Cycle campaigning

This thread has brought up far too many points for me to comment on everything, so just briefly on the usual 'controversy':

(1) The 'debate' between 'segregation' and 'non-segregation' (or a hundred different variants of the same simplistic and poorly-understood idea is a non-debate. Both ideas mix up a number of things and are necessarily intertwined.

(2) 'Filtered permeability' is what the concept of 'closing roads' is most often called, although there are other terms. That is, you filter out certain modes of transport by means of 'modal filters'. The idea that you end up with a coarse-meshed network of streets for motor traffic (main streets for the most part) and a fine-meshed network for the access modes (primarily walking and cycling).

(3) Without the filtering, you can still ensure that a transport network is permeable ('maximum route choice, minimum diversion') for cycling. A lot of London isn't--a one-way street isn't permeable in both directions, a junction with banned turns isn't.

(4) Permeability and filtered permeability, technical as the ideas may sound, are the only traffic management measures which have been consistently associated with significant increases in cycling modal share. Nothing else apart from a change in overall political culture, which can include political will, social culture, legal improvements, or economic factors, and a myriad of other small measures, has ever done this.

(Note that increasing modal share has become associated with sidepath segregation largely by accident--a lot of Dutch cycle tracks are simply contraflow cycle tracks (or two-way tracks in one-way streets). Whereas in London streets were made one-way to result in two kerbsides for car parking, in the Netherlands streets were often made one-way for motors while preserving permeability and reserving only one kerbside for car parking. Another recent example is in New York City, where a few cycle tracks, e.g. in Prospect Park West, are two-way in one-way streets. While Dutch transport policy is definitely better than UK transport policy, they have also greatly expanded the motorway network and built a lot of roads, so they are far from perfect, and we have a fair few advantages over here, too.)

Ah, I didn't see your last post before mine, Niall.

For once, Oliver, you explained it more succinctly than me :-)

New York got me thinking. Are there any ex-railway routes in London that could become cycle routes?

I think the Cycling Embassy is a bit different from other campaign groups in that their aim is to work towards cycling becoming a normal form of transport for everyday people who don't necessarily consider themselves to be 'cyclists'.

All cycle campaigning organisations want cycling to be normal--'making cycling normal' is cycle campaigning in a nutshell.

It's basically what happened in Holland, Belgium, Copenhagen etc.

Not so much in Belgium or in Denmark, to the best of my knowledge.

Some streets were simply closed to motor vehicles. Some were made "shared" - I think this latter is the norm, but I personally believe you need Strict Liability laws in place to make shared space work for cyclists and pedestrians.

No, I don't think you do (by the way, people talk about 'stricter liability' ('strict' liability would mean that in a collision of sail with steam, the steamer would automatically be liable; 'stricter' means that the onus is on them to show that they are not liable (which is fair, as the sailing party is not at fault in the vast majority of cases). Right now, it is generally the injured party, who may have passed out, been unable to gather witnesses, etc., who has to prove the steamer's liability.

I've discussed this idea with Oliver before. Hackney have actually done it with a few short stretches, such as the back road from London Fields to the Town Hall.

That's Goldsmith's Row, and we're very proud of it. Wait for Phase 2, which is about to go on site if it hasn't already. It'll be pretty. And most credit of course goes to Hackney's excellent officers and politicians.

(Note that this is both a 'shared use' scheme (slightly different from the idea of 'shared space') as well as an example of modal filtering.)

The City have done it with that bit from Southwark Bridge to Poultry. Tower Hamlets have done it in Poplar.
Filtering has been done all over the London. The best example is in De Beauvoir Town, but Lower Clapton north of Powerscroft Road also has it. There are others, e.g. parts of Barnsbury. Generally, a lot of historic rat-running was treated by means of 'road closures' (which often didn't permit cycle access, e.g. high kerbs, etc.). This was mostly not doen thoroughly enough, so that rat-running was often merely shifted one street further along.

Counter-intuitively, models show that it can actually improve motor traffic flow too - there was a thought-provoking study that suggested it would be better for motorists if Blackfriars bridge was closed to them. I think the idea is that although the journey may be longer, it's quicker because it is not interrupted so many times by cars joining from newly closed roads, and in addition everyone's going the same way.

That can certainly happen; studies show that modal filtering can cause 'evaporating' motor traffic of up to one third of existing motor traffic flows. Basically, a lot of pointless trips (trips that could easily be made by a more suitable mode) simply shift to other modes--some people drive distances that they could walk in the same time. The economically-important trips tend to remain, as they can't be avoided.

If a road is going to be ruined by narrowing, making it one-way, closing off one end, closing an exit, etc, (such as outside the Roebuck) I would consider closing it to motor vehicles entirely. At first this needs nothing more than a road sign and maybe a plastic barrier such as those on the "ring of steel", then later it can be made pretty with planting, blockwork, etc. You could at that point install droppable bollards to allow emergency vehicles through, and equip the vehicles with the means to drop them automatically when running on blues and twos.

It can indeed be very quick and easy to install such measures, as demonstrated a few years ago by the speed with which the City put in place the 'Ring of Plastic', which took all of a week-end.

The next, and more adventurous stage would be to consider new roads for closure. For example, why not ban motor vehicles from the Strand? You can route everything down the Embankment via Northumberland Ave or Temple Place. Could we implement two-way running on Gower St and remove motor traffic from Tottenham Court Rd?

You're probably aware that the latter is going to happen soon.

Just to make clear why I think the cameras idea is a non-starter:

The thing about average speed cameras is that they are splendidly and almost completely effective in reducing speed to the posted limit.

Average speed cameras have proven very effective in some circumstances, but they are certainly not to be applied indiscriminately.

But with such low levels of non-compliance they are not revenue raisers, and they are very expensive to install and operate, so it has to be economically worth it. They are designed to limit continuous average speed, not maximum speed in a stop-start situation.

As a result I cannot think of many (or any) London roads which could be effectively policed by pairs of average speed cameras.

Yes. Tower Bridge is one. Very high levels of motorist compliance.

I'm not a big fan of techno-fixes quite generally; while vertical deflection (humps, cushions, etc.) clearly reduces crashes and saves lives, I find it annoying that it attacks the very useful principle of a road or street, a flat surface on which it is easiest to travel by mechanised carriage. I'd replace 20mph zones with systematic and consistent filtered permeability. With relatively small zones, high burst speeds by motor vehicles would be quite unlikely. You could still implement such a limit, but it wouldn't really be necessary on filtered streets. However, it would be very useful on more major streets (the 'coarse-meshed network') which could not be filtered.

For once, Oliver, you explained it more succinctly than me :-)

New York got me thinking. Are there any ex-railway routes in London that could become cycle routes?
Well, there's the Parkland Walk and other remnants of the old rail line to Alexandra Palace (and that doesn't offer such a useful connection), but apart from that, no, I think, but I'm not an expert on that. Certainly, before the East London Line was extended along the Broad Street Viaduct, one idea that came up regularly was to turn this into a cycle route. Disused London rail routes are mostly underground. :)

Again, doubt it as they weren't the most practical cars compared to Range Rovers, it's the fashion and current trends rather than speedbump.

I for one am in no doubt that vertical deflection would have caused more 4x4s (and certainly generally better car suspension; most newer cars can seemingly be driven over humps without slowing down at all), but I have no actual evidence for this view.

Disused London rail routes are mostly underground. :)

Thread derailment!

Underground cycle routes! Whooo!

As you were

^this
And tube derailment.

Bridges are a great example of where average speed cameras can work, and as the 20mph limit on most of them is for protecting the fabric of the bridge as opposed to the users of it I guess there is a viable economic case for doing the others too.

I am aware of the Tottenham Court Rd scheme, but I'm not actually sure if it will work, and I don't like making cyclists share with speeding buses.
I can't think why they don't do the Strand though. At the moment it is so useless as a road that there's no point in leaving it open.

Listen to you you all. You're all banging on about changing everything apart from the cyclist again.

I know what you're talking is important and necessary and this is not your intention but you're making it sound like cyclists are victims and not ultimately responsible for their personal safety.

Maybe this is one of the reasons we have such difficulty finding ears to listen to us?

Dan, rest assured that I'm 100% in favour of cycle training and certainly against 'cyclist inferiority complex'. Street design is not everything by any stretch of the imagination, but there is definitely still a lot of work to do on that in London.

I know this Oliver.

I just don't think the campaign groups and their supporters are thinking too much about how they come across to other cyclists and the parties they are trying to get to listen.

I'm bringing my argument right back round to the beginning now (sorry). I see more near misses caused by poor cycling every day during rush hour than caused by drivers, lorries or layout yet so little discussion is around improving the cyclist. People keep telling me that the campaign groups are addressing this but part of that has to be pushing the message publically, even on forums like this if only to de-alienate the cylists that feel alienated to gain further support.

The perception is that the focus is all on the other road users. Reading this thread reinforces that perception for me.

Dan, cycle training is 100% mainstream now and is here to stay. It is of necessity a slow-seeming process, as if you address the end user directly, you have a lot of mouths to feed. British cycle training is the envy of cycle campaigners all around the world. If anything, we may be taking it slightly too much for granted now. However, I am very confident that it's doing a great job of addressing the low cycling skill base in a country that hasn't cycled much for five decades and even had a lower modal share than other European countries before mass motorisation set in in earnest.

Ok, Oliver. That is clear.

If I am incorrect and the correct action is being taken in the correct way (I don't feel that cycle training is the total solution) then fair enough. However, based on messages I have been receiving since this thread started, cyclist perception of the campaign groups is that they portray us as victims and don't do enough to target the general cycling populous with a few simple facts that could save their lives rather than try to get them to sign up to formal cyling training.

From personal experience, I don't think I would have heard of cycle training if I wasn't on LFGSS btw.

I know this Oliver.

I just don't think the campaign groups and their supporters are thinking too much about how they come across to other cyclists and the parties they are trying to get to listen.

I'm bringing my argument right back round to the beginning now (sorry). I see more near misses caused by poor cycling every day during rush hour than caused by drivers, lorries or layout yet so little discussion is around improving the cyclist. People keep telling me that the campaign groups are addressing this but part of that has to be pushing the message publically, even on forums like this if only to de-alienate the cylists that feel alienated to gain further support.

The perception is that the focus is all on the other road users. Reading this thread reinforces that perception for me.
I know my campaign group thinks about cyclist responsibility and how we are perceived.

Just a few weeks ago we organised an event where we told cyclists to slow right down on the Surrey Canal path as we'd received complaints from pedestrians about speeding cyclists which is clearly dangerous for cyclists and other path users.

However, the consensus from the group at the next meeting was that this kind of activity is probably not the best use of our time in the long term.

Sure, there are some poor cyclists out there but you could argue that when we focus on how much better we should all be, we are sending out the wrong messages to other roads users, planners and government - I don't know other campaign groups which criticise their own, and that is kind of how it felt when we did that particular campaign.

It's not cyclists that kill people, it's lorries and other motor vehicles after all.

My concern is that by focussing heavily on cyclist responsibility suggests that we need to be perfect when we cycle, that we must go a certain speed or even have a license or take a test before we are allowed on the road. Surely that would be far more alienating to people who wish to cycle but are worried that it is too dangerous?

My concern is that by focussing heavily on cyclist responsibility suggests that we need to be perfect when we cycle, that we must go a certain speed or even have a license or take a test before we are allowed on the road. Surely that would be far more alienating to people who wish to cycle but are worried that it is too dangerous?

I think Stonehendge's point is not that cyclists need to be perfect, but that raising standards needs to be part of the picture. The public's perception, from what makes the press, is that cyclists are always saying "this needs to change to accommodate us" and not saying "and this is what we need to change about ourselves as well."

It needs to be both, and I personally don't recall seeing any of the second message last year.

I think Stonehendge's point is not that cyclists need to be perfect, but that raising standards needs to be part of the picture. The public's perception, from what makes the press, is that cyclists are always saying "this needs to change to accommodate us" and not saying "and this is what we need to change about ourselves as well."

It needs to be both, and I personally don't recall seeing any of the second message last year.

Exactly what I'm trying to say, cheers mate.

In that case, you should both come to this Cycle Safety event on 18 January at Tate Modern:

http://www.betterbankside.co.uk/events/2141-18th-may-lorries-for-savvy-cyclists-2-a-dr-bike

These are the sort of events my group hosts and supports...

No campaign group is going to make a blind bit of difference to lorries and junctions between now and the end of the summer. I feel that some of the groups have become particularly insular and caught up in their own manifestos to the point of losing focus on some issues that are probably more pressing than others.

Thanks for the feedback. However I think you're missing a crucial point: the most pressing issue for any London-centric campaign is the Mayoral election on 3 May 2012. LCC activity between now and then will be focussed on securing a commitment form the next Mayor to make our streets as safe and inviting for cycling as they are in Holland, as part of the Go Dutch campaign voted for by our members.

Other issues remain important, of course. Yet our ambition is to run the most visible, engaging and mass participatory single-issue campaign ever in the history of the GLA. we simply cannot do that unless we are concentrating on one message.

You are absolutely right though that the summer presents an opportunity to campaign on behaviour. I would go beyond existing cyclists though and use it as an opportunity to promote cycling to those escaping overcrowded tubes and busses.

I'm not saying that the work is not getting done, it's that the message that makes the press appears to be one sided. Print and TV pieces about mass protests feed the "this needs to change to accommodate us" perception. Unfortunately Cycle Safety events don't make the same headlines. Not a criticism, it's just reality. It would likely engender more good will if the pieces that do make the press had a more rounded message. A message about how cycling organisations are working on a two pronged approach: better facilities + better cyclists = benefits for everyone.

I recognise the complexity of things. I'm press trained, have been company spokesperson and used to be "press." When you only get 9 seconds for a sound bite not everything will fit in there. 60-180 second radio and TV 'debates' are too short, and not everything recorded will survive the editing floor. What may be missed by the organisations is how one-sided everything can sound.

It's Stonehenge's perception that it is one-sided. It's my perception too, and probably the perception of many others.

So the challenge is, how can we round out the message? I don't have the answer, but it would be nice to see some of the organisations recognising it as a challenge to start with.

Just a few weeks ago we organised an event where we told cyclists to slow right down on the Surrey Canal path as we'd received complaints from pedestrians about speeding cyclists which is clearly dangerous for cyclists and other path users.

...snip...

I don't know other campaign groups which criticise their own, and that is kind of how it felt when we did that particular campaign.

2 points from this:

1) The need to be everywhere now if not before (esp. so in bigger cities) regardless of mode exacerbates all the issues facing vulnerable road users.

If everyone could be encouraged to chill out (in a less haste sense not more spliff) a bit then we'd be along way to "going dutch", without need to redesign the infrastructure or rules of the road.

2) Isn't the IAM a group that will be critical of their own? Institute of Advanced Cyclists might be a bit pointless, however you only need browse the "calling out bad cyclists" thread here to see some examples of the fuckwittery going on & people's reactions to being told so, usually as they know best & are in a hurry...

From personal experience, I don't think I would have heard of cycle training if I wasn't on LFGSS btw.

Or 'Rider Down' ?

From personal experience, I don't think I would have heard of cycle training if I wasn't on LFGSS btw.

absolutely this. I had no knowledge that this even existed prior to visiting LFGSS and I've been a regular rider since childhood (30+ years). But then I'd never looked for info either. Talking about cycle training on here is a bit like preaching to the converted, though everyone will benefit from an element of training, whether they are willing to admit it or not.

When you only get 9 seconds for a sound bite not everything will fit in there. 60-180 second radio and TV 'debates' are too short, and not everything recorded will survive the editing floor. What may be missed by the organisations is how one-sided everything can sound.

It's Stonehenge's perception that it is one-sided. It's my perception too, and probably the perception of many others.

So the challenge is, how can we round out the message? I don't have the answer, but it would be nice to see some of the organisations recognising it as a challenge to start with.
excellent points