Police spotting (junction watch)

'ah, lawless/above the law/arrogant etc.'

You describe Australians well..

I didn't even know we couldn't use it. I used to go down past Cycle Surgery. If a copper is there I guess I might have second thoughts now (if I remember this). I only ride that way once in a blue moon so it's not really a big issue? big issue? big issue?! for me.

Well, permeability (or lack of it) is a big issue in London; lack of it is one of the main reasons why people don't ride bikes. How big an issue for you it is depends on how much you are prepared to accept inconvenient diversions while using a distance-sensitive mode that enables you to read the urban environment much better than if you were on foot or if you were in a car or using public transport.

Was this initially for both buses and bikes and then redesignated as bus only?

No, this was a London Bus Priority Initiative project. I think the first drawings date back to 2005, and the contraflow has only just been completed. There was no prior contraflow permission for bikes (as there was no contraflow, natch). The one-way system in that area has obviously been there for a very long time.

You may perhaps have noticed that the signage took a while to arrive, but I haven't followed this closely, so I don't know about scheme progress.

More info here:

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/camden/othercons/bus38route1005/view

You describe Australians well..

Is there 'law' in Australia? Or do you mean what happens when someone lets them out?

Sorry, I meant that as cyclists will constantly be using it (as the restriction makes no sense whatsoever), they'll be able to make periodic spot checks (as they are doing), but not be able to consistently enforce it. I should have said "unworkable" again, as above.

Well, they could stick a policeman there night and day to guard it if they wanted to.

This sort of pointless restriction

I don't think it's entirely pointless. Without knowing the official reason, it is a very narrow lane, and with the constant oncoming traffic on the other side, mixing buses and bikes there creates potentially dangerous situation, as it's almost impossible for either party to overtake safely.

Of course everyone could just wait their turn and not overtake, but that's unrealistic, so forcing cyclists to take the very minor detour around high holborn seems sensible to me, if it reduces the chance of accidents on that section.

Well, they could stick a policeman there night and day to guard it if they wanted to.

That's what's unworkable. And how would the police stationed there catch everyone, e.g. if five cyclists came along at once?

I don't think it's entirely pointless. Without knowing the official reason, it is a very narrow lane, and with the constant oncoming traffic on the other side, mixing buses and bikes there creates potentially dangerous situation, as it's almost impossible for either party to overtake safely.

Of course everyone could just wait their turn and not overtake, but that's unrealistic, so forcing cyclists to take the very minor detour around high holborn seems sensible to me, if it reduces the chance of accidents on that section.
It is a pointless restriction (I wouldn't press on to argue that it's 'entirely' pointless, as obviously the scheme designers had their own points; my contention is that the disadvantages far outweigh the positives), although to explain the ins and outs of why takes a while (happy to over a pint, though). In a nutshell, there is no actual technical problem here that couldn't have been solved somehow during scheme design.

The problem with designing a scheme that you ban cyclists from is that they will use it, anyway, and as their use hasn't been 'designed in', this will often create greater hazards, e.g. like the one you outline--had cyclists been considered, the scheme should have taken a different shape.

The problem, as I mentioned above, is that the default position is not to consider cyclists, and it is quite tiresome to have to argue for exceptions every time, when cyclists should be considered as a matter of course.

By the way, negotiating the Holborn gyratory is anything but a 'minor detour'--it may not be a problem for you or me, but it is a major factor which keeps people from cycling, and negotiating the gyratory will be more hazardous than unlawfully using the bus contraflow (which of course I don't advocate). Remember that these detours all mount up--you have to make so many of them in London that a distance-sensitive modal choice like cycling is seriously disadvantaged by it. If you accept the Holborn detour, you might as well accept almost all of them, anywhere. They are all unacceptable and distort the natural shape of London to seriously warp the modal split of traffic here.

The problem with designing a scheme that you ban cyclists from is that they will use it, anyway, and as their use hasn't been 'designed in', this will often create greater hazards, e.g. like the one you outline--had cyclists been considered, the scheme should have taken a different shape.

Hmm, I see what you are saying, and I agree, but is it not possible that they were considered and a reasonable solution could not be found? Obviously I don't know.

The idea that cyclists will do what they want, and rather than change their behaviour the rules should be changed doesn't sit entirely well with me, but maybe that's just reality.

Hmm, I see what you are saying, and I agree, but is it not possible that they were considered and a reasonable solution could not be found? Obviously I don't know.

Well, in a sense it's always possible to find a reasonable solution to this sort of problem for cyclists--just make as many streets two-way as you possibly can. Or, minimally, design a wider contraflow bus lane. However, this always has an impact on motor vehicle capacity, which is considered more important. It depends on whether you consider it reasonable not to reduce motor traffic capacity in Central London.

The idea that cyclists will do what they want, and rather than change their behaviour the rules should be changed doesn't sit entirely well with me, but maybe that's just reality.

Cyclists should of course follow the rules, even unreasonable ones, but in practice people divide neatly into those who follow unreasonable rules and those who don't. It's just something about us that goes far beyond cycling. On a bike, you can mostly get away with not following the rules unless there is targeted enforcement. It's much better, since the modal share of cycle traffic should be increased, anyway, to design cycle use into your streets rather than design it out.

+1

So many of the problems experienced by cyclists (and pedestrians) in London (and so much of the ugliness inflicted on the city) come down to the single problem that it's incredibly hard to persuade those in positions of power to reduce the space devoted to private motor vehicles.

yesterday i was riding on A503 seven sisters road / camden road / holloway road junctions. absolutely awful. i got completely lost and isolated.

also yesterday i got a ticket for rlj. i was travelling east on old street crossing bunhill row / bath street junction.

the motorcycle cop was ok with me and seemed to appreciate my reasoning when i said that imo it seems safer to run the red than get embroiled with dangerous drivers by waiting for green.

anyway the upshot is i get a £30 to pay within 28 days or attend a cyclists / lorry drivers awareness event on wednesday morning at my local council offices where i get to sit in a lorry. ffs.

and there is the rub. because the authorities need to be seen to be doing something about cyclists getting killed by lorry drivers they have created these love ins. ffs again.

imo the irony is that it is those that rlj that are staying alive and those that stop at reds that are getting killed.

i wish boris et al were cleverer and braver or both. then they would take on the real issue. that our public realm is dangerous and those creating the danger should be addressed / regulated.

stop all these silly initiatives. we just want 20 mph please on every road not just the car parks.

and there is the rub. because the authorities need to be seen to be doing something about cyclists getting killed by lorry drivers they have created these love ins. ffs again.

Phil, I actually think that these initiatives can be very useful to educate cyclists. You have to consider that most people will know much less about what's going on than you. Events like these can point them towards cycle training, for instance. Naturally, parallel education needs to take place for drivers. Not surprisingly, this is picking up more slowly, but there are very promising initiatives by the London Borough of Lambeth which we are confident will be adopted elsewhere, as well as some good work being done by the Institute of Advanced Motorists.

imo the irony is that it is those that rlj that are staying alive and those that stop at reds that are getting killed.
I understand your frustration, of course, but what is your evidence for saying that it's 'those that stop at reds that are getting killed'?

A large percentage of crashes involving left hooks by lorries have happened when the flow concerned was at green.

Also, it is not those who stop at red who are getting killed, but those who for one reason or another find themselves in the wrong position relative to a turning lorry (or other vehicle). Whether or not they stopped at a light often doesn't come into it.

That you are safer RLJing is nothing but an urban myth that was created a few years ago. It is a completely unproven assertion. Of course it is generally possible to quite safely jump the lights at smaller junctions, but it is likewise also generally quite safe to wait at the lights. The reason why it's a successful urban myth is because it corresponds to what people feel when they get further away from cars (less of a feeling of being 'crowded in on' by cars, more breathing space).

i wish boris et al were cleverer and braver or both. then they would take on the real issue. that our public realm is dangerous and those creating the danger should be addressed / regulated.
I completely agree with your call for more to be done, but while we clearly need to reduce collisions, I still don't think that our public realm is 'dangerous'. The perception of danger is generally thought to greatly outstrip actual danger.

Personally, I don't have to motivate myself for campaigning by thinking that things are 'dangerous'--I don't think that they are. That things are far from good enough is more than enough motivation.

Curiously, saying that things are 'dangerous' doesn't seem to motivate people--they just seem to resign and withdraw.

stop all these silly initiatives. we just want 20 mph please on every road not just the car parks.
I really wouldn't advocate stopping multi-layered initiatives--there is no one silver bullet to improve things, not even 20mph (which is a very important agenda and is advancing). Different areas have to be tackled. There is of course a question of priorities, especially in view of shrinking funding. 20mph is as good a priority as any, and it can only be hoped that more cities will take a lead from Hull and Portsmouth, for example.

imo the irony is that it is those that rlj that are staying alive and those that stop at reds that are getting killed.

You mean I should be dead by now?

hi oliver,

i hear what you say about the need to stay positive.

but the fact is that very many people do say it is too dangerous to cycle.

certainly more than say it is safe.

and i just dont need some lorry drivers to tell me how and where to ride my bike.

it strikes me that they are saying hey cyclist you need to stay out of our way.

i am wondering where the health and safety executive and rospa are on road death and injury ?

they seem to be silent ?

Oliver

I have twice been hit from behind waiting at red lights

I have never been hit when going through a red light

Oliver

I have twice been hit from behind waiting at red lights

I have never been hit when going through a red light

And i've never been hit either way. It's hardly conclusive evidence...

hi oliver,

i hear what you say about the need to stay positive.

but the fact is that very many people do say it is too dangerous to cycle.

certainly more than say it is safe.

Of course. It is a major anomaly in this country. You'd almost never hear that on the Continent (even where cycling levels are low). It's the result of 80+ years of the pervasive "road safety" culture aimed at getting cyclists and pedestrians off the carriageways of the streets and roads. A good book to read on all this is "Death on the Streets" by Bob Davis.

"The streets/traffic/roads are dangerous" is both false and a perfect excuse not to be part of the solution. Of course road danger needs to be reduced--no-one can deny that there are dangerous and risky situations, brought about by entirely avoidable causes. However, people are caught in the double bind of on the one hand thinking that it's too 'dangerous' to cycle and on the other hand continuing to drive.

It is only by realising that danger is not all-pervasive and that there are very clear solutions to the problems that we can improve things. Continuing to perpetuate indiscriminate danger messages will never convince political will to invest in cycling--who would want to support something that's too 'dangerous'?

I am of course not just saying that for the sake of political lobbying. It's what I firmly believe, based on extensive experience of studying and trying to understand traffic and transportation.

Again, there's lots to do and we need all the help we can get.

and i just dont need some lorry drivers to tell me how and where to ride my bike.

it strikes me that they are saying hey cyclist you need to stay out of our way.

That's exactly what they are saying. They're obviously wrong. It's upsetting, of course, but why? Why would they be put out by someone riding their bike along the street? Surely they should be able to take it in their stride if they were calm, relaxed, and happy? It's hardly a major inconvenience not to be able to race up to the end of the next traffic queue, only to get stopped there.

The truth is that most of the time, people who shout this sort of thing are stressed and also hemmed in by prejudices with which they probably wouldn't agree if they thought about them. They are often helpless victims trying to fight back--but of course not against the people who victimise them and instead against people whom they think they can victimise.

The next time you have such an encounter, think about who is more stressed: they or you? If you allow them to transfer their stress to you, which is part of what they want, even if they are not aware of it, it might well be you. But otherwise be friendly and help them through their day a little bit. You're out riding your bike--you're probably having a far better time of it than they are. Try to show that to them.

i am wondering where the health and safety executive and rospa are on road death and injury ?

they seem to be silent ?

Well, I would say that ROSPA are not the people to appeal to. There's a stub of a discussion on other H&S stuff here:

http://www.lfgss.com/post1268815-36.html

May give some information--it's not total inactivity in this area, but of course, again, more can be done and need to be campaigned for.

Oliver
I have twice been hit from behind waiting at red lights
I have never been hit when going through a red light

I've fallen off my bike in lots of situations, with and without interaction from other road users.

Clearly cycling is just too dangerous for anyone to consider and should be totally banned.

Oliver

I have twice been hit from behind waiting at red lights

I have never been hit when going through a red light

And i've never been hit either way. It's hardly conclusive evidence...

I didn't read James as presenting this as conclusive evidence?

I've never been hit from behind, either, although I have seen a female cyclist getting hit by a car, damaging her rear wheel.

I've been hit from behind by cars and bikes. I've run into cars from behind. Cycling is evil and needs to be banned.

I vote for some torturing before the banning. :D

The Po Po are all over this morning, be on your guard I saw at least 5 people being pulled from old street to Holborn.

hi oliver,

yep i share your thoughts you made in your last post - yes i think some people are using the danger thing as an excuse for inaction and yes the perception of danger is often worse than the reality.

but on sat evening a driver deliberately cut across me (and others who were driving mpv's (two lanes of traffic)) to turn left. so much so that i had to brake. (i was going straight on.) a less experienced rider might have been in trouble / more intimidated. he was racing for the green before it turned red / being v pushy. but that kind of proves my point about rlj's and danger. i just want to get away from these people. and with a rlj one avoids the left turners and i get 200 / 300 / 400 m of 'monster free' environment.

(and that kind of incident can put off a novice / less robust individual from cycling. and i surmise that is why a significant proportion of riders are male and young and therefore less intimidated by such occurrences).

and / but i think 20 mph (in built up areas) is the silver bullet. i think that over a generation that will change the default mode of travel from mpv to cycling and walking. and that critical mass will then force change on all the other shortcomings in the design of our local thoroughfares. and noise and carbon output pollution per person will drop significantly. amen.

anyway back to the here and now i will attend the lorry / cyclist awareness event tomorrow out of curiosity.

and i will post on here how it goes.

i will, of course, try and remain polite.....

but i am not taking any rubbish talk / fuzzy logic from these people. if necessary i will ride away and pay the £30 fine.

maybe see you tomorrow at easts ?

ok. a pledge.

i will behave at the do da do da tomorrow am so that i dont have to pay the £30.

i will then make a donation of £30 to the roadpeace charity. as soon as i get paid which i hope is on friday.

significant proportion of riders are male and young and therefore less intimidated by such occurrences).

The vast majority of people seeking Cycle Training through their local boroughs/TFL are women. Mostly 20 to 35 yrs old but quite a few in their 40s and 50s. It's an interesting question, to which there is no clear answer, as to why women are more willing than men to take this step, to ask for help and to approach cycling safely in London through this route. I don't believe it is because they are more intimidated. I think the experiences are the same but the responses are different.

Blokes asking for help?

Sure.