Cycle campaigning

I'm not in favour of HGV bans. They would be too inflexible, certainly for a place like London. Obviously, people often don't mean 'bans' but 'selective permission systems', i.e. prohibition unless specific permission has been granted by the highway authority. This would obviously be a family of measures that would make the most sense in inner city environments.

When you run a construction project somewhere, lorry and other heavy vehicle movements are highly predictable, and I think in future it should become the default for companies running lorries to plan their movements well in advance and to register them with local authorities. This can then be used as a vehicle for all sorts of things, e.g. alerting drivers to particular spots en route that may present a problem, or taking other safety measures.

HGV cabs with the same visibility as a bus might be a start...

That's certainly one of the LCC's initiatives.

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-challenges-construction-industry-to-adopt-its-safer-urban-lorry-to-reduce-lorry-cyclist-deaths

Like trying to achieve across the board segregation, banning HGVs (or any other road user) at certain times doesn't eliminate danger. If anything it creates more of a problem in that some cyclists may become less aware and more complacent. In some cases it may cause confusion (I'm thinking of building site access points particularly) which again is hazardous.

I continue to be shocked every day by the blasé attitude some have towards large vehicles and worry a partial ban would exacerbate this.

I continue to be shocked every day by the blasé attitude some have towards large vehicles and would worry a partial ban would exacerbate this.

Quite possibly so, however education would be best serve in this scenario.

Although there's a fine line between discouraging cyclists from undertaking traffic while the painted bicycle lane said differ.

Absolutely. Training is key. The assumption that you're safe because you're on a blue line or any other cycle path is all too common.

Education rather, surely there's a quicker and more effective way of discouraging cyclists to undertake than offering cycle training?

Cycle training are always the best option to reduced the risk considerably, but not very accessible to get every Tom, Dick and Harry to do it (beside making Bikeability compulsory in school for the future generation).

Currently the new advert on buses and the like is the right step forward (give cyclists more room etc.), but does not address the problem of undertaking.

Oh I see what you're saying. Yes, agreed. Like this:

I spotted this TfL 'Safety Tip' in the Metro this morning -

Is this really the first time they have conveyed that message?

Oh boy, just re-read this post from https://www.lfgss.com/thread75247.html back in 2011...

Here is a new cycle safety video from TfL

http://www.youtube.com/embed/lwyTEs6hHdE

"Wherever possible try using designated cycle lanes"

Does try mean you should use them or consider their benefit before using them?

The bit about HGVs doesn't show the position you should take.

There is very little assertive positioning going on as well.

Any other thoughts?

Education rather, surely there's a quicker and more effective way of discouraging cyclists to undertake than offering cycle training?

Seeing as making riders understand that they shouldn't undertake is only a small part of cycle training, and the message is much easier to spread and convey, the answer is fairly obviously 'yes'.

However, partial, single-issue messages often get overlooked and/or forgotten more easily, as they are not part of an overall culture change, such as the one that is currently taking place in London.

So, yes, we do need to spread this crucial information, but cycle training is still the best long-term strategy to show people how to ride and make them understand traffic better, and it also has a much better potential for eventually being embedded in transport culture (e.g., one thing that we need to improve is the knowledge that parents need to transmit to their children). For instance, just the actual experience of practically doing the training is more memorable and more likely to influence behaviour than something learned in the abstract.

(I know you don't disagree, but I just want to stress that simple messages don't always do what you want to do in the way that you intend.)

Currently the new advert on buses and the like is the right step forward (give cyclists more room etc.), but does not address the problem of undertaking.

Also, they did do this one:

Which is contradictive;

Well, Ed, your Photoshop is, but the TfL advert isn't. As I've said many times before, I'm not in favour of ASLs plus lead-in lanes, either, as I consider them misconceived, but they're not a TfL invention.

^ They may not be but they're still there...or am I missing the point?

I didn't do that image, I did the first one, surely TfL would have done better to spread the word better, says something along the line of "don't undertake HGV even if there's a cycle lane on the inside" perhaps? maybe spread out the message that cycle lane are not compulsory to ensure a better relationship with other road user?

Boff;

What are most cyclists are going to pay the most attention to? The large, attractive, ubiquitous blue bits that all the other cyclists are already using, or the occasional grubby billboard that doesn't make contextual sense?

Also aren't the Cycle Superhighway a TfL routes? they may not be the inventor of the ASL, but they're still promoting it.

Bothwell's talents are clearly wasted in computer programming.

Boffers! LCC needs you!

I totally love to see boffy in a SC meeting, she'd rock the floor.

^ They may not be but they're still there...or am I missing the point?

Also aren't the Cycle Superhighway a TfL routes? they may not be the inventor of the ASL, but they're still promoting it.

Well. It's hard to know what to reply. ASLs are generally-accepted highway engineering practice, endorsed in TRL trials etc. They're used in other countries, too (albeit in different shapes). TfL are not (often) in a position to do their own research (that's left to people like TRL) or to come up with their own original ideas (and when they do it can become a shambles like the motorcycles in bus lanes trial).

If you want to go up against them, you have to contend with a number of difficulties. Firstly, a lot of people believe that they make things safer, and they are in particular demanded by a lot of cycle campaigners and fetishised by a lot of riders who see in enforcement of compliance with ASLs by drivers some kind of quid-pro-quo for the kind of enforcement that's targeted at bike riders (e.g., RLJing) to highlight that it's not only people cycling who commit offences. Many inexperienced riders are, of course, very keen on getting to the front of the queue because they mistakenly believe that this always reduces risk, or even RLJing as facilitated by ASls and lead-in lanes. It's not just TfL that put these things in for their own pleasure, it's because a lot of people tell them to.

Secondly, the evidence either for or against is pretty inconclusive. Essentially, they don't seem to make much of a difference, except in some unusual cases. Yes, in theory the lead-in lanes along the nearside may place riders at greater risk than if they hadn't been there, but in the absence of the lanes, riders would probably do the same filtering along the inside (implementation of ASL lead-in lanes doesn't tend to change much about carriageway layout, e.g. lane widths, although it may in some cases), and they also generally don't reduce the chance of drivers obstructing the nearside. Also in theory, the ASLs may place cyclists in a more prominent position at the head of the queue and so prevent them from being involved in left hooks. I say in theory, because there isn't a great deal of evidence either way.

Thirdly, they were devised in response to an existing state of affairs that people wanted to change (lack of stop line compliance by cyclists, cyclists mixing it up in traffic queues, which can have the effect of making queues move more slowly, and the hope that if cyclists were got to the front of the queue you'd get fewer left hooks, etc.). You go right ahead and try to show that ASLs are not the right response--it's not that easy. The problem is that there are no alternative 'standard' measures designed to address the above issues, so what are you going to come up with that makes a difference?

My own response is that I don't think that 'standard' measures are a good idea. When I deal with a traffic scheme, I try to think it through on its own merits, at its particular location, and under the particular circumstances affecting it, and then try to come up with the best possible solution. Who knows? There may be a situation in which ASLs are a good idea, and that will emerge from thinking carefully about the design.

A lot of people demand design 'standards', though, and would not be happy to leave the judgement on design fully to individual engineers, who have to apply the standard measures somehow, which can then dictate constraints that may worsen a scheme.

On the whole, I consider the debates about ASLs as a bit of a storm in a teacup (perhaps a good starting-point for learning about highway engineering, but many people never progress beyond thinking about visible, superficial things like that). They're low-level measures of no proven great danger or great positive effect and until I see evidence that makes me think that either having them or not having them is conclusively supported, I'll reserve judgement.

Bothwell's talents are clearly wasted in computer programming.

Boffers! LCC needs you!

I don't know, I think she could do both well.

I totally love to see boffy in a SC meeting, she'd rock the floor.

Are you saying she's fat? Don't confuse her with hippy.

I'll crush your puny building to gravel! Boff smash!

^ I'll PM you the address and details...

Do LCC keep an eye on TFL's MajorSchemes? The redevelopment of Mitcham Town Centre is one, and includes a set of cycle paths, that look particuarly poorly designed to me, but I'd like some more experienced eyes over it, and views from you folks would mean a lot to me.

Webpage with details here - http://www.merton.gov.uk/community-living/areas-wards/mitcham/rediscovermitcham.htm
Brochure with more details here - http://www.merton.gov.uk/community-living/areas-wards/mitcham/rediscover_mitcham_part_2-mb1forprint_small-2.pdf

The plans are on Page 5.

I'm mostly looking at the cycle path to the north of both Upper Green East and West.

The drawings on pages 10/11 make it look like it's single bike width both ways, and to get to the westbound route, you'd have to use a toucan crossing, coming off of the road to do so. I'm not sure whats the best suggestion to make on this, I personally think that making it east bound only, but retaining the double width would be best, but am open to suggestions.

Local campaigners are against the bus lane (seeing it as spliting the historic green area), and the addtional street round the side, which seems to be targeted as short term parking (which given the amount of unused council Car Parks in the area is really my biggest bugbear on the whole thing). Anyhow, any views/ideas welcomed!

The Merton group will have had some input on that.

http://lcc.org.uk/boroughs/merton

Impossible to comment on it much without some local knowledge and being plugged into local politics.

Obviously, I and others could produce reams of comments of a general nature, but I wouldn't know the context without more study. A proposal that might look very bad in one place might be a step in the right direction in another.

The operative assumption is clearly that much access to the town centre will be by private car, especially, as you say, if there is unused car parking capacity.

Unifying public spaces would certainly be desirable, but it seems that this is the price they want to pay for good bus accessibility.

Again, hard to judge unless you know the area well and you've had a lot of conversations. Do get in touch with the Merton group if you want to get involved in this sort of thing. If truth be told, though, most local groups will struggle to influence major schemes much.

http://lcc.org.uk/boroughs/merton
local politics.

most local groups will struggle to influence major schemes much.

this ^^ is the problem, whilst theres lots of us working at ground level, every one of the suggested schemes suffer from what Bojo is on about here,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10165644/As-Britain-dithers-the-rest-of-the-world-is-getting-things-done.html
#ukdontchaloveit