Cycle campaigning

In suburban areas, brilliant. But in urban environments in Holland and Copenhagen they still have the right hook conflict everywhere. .

I was in Amsterdam last week. It's the same as Berlin, a car will overtake to your left and wait before turning right so cyclists carry on before the cars turn. I saw no conflict in either city. Where are you a traffic engineer please?

In suburban areas, brilliant. But in urban environments in Holland and Copenhagen they still have the right hook conflict everywhere. Unless you're talking about over and underpasses at every junction, you cannot physically segregate at junctions. Only on the approaches to them. The difference is cyclists have legal priority to pass on the inside and vehicles must give way, combined with strict liability and a culture to boot. Also cyclists are banned from using the road when they have an adjacent facility. Are you aware of that? Would you be happy for that here too? Cyclists have the ear of the press and now is the time to sieze the moment and lobby the DfT for these changes, not Boris. Even if you still want the infrastucture, bare in mind it's been built up over decades over there. But segregation without the law change IMO in many urban situations is more dangerous.

ah, what rubbish. at junctions, you separate in time when you can't separate in space. that's what signals are for. you're as much a traffic engineer as i'm boris johnson.

I think thetrafficengineer is talking about potential for conflict. i.e. in suburban environments there's nothing physically preventing it in the design of roads, but the laws and culture mean that it's not an issue (at least not on the scale it is here).

^ This.

The risk is still there, especially when the cyclists in those cities tend not to slow down when they cross a junction where they have right of way.

ah, what rubbish. at junctions, you separate in time when you can't separate in space. that's what signals are for. you're as much a traffic engineer as i'm boris johnson.
I was responding to the request to "physically" segregate....

Anyway a couple of points on signals:

1. I'm afraid cyclists don't always adhere to red lights
   
2. There's nothing to stop cyclists using the traffic lane (as happens frequently on torrington place and bow). Unless of course you are also calling for a ban on cyclists using the road? Would require enforcement and fines too, you up for that?
   
3. Most side roads don't have signals. Unless of course you are calling for every single junction to be signalised? Good luck with that one
   
4. I know many cyclists don't care about causing gridlock, but most junctions in London are already running to capacity, time is a valuable commodity. We cause extra congestion, we get mass complaints from other motorists. We get issues with buses, with contracts, with the many thousnads of bus passengers, with taxis etc
   
   

So you see, its not that simple

I was in Amsterdam last week. It's the same as Berlin, a car will overtake to your left and wait before turning right so cyclists carry on before the cars turn. I saw no conflict in either city. Where are you a traffic engineer please?
Yes I know they do. Thats the culture and law at play, not the physical infrastructure which is the point I'm making. London

1. Not all drivers obey traffic lights, what is your point?
   
2. Many of us don't want segregation, but a change in road use culture and mutual respect between road users.
   
3. Drivers are left hooking cyclists, their behaviour needs to change.
   
4. It is large single occupancy metal boxes that clog up the roads, not bikes.
   
   

I am amazed someone with your lack of perspective has the occupation you claim to work in.

Yes I know they do. Thats the culture and law at play, not the physical infrastructure which is the point I'm making. London

Well, you said there was "conflict". I saw none in either city. In fact I was astonished at the courtesy shown.

this is some maddening, victim-blaming bullshit from the police this morning:

(telling people they should be wearing hi-vis and helmets, fining them for the state of their bikes, as if any of that would stop them being crushed like a bug under a left-turning dumper-truck)

http://t.co/TA6WOUp2OL

this is some maddening, victim-blaming bullshit from the police this morning:

(telling people they should be wearing hi-vis and helmets, fining them for the state of their bikes, as if any of that would stop them being crushed like a bug under a left-turning dumper-truck)

http://t.co/TA6WOUp2OL

The police love a bit of that. Frequently associate RLJing with lorry deaths, when the exact opposite is true in the vast majority of cases.

I wrote more about it here, I don't know if it's worth raising with the MPS at a higher level.

It is worth raising with the MPS. I will be speaking to someone from the cycle safety task force at a Tfl meeting tomorrow and will speak to him about this. (Again)

If someone goes to a rifle range and uses a rifle, a deadly weapon, he or she will use it with care and responsibility, knowing that, if there is an accidental discharge which kills or maims someone else, the defence that "I didn't see him" or "he should have been wearing a flak jacket or other body armour" or "he should have been wearing hi vis" will not prevail. Even the defence that the victim should not have been there won't work as the person with the rifle must ensure that it is only discharged in a safe manner.

When people drive large deadly lorries on the roads that should also take care to avoid hurting or killing anyone around them.

and the law agrees with that cliveo people who drive should take care. Avoid driving recklessly or dangerously.

It's hardly enforced since it would be impossible to catch every driver who is dangerous as there are too many of them and even when a driver is in court they often face sympathetic juries because the defendant will be an ordinary person, like them, who drives, and makes the odd mistake or suffers a momentary lack of attention, which also happens to them, so drivers are let off, even if they kill or maim someone, or verbally abuse someone, or terrify someone...

http://blog.evanscycles.com/commuter_urban/help-us-make-london-a-safer-place-to-cycle/

http://blog.evanscycles.com/commuter_urban/help-us-make-london-a-safer-place-to-cycle/
The founder of Evans Cycles, Federick Evans was killed in a road crash in 1944. His grandson, Michael, was killed by a 4x4 while cycling in Bromley in 2011.

I had no idea Michael was his grandson... Very sorry that he received no justice from Bromley police - very few cyclists do.. I have not been down Layhams Road since his death.

It's good that such a large chain is helping but I really wish the LCC and co would re-consider pushing for the partial segregation (the cycle lanes curbed off from the rest of the road) they keep asking for.

Yet again last night I was riding in the primary position and was forced into an emergency stop because a driver was trying to physically force me into the mouth of one of these segregated lanes. When I caught up to discuss the matter with them they kept shouting "you've got your own lane - get out of the road".

For me this is the whole problem with segregation - it enforces the idea in peoples minds that cyclists shouldn't be in the road. So those of us that don't want to get trapped in the gutter with all the broken glass end up being put in danger for riding where we are perfectly entitled to be.

So make them good enough that everyone wants to use them, non?

^ This.

Evans Cycles isn't doing it out of charity, hell they tried to push out a free Cycle Training course for every new bicycle, but cancelled due to not being profitable enough.

It's good that such a large chain is helping but I really wish the LCC and co would re-consider pushing for the partial segregation (the cycle lanes curbed off from the rest of the road) they keep asking for.

The LCC is for everyone. If you want to make your voice heard, join. Membership is a great deal whether you want to become actively involved or not. If you have time and inclination to become an activist, cycle campaigning is a very worthwhile activity (well, I would say that, wouldn't I, but I certainly believe so :) ).

What is going to be interesting in this country is that unlike for the Netherlands and Denmark, cyclists are permitted to use the carriageway where cycle tracks exist.

Depends on the definition of good I guess. I'd be more inclined to use them if they were twice/3x as wide, though that is just me. I remember a group (can't remember who) suggested complete separation for some roads, ie where some roads are in a grid pattern, such as zone 1, have the whole road closed to cars and signage point cyclists to their specific road. That idea did sound kind of appealing but seems to have gone quiet so must have run into trouble.

Neither option would conquer the idea that cyclists should get out of the road when there is segregation though.

@OS - I had considered it, but my personal situation at the moment would completely restrict me from doing more than typing things from a distance. And whilst this may sound selfish & I'm not knocking the LCC specifically; but I'd rather not join a group (and so give them my implied vote to talk for me) when I can't be actively involved.

I remember a group (can't remember who) suggested complete separation for some roads, ie where some roads are in a grid pattern, such as zone 1, have the whole road closed to cars and signage point cyclists to their specific road. That idea did sound kind of appealing but seems to have gone quiet so must have run into trouble.

Some of the London Cycle Network is almost like that minus the closure to motorised traffic.

They use smaller road that run parallel to says, CS7 while it take probably between 5 to 10 more minutes to cycle, is a lots quieter, easier and comfortable to ride on, especially when some road are a dead-end consisted of bollard on the middle of the road enabling only cycle traffic through.

@OS - I had considered it, but my personal situation at the moment would completely restrict me from doing more than typing things from a distance. And whilst this may sound selfish & I'm not knocking the LCC specifically; but I'd rather not join a group (and so give them my implied vote to talk for me) when I can't be actively involved.

That's fair enough, there are too many causes to get involved in them all. I was obviously also addressing thread readers quite generally. With more members, the LCC is stronger, even if they can't get involved personally.

So make them good enough that everyone wants to use them, non?

Or make the road use culture safer so they are not needed, non?

Oui, but I am of the opinion that we've been trying that for too long with no success.

It's going to take a lot of effort to get any changes, be they cultural or physical, so I'm putting my money on this particular horse.