Cycle campaigning

Witness the packing of the Dedicated Space workshop at the AGM on Saturday. Other workshops, such as the 20mph one to which I contributed, were poorly attended. Still, we got a lot done, and it was a very constructive exercise.

I was in the Dedicated Space workshop. I foolishly thought it would be productive. It was torture. I wish I had done a different one.

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/dumbass-lcc-bike-lane-on-stratford-high-street.142505/page-3#post-2737860

it's kicking off over on a "fun and friendly online cycling community"

"Without high-quality separate facilities for cycling on main roads there will never be mass cycling in this country because people will be too scared to cycle

There's not a single post-industrialised country in the world that has achieved mass cycling any other way

I would argue that the pro-motoring lobbyists are delighted when cyclists insist on sharing the road, because that means more space for their cars

Sorry you don't agree, but the arguments over segregation are over – separation is essential on busy roads and at large junctions, or there will be no mass cycling

Kind Regards

Mike

Mike Cavenett
Communications Manager
London Cycling Campaign"

oh :-(

What's the current issue of using the bus lane as a cycle lane? I found those to work brilliantly and feel very comfortable to take primary on without worried about left hook/pulling out.

Pity it seemed that LCC it dead set on segregation or nothing.

What's the current issue of using the bus lane as a cycle lane? I found those to work brilliantly and feel very comfortable to take primary on without worried about left hook/pulling out.

One issue, although it's hardly unsolvable, is that bus lanes can get quite trashed in a way that bike lanes are unlikely to e.g., CS7

trashed in what way? I use CS7 regularly, the width of it allow a larger safety margin should the unexpected happened, just slightly wider than the Copenhagen cycle path without being forced to stay on it.

They get less trashed than the painted superficial blue cycle path, there are already certain section that have disappear due to wear and tear of the HGV that occasionally go over it (due to shop nearby like Tesco).

It would have been easier to pool the money into maintaining the bus lane as part as a proper cycle lane to, bus drivers in London are generally considered to be the best in London.

Forget about segregation and road apartheid. Clearly a combination of sensible infrastructure, legislation and training for cyclists and drivers alike is the only way forward; it our culture that need to change.

Dare I say, I near enough agree with Ed :

trashed in what way? I use CS7 regularly, the width of it allow a larger safety margin should the unexpected happened, just slightly wider than the Copenhagen cycle path without being forced to stay on it.

Massive potholes the last time I was on it. As in, swallow-your-front-wheel-face-to-tarmac size. Regardless of this specific example, it just inevitable that shared-use lanes will take more hammer than bike only lanes. Loss of paint on a cyclepath is hardly a massive issue.

Dare I say, I near enough agree with Ed :

Quoted for motherfucking posterity.

Massive potholes the last time I was on it. As in, swallow-your-front-wheel-face-to-tarmac size. Regardless of this specific example, it just inevitable that shared-use lanes will take more hammer than bike only lanes. Loss of paint on a cyclepath is hardly a massive issue.

This is why the bus lane are suggested as they often take less hammering than the other lane, I'm not aware of any massive potholes on CS7 currently other than on certain junction where it's inevitable due to it's layout, the only section I didn't commute further on is beyond Elephant and Castle.

This is why the bus lane are suggested as they often take less hammering than the other lane, I'm not aware of any massive potholes on CS7 currently, the only section I didn't commute further on is beyond Elephant and Castle.

Seems unlikely. Road wear is proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. Buses are heavy, constantly stopping and starting and pulling into the kerb so they're likely to wear the carriageway pretty severely.

I recall Oilver (or Charlie) whom argue that the bus actually play a small roles in the erosion of the road surface, but not very convinced by it as there are bus-only section that show erosion (which is likely due to the tarmac itself not maintained for such transport).

What's the other cost effective way of providing a comfortable route? the bus lane between Clapham North and Stockwell were wide, comfortable and fast for all kind of cyclists to take despite the increase number of motorcyclists using it.

I think it is that per person in a bus the road wear is a lot less than the equivalent people in single occupancy cars.

Pity it seemed that LCC it dead set on segregation or nothing.

The LCC is NOT dead set on segregation or nothing. That's an over-simplification of a very complex policy area.

"Pity it seemed that LCC it dead set on segregation or nothing."

"The LCC is NOT dead set on segregation or nothing. That's an over-simplification of a very complex policy area."

I hear you Bill, I haven't got a fucking clue where LCC stands, but I hear you.

Scoble is kinda right though, it seems like LCC is dead set on segregation, seems being the key word... Please trust me, agreeing with Ed doesn't come easy, in fact the mere thought is making my physically ill. So please tell me he's wrong. Or better yet in straight forward easy to understand layman's terms for those of us not able and willing to spend our entire life ploughing through LCC policies and proposals, where exactly do LCC stand in terms of road apartheid segregation?

"Ceterum censeo Edscobli esse delendam."

I hear you Bill, I haven't got a fucking clue where LCC stands, but I hear you.

Scoble is kinda right though, it seems like LCC is dead set on segregation, seems being the key word... Please trust me, agreeing with Ed doesn't come easy, in fact the mere thought is making my physically ill. So please tell me he's wrong. Or better yet in straight forward easy to understand layman's terms for those of us not able and willing to spend our entire life ploughing through LCC policies and proposals, where exactly do LCC stand in terms of road apartheid segregation?

"Ceterum censeo Edscobli esse delendam."
If you "haven't got a ****ing clue", why are you agreeing with Scoble about this? Have you ever actually been to a LCC meeting or visited their website yourself? No one is willing/able to spend their whole life trawling through campaigning docs (not even Oliver), nor do they need to. My experience is that yes, there are mixed, sometimes polarised views, it is a complex subject, without a singular, straight forward solution, but it always has been and bitching about LCC or any other group on here rather than getting involved directly isn't going to achieve much, is it?

Furthermore, by using a heavily loaded term such as "apartheid" you are effectively reinforcing the divisive, biased, somewhat righteous attitude that has permeated these campaign threads recently.

For the record, I do not advocate segregation as THE SOLUTION. Nor do I think LCC is a flawless campaign group. But it's not appropriate or reasonable to suggest people merely get some cycle training and start riding with the motor traffic - most non-cyclists are never going to be persuaded to do this no matter how happy the rest of us are to do so.

Perhaps read this for a better understanding of where LCC stands at present: http://lcc.org.uk/articles/why-ive-put-a-motion-to-the-london-cycling-campaign-agm-setting-out-our-policy-on-dedicated-space-for-cycling

I hear you Bill, I haven't got a fucking clue where LCC stands, but I hear you.

Scoble is kinda right though, it seems like LCC is dead set on segregation, seems being the key word... Please trust me, agreeing with Ed doesn't come easy, in fact the mere thought is making my physically ill. So please tell me he's wrong. Or better yet in straight forward easy to understand layman's terms for those of us not able and willing to spend our entire life ploughing through LCC policies and proposals, where exactly do LCC stand in terms of road apartheid segregation?

"Ceterum censeo Edscobli esse delendam."

"One of the design mantras repeated by several of their experts was "mix where possible, segregate where necessary". That of course opens up a whole area of definitions. Some of which were addressed in Saturday's LCC agm. Others are debated amongst active members in our policy and engineering groups."

From Charlie's post, on previous page.

I retract my previous concerns about lack of space to create segregated cycle lanes everywhere. I had not realised how simple it would be to solve the problem. All we need is a Kathmandu style road widening program.

http://everestandthetoenail.com/tag/kathmandu-road-widening/

Just decide how wide a road needs to be to include a pavement, motorised traffic and a segregated cycle lane, and then knock the front off any building that encroaches into our new standard road width.

@MM & BB

I'm confused, as are many fellow tossers out there... Arguably that's our problem, but if there is no real consensus within the organisation combined with the fact that LCC simply can't communicate their views in plain language in order for the average village idiot to understand them, what hope in hell have we got of putting cycling campaign at the forefront of the political agenda, be that in London or the country as a whole, let alone the Houses of Parliament?

I withstand that Scoble is kinda right - may the Lord have mercy on my soul - it does seem... kinda, seem and kinda being the keywords, that LCC is set on segregation, thus the catchy "mix where possible, segregate where necessary" motto. The question is, where exactly is it possible to mix, and where is it necessary to segregate? And please don't expect me, or anyone else for that matter, to attend an LCC meeting in order to understand.

"Ceterum censeo Ed Scoble esse delendam."

PS@MM
Please not that the term "apartheid'" was crossed out.

Sadly the quote from the LCC's communication officer indicates that they are demanding segregation as inclusion does not work especially for busy roads. This is very much at odds with the recent research that showed cycling was the predominant mode of transport at Old St during peak travel hours.

There are very mixed messages being given out.

That's my point, for those who's not up to date on the LCC's agenda, they give the impression that it's segregated or nothing, especially the recent change on CS2 which look even more confused with it's Copenhagen Left.

If you're looking for easy answers to a complicated problem, then stop looking, you won't find them. And ignore people that make out that there are easy answers.

When does the LCC think there ought to separated space: http://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/5906/original.pdf?1376047072

TL;DR any road with 2000 passenger car units per day on it.

James' point about Old Street: yeah, more people are cycling than ever before. But how many more might cycle if the road conditions were less hostile?

Jack talked to me about the AGM etc on last week's Bike Show. Some of the issues you guys are raising are addressed there: https://soundcloud.com/georgio8/the-bike-show-21-10-13-jack

The LCC appear to have confused "when" with "where"...

Some detailed opinion about 20mph 2000pcu here.

http://rachelaldred.org/writing/20mph-2000pcu-using-it-for-local-campaigning/

She highlights Hackney as somewhere where changes have been implemented that move towards that goal. Though I think it is important to realise that borough has not been dominated by campaigns for strict segregation, Rachel picks a good example of a road that has been freed up for bikes but car access has been restricted as somewhere where infrastructure is working.

Good to see the distinction between 20mph limits and the speed people actually drive.