-
Do LCC keep an eye on TFL's MajorSchemes? The redevelopment of Mitcham Town Centre is one, and includes a set of cycle paths, that look particuarly poorly designed to me, but I'd like some more experienced eyes over it, and views from you folks would mean a lot to me.
Webpage with details here - http://www.merton.gov.uk/community-living/areas-wards/mitcham/rediscovermitcham.htm
Brochure with more details here - http://www.merton.gov.uk/community-living/areas-wards/mitcham/rediscover_mitcham_part_2-mb1forprint_small-2.pdfThe plans are on Page 5.
I'm mostly looking at the cycle path to the north of both Upper Green East and West.
The drawings on pages 10/11 make it look like it's single bike width both ways, and to get to the westbound route, you'd have to use a toucan crossing, coming off of the road to do so. I'm not sure whats the best suggestion to make on this, I personally think that making it east bound only, but retaining the double width would be best, but am open to suggestions.
Local campaigners are against the bus lane (seeing it as spliting the historic green area), and the addtional street round the side, which seems to be targeted as short term parking (which given the amount of unused council Car Parks in the area is really my biggest bugbear on the whole thing). Anyhow, any views/ideas welcomed!
The Merton group will have had some input on that.
http://lcc.org.uk/boroughs/merton
Impossible to comment on it much without some local knowledge and being plugged into local politics.
Obviously, I and others could produce reams of comments of a general nature, but I wouldn't know the context without more study. A proposal that might look very bad in one place might be a step in the right direction in another.
The operative assumption is clearly that much access to the town centre will be by private car, especially, as you say, if there is unused car parking capacity.
Unifying public spaces would certainly be desirable, but it seems that this is the price they want to pay for good bus accessibility.
Again, hard to judge unless you know the area well and you've had a lot of conversations. Do get in touch with the Merton group if you want to get involved in this sort of thing. If truth be told, though, most local groups will struggle to influence major schemes much.
OK, so Local LCC groups won't have the influence to change this. Surely this is where the central group should be getting involved too? In a "this isn't juat a local issue to you, you need to get this right, and the whole of london cycling is now watching you" sort of a manner. Councils hate big outside groups watching them do things, and do change things because of that.
Are there really no suggested design specs for cycle routes that cycling groups have come up with? Nothing about suggested widths? Nothing about how stupid it is to expect cylists to stop, cross a road at some really slow lights, and then have to do the same at the other end? really? there's no cycling campaign that dares to stick its neck out over large planning proposals like this and go "acutally, what you're offering there is shit, how about doing this?" And yes, I know that it's tough to find the time to do it. but maybe if someone found the time to do it for the bigge schemes, those drawing up the smaller ones might learn something, and get them right.
Does "Love London: Go Dutch" not have any design statements? This is a key site where the Mayor is putting in a lot of the cash, and it's not really up to the Go Dutch vision LCC promoted. Or do you think that it is? If not, why are LCC relying on MCC to be the ones standing up and shouting? I've seen nothing in the local papers from either of them, which is a death by silence.
-
(e.g., one thing that we need to improve is the knowledge that parents need to transmit to their children).
I've been there. My wife knows the theory of cycle safety and helmets. And yet when my daughter's helmet became too small, I was coerced into buying a new one.
But we don't want to buy a helmet, we want to buy safety. So if the shops would offer cycle training nicely packaged (purple please for my daughter) on the same shelf, we would buy that instead. And we would get a product that works.
-
But we don't want to buy a helmet, we want to buy safety. So if the shops would offer cycle training nicely packaged (purple please for my daughter) on the same shelf, we would buy that instead. And we would get a product that works.
Unfortunately, where I work is outside London, and Cycle Training is almost unheard of, I do my best to ask the parents to pester their school in getting Bikeability as it should be compulsory for school to offer this.
-
OK, so Local LCC groups won't have the influence to change this. Surely this is where the central group should be getting involved too? In a "this isn't juat a local issue to you, you need to get this right, and the whole of london cycling is now watching you" sort of a manner. Councils hate big outside groups watching them do things, and do change things because of that.
Are there really no suggested design specs for cycle routes that cycling groups have come up with? Nothing about suggested widths? Nothing about how stupid it is to expect cylists to stop, cross a road at some really slow lights, and then have to do the same at the other end? really? there's no cycling campaign that dares to stick its neck out over large planning proposals like this and go "acutally, what you're offering there is shit, how about doing this?" And yes, I know that it's tough to find the time to do it. but maybe if someone found the time to do it for the bigge schemes, those drawing up the smaller ones might learn something, and get them right.
Does "Love London: Go Dutch" not have any design statements? This is a key site where the Mayor is putting in a lot of the cash, and it's not really up to the Go Dutch vision LCC promoted. Or do you think that it is? If not, why are LCC relying on MCC to be the ones standing up and shouting? I've seen nothing in the local papers from either of them, which is a death by silence.
Yes they do.repeatedly.the daft published guidelines on minimum widths etc years ago.
But what you get is this.
Scheme suggestions. Drawn up over months.
Go to scrutiny panel...clueless objectors. Scheme downgraded.scheme changed to fit views of office nodders.
Work done.
Work is lame.
Goes to safety audit.
Changes made.All by legions of fat old white men who never ride anywhere.
Over and out -
OK, so Local LCC groups won't have the influence to change this. Surely this is where the central group should be getting involved too? In a "this isn't juat a local issue to you, you need to get this right, and the whole of london cycling is now watching you" sort of a manner. Councils hate big outside groups watching them do things, and do change things because of that....
I can't see that LCC in Merton have so far grappled with the Rediscover Mitcham plans. I will draw their attention to it.
It is quite possible for this type of 'regeneration' scheme to go through without much transport scrutiny. In the consultation lots of people said they wanted more car parking very few mentioned cycle parking. So the plans have given them more car parking! At first glance some of the cycle facilities look half a****d and discontinuous at tricky junctions. Having a two way cycle track beside a one way motor road is known to create conflict at junctions. Personally I like the idea of opening up a bus and cycle street but I would have to know the area well to be sure.
Oliver is right about local relationships and local knowledge being the basis for getting local influence. Building relationships is a long game, but very well worth it. The key is to get accepted so that your local views are considered before and while they draw up the plans.
LCC doesn't have the resources to jump in and quickly identify the flaws in all such schemes, most of our knowledge and campaigning power lies in the volunteers at local level. We try to use our networks to support groups with expert knowledge and share practical advice. -
Well. It's hard to know what to reply. ASLs .......
Thirdly, they were devised in response to an existing state of affairs that people wanted to change (lack of stop line compliance by cyclists, cyclists mixing it up in traffic queues, which can have the effect of making queues move more slowly, and the hope that if cyclists were got to the front of the queue you'd get fewer left hooks, etc.). You go right ahead and try to show that ASLs are not the right response--it's not that easy. The problem is that there are no alternative 'standard' measures designed to address the above issues, so what are you going to come up with that makes a difference?
In Europe ASLs were developed to make cyclists more visible at junctions and also to give space where there is a demand for making offside (=right in UK and =left in EU) turns.
In London they began to be adopted after a coroner criticised the layout on Penton st, N1. A woman had been killed by a left turning skip lorry where there was a near side cycle lane which ended about 4 metres before the junction. The theory is that if there was an ASL she would have been visible at the front of the relatively small lorry.
There is no real evidence about how good they are, partly because serious injury crashes are relatively rare events and ASLs have never been properly enforced. When riding, I quite like them but I think I am aware that they don't reduce risk but tend to re-locate the risk area. Teaching cyclists and drivers how to use them well is difficult. -
I don't think this has been posted elsewhere:
Dan Black’s story
"Dan was left tri-plegic at the age of 22, following a collision with a car driver in 2009.
As if these life-shattering injuries weren’t enough, the police then spectacularly failed to deliver justice. Their report made no mention of the driver’s illegal manoeuvre immediately before the collision. Nor had they tested the driver’s eyesight at the crash scene, despite telling Dan’s parents they had done so. Instead, they made out that Dan himself was at fault for having inadequate lighting, even though his bike lights were fully compliant with British standards.
Their report also omitted any mention of Dan’s reflective clothing. This key piece of evidence had been cut off him at the crash scene by the paramedics, but was then disposed of by the hospital after the police failed to collect it.
In the end, the case was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service because it was deemed not to be ‘in the public interest’ and due to Dan’s ‘poor lighting’. This left Dan having to do all the evidence-gathering to demonstrate the driver’s negligence, before he could claim the compensation he now depends on for his long-term care.
Demand justice for injured cyclists – sign the Road Justice petition
Today, campaigners and victims of cycling incidents are meeting with Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) across England and Wales to hand in CTC’s first in a series of Road Justice reports. This one focuses on the role of roads policing in keeping cyclists safe and in ensuring injured cyclists get access to justice.
Every police force, serious collision investigation unit and road safety partnership has also been sent the report. Further Road Justice reports
are planned, looking at the roles of prosecutors and the courts respectively, and a further report on Scottish justice issues.Today’s report contains 8 case studies of cyclists who suffered serious injuries, including Dan's story. Their personal stories exemplify some of the all-too-common failings of roads policing in the aftermath of road collisions. These include: failure to attend a crash scene; automatically assuming an injured cyclist is at fault; failing to take timely witness statements; and failing to keep victims informed of case progress. Many more case studies, highlighting additional problems, are available on the Road Justice website.
Take action: Sign the petition demanding that all police forces implement the report’s recommendations.
http://www.e-activist.com/ea-campaign/broadcast.response.do?ea.url.id=155123&ea.campaigner.email=SdDmV%2FYbGD1A0mGuWCUucUe7u739gkPC&ea_broadcast_target_id=0The Road Justice report contains 10 recommendations to ensure that roads policing is properly resourced and carried out to high standards. This is vital both for reducing the dangers caused by irresponsible driving and to ensure that justice is done when it occurs. The legal system must signal clearly that any incident involving death or injury to a cyclist
will be treated with the utmost severity.Let’s make sure the police hear our demands and make changes that will effectively discourage bad driving and bring about real justice."
Sorry - tl;dr - just click on link and sign.
-
Mr Black:
A paralysed man who raised $33,000 for stem cell treatment that could help him walk again has given it all away to a disabled child.
Dan Black, from Wales, decided to sacrifice his own dream so he could help a local five-year-old boy get surgery to walk instead, the South Wales Argus newspaper reports.
Mr Black, 25, was paralysed in a bike riding accident in 2009 and has been wheelchair-bound ever since.
Family and friends rallied around Mr Black and helped raise the $33,000 for pioneering stem cell treatment, which is still in its trial phase and could be up to five years before it becomes available.
Then Mr Black heard about the plight of Brecon Vaughan who was born with condition called spastic diplegia cerebral palsy.
Brecon's family is trying to raise $100,000 for him to get surgery in the US which could help him walk immediately.
Brecon suffers from stiffness in his legs, poor balance and coordination and needs a walking frame to get around.
Mr Black said he gave the money to Brecon because he needed it more than him.
“I know for me that things aren’t going to get better any time soon,” he said.
“Brecon can definitely walk if he has the surgery. I wouldn’t wish being paralysed on anyone, so if I can help someone walk, I will.”
Brecon’s family have raised close to $20,000 for his surgery, and together with Mr Black’s donation, are more than halfway towards their goal.
Brecon’s father Rob Vaughan said he was incredibly grateful to Mr Black for his extraordinary generosity.
“Dan has given us a phenomenal amount of money. I don’t think it is even possible to say how grateful we are, or to put into words what it means," Mr Vaughan said.
“It is incredible. How do you even start saying thank you for something like that?”
A website dedicated to Brecon's charity fund can be visited here.
Source: South Wales Argus, Daily Mailhttp://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/07/12/14/43/paralysed-man-gives-donations-away
-
This is an interesting comparison of progress in sport cycling vs progress in infrastructure. Campaigners would do well to take note
http://adrianlordcycling.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/marginal-gains-for-cycle-planning.html?spref=tw&m=1
-
As yet another cyclist is killed on our streets today, the question of what we can each do, and do together plays on my mind. I wonder what flash rides actually achieve, yet it seems negligent these days not to bother.
There's obviously so much sympathy, sadness, anger and I expect a whole range of other feelings amongst the cycling community, including enormous fear that any one of us could be next but I honestly don't know what the best course of action should be.
Some times it seems that all the lobbying, meetings, petitions, demonstrations etc. we do as part of London Cycling Campaign and other organisations it meaningless. Clearly it's the people in power who need to take bolder action to protect us, but how to make them?
I just wanted to put that down in writing. Seeing so many people who give a shit on the rider down threads makes me wonder how we can collectively change the situation with HGVs on London roads. It's not rocket science after all.
-
Sadly I'm now starting to wonder if the chaps that were out riding round Kings Cross every weekend during the election weren't on to something. At the time I didn't support it. The promises of support weren't there from the politicians.
Those promises now are, and they are being broken. I don't believe for a second (although I freely admit that it's my own opinion, and as such is likely to be wrong) that Boris had read that much about "Love London: Go Dutch", or understood it's demands. I stongly suspected at the time that he only signed up at the point at which all other candidates had done so, and felt not doing so made him look bad. The LCC ride I think was also a big pushing point, as were Londoners on Bikes (LoB) - I know that Boris's team where in contact with them, and were slightly concerned by them.
Things that might help? Weekly disruptive rides at points that LCC or someone else has identified as dangerous? These shouldn't all be central. Maybe after a couple of goes, a day where cyclists try to target as many as we can at once. Make the city stop.
Sloganisation - something like "Boris - A mayor who cycles, not one for cyclists?", something snappy that sticks and hits at him personally. Boris will hit back, but he will do whatever you do if it paints him in a bad light. The evidence for that claim is there, make it stick.
Flyering at junctions - This is a bit of a lost art in some way,s but LoB found it very effective. Get something together, have dispersed colletion points that people can pick things up for it, and it will happen.
Get the cycle shops involved. When I spoke to them for LoB, many of them where cross that LCC seemed to want cash from them, but not offer a lot back (that might not be how LCC see it, but it was something that came up in chatting to LBS owners). They will display posters for you. Offer them something in return - we offered a spot on a map, which really pleased them. LCC should be able to do something much the same. Get the big chains to make pronouncements on how the roads in London aren't safe enough - Evans, Cycle Surgery, etc. have PR teams that are willing to help if they can see something in it for them, in this case, being associated with positive changes to get more people onto bikes, as the roads become safer. If deaths keep happening, new people stop wanting to ride, and current riders stop riding. If things are safer, the revers happens. You do need to sell it to them though, as they are risk averse. Having the LCC logo on artwork for it will help with that. They are also likely to want to be in on your map too.
I'm sure that there are more things, but these are things that I don't understand why they haven't been done. Or have they and the advances where rebuffed?
-
Also, challange local politicians to come out on the roads with you with representatives of local papers. And national papers. Ask police chiefs, heads of NHS services, etc.
Have the bikes and safety gear availiable to them so if they say they don't have their own you can say you have it. Maybe have a bike rickshaw if they say they can't cycle. Shame them into it. Shout loud when they don't want to talk. Councillors are actually generally in a precarious position, and so if pressure is shoved on them at public events, they don't like to be seen to refuse reasonable requests.
Lots of the people you really need to win over are in Local Government, not at city hall.
Realise that things can't get much worse, so we shouldn't fear them trying to make them worse.
-
Right, for your flyers, lets make the second ride bigger than the first.
Can someone come up with a design for flyers for this? Double sided, A6, print shop quaility PDF. Something that can be quickly handed out at junctions? I'd suggest a map on one side, with a meeting location, and more details on the other side.Thinking on this, singlesided A6 for self printing, or something that can be done onto business cards fast would be ideal really.
I'm at Souths for a short time around 6pm tonight if anyone wants to chat these things over.
Edit - Damn, the ride is tomorrow, which means it's going to be tricky to pull things together fast enough.
-
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/30417086/Posted%20places/Leaflet2.jpg should give you it
-
im gonna be there tommorrow.
will pass this on to all contacts, not many will come from dorzet but Ill try.
Felt today that there must be only this possible.
why in Spain and other countries can those societies show massive protests about serious issues like deaths! we need to come together for this to get heard. -
Because dedicated cycling space removes the HGV from the busy cycling route?
My wife is already wary of the idea of my daughter cycling except in specific 'safe areas' i.e. where there is no/little motor traffic. She's quite happy with the idea of me taking her toddle bike racing when she's big enough, or up to Herne Hill for racing, or driving her to Richmond park to cycle the trails there, but not happy for her to be on the roads as they are.
-
Because dedicated cycling space removes the HGV from the busy cycling route?
That's the thing, we already have a great quiet safe route from Morden to Central London before CS7, CS7 just quicken your journey despite increasing the risk.
people will continue using the main road (CS) to get to and from work, the majority of collision appear to be very predictable.
-
Yes, people use the CS's because they are on the direct main roads that they want to take.
What's the old alternative route? I'm sure it's still there, but I don't know what it is.
I rode almost the CS7 route into central london before it was put in as it was the fastest route, and the most obvious. The CS's are sucessful because they go point to point from near the start of your trip to near the end of it, and the traffice flows that include the bikes have priority at most junctions on them (vs the side roads I mean).
MrDrem
gegi
edscoble
deleted
rhb
charlie_lcc
Miss_Mouse
spindrift
skydancer-
Post a reply
About
Cycle campaigning
Posted by
@Oliver Schick
Speaking of single issue messages I noticed a large yellow and black advert along the side of an Arriva bus in Woking (not London I know) last night with a picture of a car and a bike with the text which read something like "Be seen. Don't ride in the gutter."