other heavy traffic), to which "simply nonsense" was not an adequate riposte.
Buses carry something like 50% of London's road traffic by passengers. If you were to divide the number of bus/cycle crashes by passenger trips and compare that to the number of motorcycle/cycle crashes by motorcycle trips and you will see that the former number will be much lower. Unlike motorcycling, buses are a highly capacious and effective mode of urban transport (obviously still not anywhere near as good as cycling).
This is a sound argument, but it's an answer to a different question.
Dividing the number of collisions by passenger trips is irrelevant to the two questions that matter when you need to find out about cyclist's perception of danger. These questions are "as a cyclist are you more likely to be hit by a bus or a motorcycle" and "if you are hit by a bus, are you more or less likely to be killed or seriously injured than if you are hit by a motorcycle". I believe that the answer to both these questions points to the bus as the bigger perceived (and actual) risk. -
That's better. A proper argument :-)
However if, as we are, you were discussing a scheme which was specifically about buses sharing a road with cycles and you asked the same questions you would get a higher number of people singling out buses rather than vehicles in general.Well, if there was no question about other vehicles on that street (although in all likelihood there'd be taxis, too), of course people would mostly talk about buses. That's irrelevant to the general point, though, which was the main thing we were talking about. The simple fact is that buses do not constitute a big problem for cyclists. Again, I'm happy to be corrected on that with proper evidence, but I've studied what there is and there are (a) few collisions between cyclists and buses, (b) bus driver training has improved greatly over the last few years, and (c) complaints about buses are low. Show me otherwise and I'll agree with you.
I expect bus speeds on such a road would be a lot higher for example, so it's likely that the perception of danger would increase substantially.
No, bus speeds wouldn't be higher. Plus, as what counts for perception of danger in Central London are burst speeds, and there wouldn't be issues with buses being stuck in congestion on a bus, cycle, and taxi-only street, there would not be speed bursts. I strongly suspect that Camden would want to make the street 20mph. I'm just speculating in all this, of course, as I haven't seen any proper information on the plans.
I linked to the article, by the way, because it was a decent argument in favour of the proposition that the perception of cycling safety is enhanced when there aren't buses (or any other heavy traffic), to which "simply nonsense" was not an adequate riposte.
I never objected to that claim (although there are a number of things with which I disagree in that post). My claim is simply that it's nonsense to claim that 'there is nothing like having to share space with buses for reducing the feeling of subjective safety for cyclists'. Here's what I wrote:
I certainly disagree with the claim that 'there is nothing like having to share space with buses for reducing the feeling of subjective safety for cyclists'. This is simply nonsense.
Danger from buses is an issue, but not by any stretch of the imagination the biggest issue. Note also that I specifically distinguished between buses and other heavy vehicles. There is a big difference between those two classes of vehicle and the ways in which they are used.
This is a sound argument, but it's an answer to a different question.
Yes, that's why I added the other paragraph. I should have included it all in one post, as it's necessary background.
Dividing the number of collisions by passenger trips is irrelevant to the two questions that matter when you need to find out about cyclist's perception of danger. These questions are "as a cyclist are you more likely to be hit by a bus or a motorcycle" and "if you are hit by a bus, are you more or less likely to be killed or seriously injured than if you are hit by a motorcycle". I believe that the answer to both these questions points to the bus as the bigger perceived (and actual) risk.
It's not irrelevant because it's useful to enable people to understand their perceptions better. People often don't understand quite how much the bundling of trips in one bus reduces potential road danger. Also, most people wouldn't be able to give you an answer to either question, because they simply wouldn't know. To investigate perception of danger, you'd have to ask completely different questions, e.g. 'what are you more afraid of, buses or motorcycles?' or 'are you more afraid of the consequences of a collision with a bus or with a motorcycle?' Perception of danger generally isn't informed enough to say much beyond something about a state of fear. You may have decided views on that, but, again, you would find that most people hadn't thought about this much. What you will find when you talk to people is that they are just afraid of 'traffic', without making much of a distinction between modes. And, once more, buses are rarely cited as the number one, or even a prominent cause of danger.
-
Tulse Hill
Brixton St Matthews
Elephant/Lambeth/Blackfriars Road
Parliament Sq
Camden Town
Tottenham Ct Road/gower street/CentrepointGod there's loads!
On a smaller scale, South Kensington has been extensively remodelled. What was effectively a small-scale gyratory has been returned to two way working.
-
Does the long north-south one-way system between (south of) Shepherds Bush roundabout and (west of) Battersea Bridge count? I ride it every day each way and it's mostly OK but for the 3 lane wide stretch past Earls Court northbound - lots of cars pulling cheeky over/undertaking moves or weaving in and out of the left lane to avoid parked or clamped cars & road works.
-
Yes! If it is anti-cyclist, complain!
I agree that South Ken is transformed around the newly remodelled bit, I was really pleased when I was there on foot recently, on my way to a prom with my dad.
I wish I could read everything Oliver has posted but I have to work, my mortgage aint gonna pay itself! But I have to say he's bloody right about London's activity density making large off road 'tracks' unhelpful or unworkable. We Are Traffic! Also agree with his statements that buses are effective and keep the city moving, albeit in a less brilliant way than cycling. I think we need to make peace with buses... They are our friends (Except drivers like the one Sparky met recently, natch).
Oliver Schick
dave4
drunken_christ
bq
hoefla
edscoble
smiff
AlexB
Yemble
jv-
Post a reply
About
Gyratory traffic schemes, extended one - way systems etc
Posted by
@Skülly
Oliver if you don't mind me asking what do you make of the comments in that blog post? When they get around to redesigning Tottenham Court Road will the LCC campaign for a segregated cycle path here as part of the "going dutch" vote on LCC's website recently?
I don't want to start a segregation debate, just interested in LCC's view.