Boris bikes and cycle superhighways - your views needed

I killed a cat last year. Mind you, he should have looked before walking out between two parked cars.

London is badly designed and equiped for all modes of transport - driving around it is as much of a nighmare as cycling, which is a legacy of the fact that its a very old city where most of the residents current needs for transportaton were not even a consideration when it was built.

When we all bang on about how great foreign cities are for cycling in, a lot of them had bicycles taken into account when the road networks were designed.

I dont see any way of getting decent cycle lanes such as the Copenhagen one mentioned to work in London, without some serious redesign, upheaval and massive amount of invsetment, together with several years of works that would bring London to a halt.

To me the answer in London is better training for cyclists and drivers alike - most accidents are not caused by the road layout, but by people riding or driving like idiots

@ Extra Forte
No, it's okay. I wouldn't expect many people to want segregated lanes on this forum. People here are already well used to cycling on the busy roads we've got. And I know people on here want to go *fast. *So do I, in fact. It's just that I want other things too. I'd quite like a city where my future kids can cycle to school or live in a city that doesn't have the worst air pollution in Europe.

As for the space, yeah, London's streets aren't as wide as some cities on mainland Europe. And our cycle lanes wouldn't be as wide as some of them in Copenhagen. But I refuse to believe building a usable network across the city is impossible. After all, vast acres of our roadspace are occupied simply by parked cars.

Of course, this is all probably never going to happen, as it would mean taking away some space from motorised traffic. But it doesn't mean I won't ask for it!

@Oliver Schick
No, apologies - having re-read my comments above, I wasn't clear. It looks like I'm against against enforcing a 20mph limit. I'm not. Though it might have been fun, trying to argue it in some convoluted way...

However, it would require a lot of political and persuasive effort. So I don't think it's what I'd demand first. I'd always support first proper separate routes. But given how unlikely that is, I'd probably then support introducing a strict liability law.

.

@Oliver Schick
No, apologies - having re-read my comments above, I wasn't clear. It looks like I'm against against enforcing a 20mph limit. I'm not. Though it might have been fun, trying to argue it in some convoluted way...

However, it would require a lot of political and persuasive effort. So I don't think it's what I'd demand first. I'd always support first proper separate routes. But given how unlikely that is, I'd probably then support introducing a strict liability law.

Then you're not aware that 20mph has made tremendous progress in recent years and is getting increasingly accepted, and that 'proper separate routes' would require far more political and persuasive effort. I agree that stricter liability would be a great thing. Do get involved in campaigning if you're interested in this sort of issue--which borough do you live in?

for those who don't believe you can fit decent cycle paths/lanes on london roads...

http://hembrow.eu/cycling/comparisons.html#comp

it's physically possible - easy, even, in some places. you could make an ace cycle route from brixton to waterloo, for example..

of course, the politics of losing a few on-road parking spaces is another question. but it's not an impossible fight...

and the works are relatively small - because (unlike for say, trams..) you don't have to dig anything up...

Hembrow's stuff on this is just funny--shockingly uninformed. :)

why?

(anyway, hembrow may be a bit beardy, but he has a mate who has a pedal-powered decapitator....

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2010/09/steves-air-trike.html )

Long story. I'm always happy to explain over a pint. In a nutshell:

• This is London, my friend.

• HTFU.

Sorry, lame joke. Better in a nutshell:

It's all very facile to compare street widths, but that tells you nothing useful. And it's beyond ridiculous to imply that the similar width of Oxford Street to Spui in The Hague is in any way an indicator that it could be possible to have segregated cycle tracks in Oxford Street. They may say that it's only for argument's sake that this is shown, but they have to at least run the risk of being taken seriously, or asked which planet they live on. :)

Also, different places require different solutions. It's all very nice for people in the Netherlands to think that their traditional ways should be applied everywhere else, but London is different by a multitude of factors. People don't generally understand the huge complexity of London unless they've actually tried to do some campaigning in it. It takes quite a lot of experience. There's nothing 'easy' about putting in such facilities in London.

Anyway, I try not to get involved in segregation debates, as it's a massive non-issue.

Then you're not aware that 20mph has made tremendous progress in recent years and is getting increasingly accepted, and that 'proper separate routes' would require far more political and persuasive effort. I agree that stricter liability would be a great thing. Do get involved in campaigning if you're interested in this sort of issue--which borough do you live in?

If that's the case, I'm glad to hear.

Politcal capital and goodwill to cyclists seems to me limited. If 20mph is increasingly accepted, and does not require significant amounts of either, then even better. Bring it on. Though if we are indeed referring to "20 mph on all the network", surely this would take some time?

As for getting involved, no not yet. The problem is no group I've come across is campaigning for separate infrastructure. Until I'm convinced otherwise, I'm inclined to agree with this:

http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-integrationist-became.html

Who knows, perhaps I'm just being naive though I'd prefer to think of myself as idealistic... I live in Camden by the way.

(And no I didn't know that about 20mph, so thanks for the heads up).

If that's the case, I'm glad to hear.

Politcal capital and goodwill to cyclists seems to me limited. If 20mph is increasingly accepted, and does not require significant amounts of either, then even better. Bring it on. Though if we are indeed referring to "20 mph on all the network", surely this would take some time?

As for getting involved, no not yet. The problem is no group I've come across is campaigning for separate infrastructure. Until I'm convinced otherwise, I'm inclined to agree with this:

http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-integrationist-became.html

Who knows, perhaps I'm just being naive though I'd prefer to think of myself as idealistic... I live in Camden by the way.

That stuff isn't worth taking seriously. To claim that 'The Netherlands is the leading cycling nation in the world and it’s all down to segregated infrastructure.' is not even naïve. The Netherland have had more than 35 years of determined government support in all sorts of ways. There are lots of other factors, e.g. lack of car industry in the Netherlands and hence little home-grown interest in promoting motor traffic (still not particularly successful in suppressing it, only somewhat less unsuccessful, with a 42% or so modal share of car traffic). However, the single biggest factor to facilitate cycling is simply the very short average trip lengths in the Netherlands--it's still a very well-planned country. I could go on, but these people are essentially spreading misinformation owing to some kind of ideal world delusion.

hmm.. maybe one can talk high/low quality infrastructure, rather than segregation..

when thinking about these questions, i always have my mother in mind (bless her gray hairs..). she's 62. she'd like to cycle, but she doesn't dare. the thing is, i can't tell my mother to htfu. i've tried. she takes it badly...

anyway, i suspect my mother is like hundreds of thousands of others. (like many, many of those who turn up at the skyride..).. she's afraid of mixing it with buses, and artics, and multiple-lane traffic, and turning right. she certainly wouldn't cycle on those smurfways...

the 20mph zones help, sure - but they're not enough. she can only go half a mile in any direction before she gets to a main road, and she's lost...

i think she should have the right to cycle safely (and to feel safe cycling) to more or less anywhere in the city - just as she can walk anywhere safely. and i don't see any way to achieve this other than a system of cycle lane/paths along busy sections that don't allow encroachment by traffic, and that allow her to cross main roads safely... (as well as the 20mph limit, and vehicle liability in quieter areas..)

i don't see any reason why the dutch model is so inappropriate. london commuting distances are long, for some - but for the rest, it's a set of villages. i think many, many people are doing journeys of 2 or 3 or 4 miles.. the dutch just had the political will, in the seventies, to start to say, if we build it (the good infrastructure) people will come... i am sure, if london did the same, the same would happen.

and, you're absolutely right. london politics is utterly fucked if you're trying to make anything happen from the ground up. on the other hand, if you're working top-down you can raze half of east london for an olympics that no-one wants. so the arguments need to be made to the people who have power and money and are looking for an opportunity to make a mark...

and, finally, if someone is committed to building 'superhighways', and right now they're building confusing and dangerous lanes of blue paint, , surely there's good reason to try to persuade them to build something of quality that people like my mother might dare to use?

(and i don't believe the uk has a car industry, either, these days...)

What I know is, London's streets are so narrow that they have taxi ranks in the middle of the road because there's nowhere else to put them. And the traffic is so bad, it's extra important to have three traffic lanes in each direction. If you reduced it to two in each direction + cycle paths, how are drivers supposed to cut across two lanes of traffic to turn off?

Of course there are going to be places where you can't fit a superhighway, but the Smurfway infrastructure is a joke, especially where it's a painted stripe in a normal traffic lane. What's so super about the E&C bypass and leaving the roundabouts as they are?

20 mph limit across all London would suck.
I'm not the fastest cyclists out there by any means and exceed 20mph most days. Or do the fans of this not think it would/should include bikes? I also drive, most often at quiet times, and to be limited to 20mph on largely empty, wide streets would be a complete boring pain in the arse and help no-one.
It's really worrying that according to that one survey only 3% of people dont's think cycling is dangerous. More should be done to highlight that it is safe.

20 mph limit across all London would suck.
I'm not the fastest cyclists out there by any means and exceed 20mph most days. Or do the fans of this not think it would/should include bikes? I also drive, most often at quiet times, and to be limited to 20mph on largely empty, wide streets would be a complete boring pain in the arse and help no-one.
It's really worrying that according to that one survey only 3% of people dont's think cycling is dangerous. More should be done to highlight that it is safe.

Well, how about 30mph on A roads and 20mph elsewhere or something? IIRC speed limits do not apply to bicycles.

Cyclists do not need to go above 20mph in built up, heavily pedestrianised areas. And most of them don't. Most of them also overestimate the speed they are capable of.

i like cycling in traffic, i want the olympics, london is making a concerted effort to make things better for cyclists, change comes slowly so lets say thanks Borris et al for trying

Survey results (the following is a cut and paste) from the website

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCus-HrF8HI&feature=player_embedded

http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/pedal-power

Recommendations Our report asks the Mayor and TfL to report back on how they are addressing issues raised by the committee, including:

• Problems with registration, charges and poor service from Serco’s customer service centre, as well as a lack of bikes and available docking points;
  
• Greater consistency in the features on future Cycle Superhighways, for example the width of the lanes, advanced stop lines and junction improvement; and
  
• The potential to increase the amount of cycle parking.
  

Have you seen the Boris Bike journey info some bloke got through freedom of information?

168mb of journey records. 25mb zipped.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/one_million_barclays_cycle_hire

This is the same info mentioned on the other thread, I think? http://www.lfgss.com/thread46732-22.html#post1868976 But with more background.
Time for a merge perhaps.

Boris Bikes, or Barclays Bikes - hardly a nice choice.

Ken bikes or Red bikes

Nobody knows what the hell you are talking about if you say Ken bike; call them Boris Bikes and that then gives you a chance to explain that Boris did not, in fact, come up with the idea.

Ken bikes