The Mayor's Vision for cycling in London

What do people think of this?

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Cycling%20Vision%20GLA%20template%20FINAL.pdf

apparently 913m quid is being invested and theres loads of talk of segregation, cycle super highways being improved, quietways, mini hollands, redesigning junctions etc etc that sound ok. I only skimmed it briefly but couldnt see any mention of cycle training...

All of this sounds nice but I wonder how they will achieve all this with 900million, not an enormous amount in the scheme of things ( I cant imagine you can redesign even half the junctions they say they will with that money...). Added to this is boris johnson and his almost complete lack interest in helping London cycling since he became Mayor. He cites 2 things that he has done to improve things in his term: Barclays Bikes and a massive increase in cyclists in London since he became mayor. Evn though I dislike the guy, both of those results were because of Ken livingston and had bugger all to do with Johnson.

Sign of hope or useless document to help pretend they are going to do something?

apologies if Repost etc

There's a lot of good, and some bad.

Mandatory cycle lanes jumps out as one of the bad, but widening the 20mph limit and pushing for all HGVs to meet better standards stand out as the good.

The money is a silly headline. It's over 10 years, and reduces in real-term value over time and could always be re-allocated later on or is simply being redesignated from some other project today. Is it ring-fenced? Is it guaranteed? I don't see that, and given the costs of the super highways per mile it could easily all vanish on that alone.

Kinda makes the rest seem like hot air as their won't be a great deal left over.

A 10 year plan... in that light, £90m per year including super highway expansion and the building of a some low number of miles of segregated routes really does consume the budget and leave little for anything else.

Ah, I'm too cynical I think.

None of this will happen, if you think it will you are kidding yourselves.

It's still a "go dutch" light design too.

Where does it say about mandatory cycle lanes?

(as in I can't see it skimming, can you point it out plz )

mandatory would required a change the to Highway Code.

is it april 1st already? but seriously where's the money going to come from to fund such a project?

y u guise always angry about mandatory cycle lanes? It's mandatory for other road users to observe and not encroach on them, not for cyclists to ride in them at all times.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/21074.aspx

Types of cycle lane

* Mandatory Cycle Lanes are marked with a continuous white line. Drivers must not drive, wait or park in the lane during its hours of operation.
* Advisory Cycle Lanes are marked with a broken white line. Drivers should not enter the lane unless it is unavoidable
* Contra-Flow Cycle Lanes let cyclists travel against the flow of traffic on one-way streets They are mandatory cycle lanes (see above)
* Shared Bus and Cycle Lanes allow cyclists to use the bus lane. Motorists must not enter the lane unless indicated on signs

y u guise always angry about mandatory cycle lanes? It's mandatory for other road users to observe and not encroach on them, not for cyclists to ride in them at all times.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/21074.aspx

Because if a lane is marked as mandatory and it's actually segregated such that it's impossible for a vehicle to enter the lane, then the word mandatory can only be applied to the cyclists and not the vehicles in the other lane.

So what it really appears to mean is that it's mandatory for cyclists to use the lane.

As otherwise they would like just call it "a cycle lane" rather than a "mandatory cycle lane".

And my issue with that is history has shown us that whilst the lane itself might be safe, without obstacle and kept clean of debris (all laughable), the junctions at the ends of these lanes are not actually safe at all (Tavistock Place is an unfortunately good example of this).

And all of this leads to the question of what happens should one choose not to use the segregated lane? If you are hit by a vehicle... will you be blamed because you were not using the mandatory cycle lane?

It's just a cycle lane, and as motorcycles and other vehicles have no rights to be in a cycle lane it should just be called that.

What is the scope and definition of the word mandatory in this context, and to whom is it applied?

I bet it's the cyclist.

What is the scope and definition of the word mandatory in this context, and to whom is it applied?
It is mainly intended to form a contrast with 'advisory'. It is not meant to apply to people on bikes using such a lane/track**.

De iure*, it would not be mandatory (as re-confirmed a few years ago by the case of The Telford One, and there is no prospect of a compulsion law being introduced), although you're right that de facto it may come to be seen to be mandatory by other road users (through ignorance, misinformation, or just the desire to have cyclers** out of the way').

De iure, such tracks are mandatory in the Netherlands and in Denmark. It will be interesting whether the provision of more segregated cycle tracks will cause other road users to assume that the legal situation in the UK is as it is over there.

Interestingly, in Germany the historic (in force since the 1930s) 'duty to use cycle paths' ("Radwegebenutzungspflicht") is now all but abolished; it still exists in principle, but may only be applied 'in exceptional circumstances', e.g. along a major A-road. This is a major victory for the German cycling organisation ADFC.

• The legally correct term is 'segregated cycle lane', although I still very much prefer the established distinction between 'tracks' (segregated) and 'lanes'. Some people want to apply 'tracks' only to two-way facilities, but I think this is more confusing.
  ** Deliberate use of a neologism. :)