Search results for:

I am not sure this should come under campaigning, exactly, but:

https://twitter.com/roadccdave/status/482087643778650113

Anyone got any tips on place to get a quick bite to eat either near Kings Cross or by the Southbank Centre that's vegan friendly?

Cheers!

i think wahaca on waterloo rd opposite the station has a vegan menu...

People lying on pavement, definitely gonna grab attention, oh Don...

but it does, it does...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclists-stage-die-in-protest-at-notorious-elephant-and-castle-junction-9413312.html

a 'secular ritual', no less.

these things are ridiculous, but not necessarily a bad idea. they at least keep up a drumbeat against the normalisation of road violence..

this?

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/cycling-in-pedestrianised-areas/

Okay thx for reply, you musnt have seen it. Data rich- inferring peds and bikes can get on. Lots of urban data showing flows of riders matching exactly when youd expect them to be I.e rush hours to and from work when people used ped areas to no detriment. Just like every UK town

all the people i know who campaign for protected space on main roads also campaign for filtered permeability, 20 mph limits, better education for drivers, and better availability of cycle training for anyone who wants it.

Is there an intetgration campaign? I didn't know. Who are they? Most people support lots of different interventions to encourage Cycling (most people apart from the segregation campaign)

i'm not clear exactly what you're asking for - what was the argument in the blog?

That is an interesting blog yes.
I need a favour--- urgent actually.
Some time ago one of the main bloggers did a piece on peds vs bikes data.
Studies showed no detriment to shared space.
Anyway I need a linky to that data/blog post.
The local ukip anti cyclist has weighed in in my area and I need to outwit him
Anyone remember it and can link me be very grateful
@spindrift?

^^^ What about the stress for an on-road cyclist that is generated by ignorant drivers expecting us to be confined to a separate segregated lane, giving them a legitimate (albeit false) stick to beat cyclists with?

The problem, which I'm amazed isn't picked up more often, is nothing to do with infrastructure, or cyclists of any stripe - it is with bad/lazy/ignorant drivers who put peoples live at risk; and are tacitly accepted by society. I would much prefer campaigning to focus on changing this perception, but I doubt it will ever happen

that stress for an on-road cyclist might be better dealt with by a big campaign telling drivers that cyclists have a right to the road (and the lane..), not by refusing to provide routes that feel safe for those who feel they need them. (it's not like drivers act as though we have a right to the road as it is..) and of course by making bike lanes that are better and faster than the road...

there will always be some bad/lazy/ignorant drivers. and the problem will always be that on a bike people feel much more vulnerable among them than in a car..

More and more people are trying cycling and sticking with it. Look at the increased share of cycling in London. Many of the people taking cycle training fall into the groups who you claim are too frightened to ride.

much of the recent increase in cycling is the same group of people cycling more.

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/faq/what-about-londons-cycling-revolution

i'm not saying cycle training doesn't help. it just doesn't do enough. there's plenty of training available, but:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/mar/26/no-increase-commuters-cycling-data-census

infrastructure on main roads doesn't remove the usefulness of training. both will allow more people to cycle safely than just one or the other.

'people like me'? who are those?

as it happens i (and most people who are campaigning for protected infrastructure) don't talk about 'how dangerous cycling is'. we do talk about how dangerous/ stressful on-carriageway cycling feels even where it's (statistically) reasonably safe. what stops people cycling isn't talk of danger. it's finding themselves (inevitably) on main roads surrounded by trucks and buses. it's getting close-passed by incompetent or aggressive drivers. it's having to brake sharply when people turn in or out without looking. most of these incidents don't actually result in a collision - but together with the sense of physical vulnerability on a bike, they make trips much more stressful than taking the bus, or tube, or a car, or walking. even where people are convinced to give it a go, many give up again in a couple of weeks. i've seen it happen, several times.

this doesn't end when more people take to the roads. the trucks, buses, and bad drivers are still there. the perception of risk is still there, and that's the problem.

side roads: you give priority to the cycle path. it's easy enough legally. just designers haven't been asked to do it.

my experience of the netherlands has not been that (or at least, not in most places). but what is striking is that young, elderly, less able people are happy to cycle everywhere - because, whatever the real risk, it doesn't feel that cycling is stressful and dangerous...

Given that segregated cycling infrastructure invariably cedes priority to motorised traffic causing continuous stop starts, I prefer to be integrated not segregated.

why not argue for protected infrastructure that doesn't cede priority? (i think everyone campaigning for this (except sustrans..) agrees now that infrastructure is only acceptable with at least equal priority..)

the problem with integration is it's fine for you - but it's not fine for elderly, children, families, less able. if you argue for integration (on main roads) you're arguing for roads that the majority of people just won't use on a bike..

not true. it is not more pleasant for all modes to mix, even relatively safely along a 'main primary road'. try cycling down cheapside in heavy (slow) traffic, for example. a separate cycle track would be way more pleasant for everyone on a bike. and faster, too.

(and, honestly, slow-moving hgvs are nearly as dangerous as hgvs at speed, because it's tricky for drivers to be aware of the position of all the bikes filtering around them..)

Good Links tears in rain.
I agree the 1st one is fairly good however the point:
The question, to mix or to separate is not as simple as this. Just like local residential streets should be designed "so people can mix safely", In many cases this should be applied to high streets/shopping streets even it it is along a 'main primary road'. It is more pleasnt for all modes when they are able to mix safely. (Well perhaps not better for drivers since doing so should involve reducing space for driving and lowering speeds) .

Cycling incident - YouTube

no amount of training can prevent this. but kerbs and signals can.

looking at the discussions on twitter, i think the issue is not that anyone thinks that training is contrary to improving infrastructure - i think, in fact, everyone agrees that training is a good idea, whatever the infrastructure - but that some politicians (umm, particularly in hackney..) are claiming that training can be used as a substitute for good infrastructure on main roads. and there we strongly disagree.

training may allow some percentage of the people who wouldn't cycle on the A10, say, to cycle there confidently. but there will still be a big majority who, training or no training, will still feel too scared or uncomfortable to cycle there. the only way to allow them equal access to this road is safe infrastructure.

my sense, also, is you over-emphasise the problem of 'dangerising'. the unfortunate fact is, that if you go out cycling on the streets, however skilfully you cycle, you are inevitably (and swiftly) involved in interactions with aggressive or incompetent drivers that feel dangerous. in most of these an actual collision is avoidable, with skill, but they're unpleasant, and stressful. this is what puts people off, not dangerising. walking, taking the bus, taking the tube, you're never subject to this level of stress. and the best way to help cyclists avoid these kind of incidents is to give them safe, high quality infrastructure. which won't happen if politicians can use training as a fig-leaf for doing nothing...

I was asked this question on twitter which needs more than 139 characters to answer. (This was part of a discussion around the #space4cycling campaign where some people seem to suggest cycle training goes against the idea of creating better infrastructure.)

In an ideal world it would be great if anyone with a low level of riding (or walking) skills could wobble (meander) about anywhere without harm, where people using more harmful modes took responsibility to move in a way that could accommodate low skilled people. This isn't the case of course.

Off road and on a separate cycle network
A degree of skill is required even off-road or on a completely separate cycle system. You/your daughter would need to know how to balance on a bike and to control the bike (starting, stopping, looking around, use gears etc). You would also need to know how to interact with other people in that environment, how to pass them and communicate a change of direction. You and your daughter would have to know some basic rules such as which side of the path to use and to understand who has priority at junctions where the path intersects with another path or a road.

Riding on road
Once you have the control skills described above and you/your daughter has the skills to read the speed/distance of vehicles (about age 9/10) you both have the skills to begin riding on the road.

You will need to understand priority in various situations from the outset such as when beginning a journey your both will need to know who goes first, you or someone already moving along the road. You will also need to understand where to ride to get seen and how to communicate your intentions to others. Once you both have grasped these principles and have had more experience and gained confidence you should be able to ride on the road. (In current situations you both may need to consider that some other road users may be impatient/distracted and will need to compensate for them)

Riding with your daughter on road
Even if your daughter is too young to read the speed and distance of other road users you may be able to ride with her if you have the skill. If she has good bike control, will follow your instructions you could ride behind her, slightly to her right ensuring other road users pass her wide. Tell her to stop at junctions where you can pull up next to her and ride with her through junctions.

Using such techniques could enable you to ride with your daughter even on A-roads riding in bus lanes. Were you (and others) to do this and people got used to seeing kids and parents riding together it would become more acceptable (and reduce the hysterical cries of 'how can people consider riding on roads with buses and lorries') and would become another way of claiming #space4cycling.

The more skills all road users have (up-skilling drivers is even more important that up-skilling cyclists/pedestrians since drivers cause the most harm), the better. Training cyclists gives a rider (you and your daughter) more options to make trips in the current environment and is in no way contrary to improving the infrastructure in our towns.

Acutally, checking your mirrors before turning left isn't good enough. Passenger cars do have blind spots as well. The only way of making sure there isn't any cyclist on your inside is a shoulder check.

I'm German and passed my driving test in Germany 20 years ago. The shoulder check before the left (on the continent: right) turn is one thing the driving instructors are really mental about until it really becomes ingrained. You instantly fail your driving test if you forget to do it.

I rarely drive in London, but yes, I think I do the shoulder check before I turn.

A related problem is that turning cars in the UK do not stop for pedestrians who are crossing the street. That's absolutely common in Germany (and, I think, other parts of contintental Europe). Since drivers do not have to stop here, they can turn at significantly higher speed (which also induces many to cut corners, which annoys me as a cyclist time and again.)

At the core of the whole issue is the lack of strict liability for motorists in the UK, I think. The knowlegde that you as the operator of a potentially deadly machine are liable for any damages you cause EVEN WITHOUT DOING SOMETHING WRONG INTENTIONALLY is a big incentive to drive more carefully, I think. Realistically, however, campaigning for strict liability in the UK is probably a lost cause.

vehicles turning into side roads are instructed to give way to pedestrians crossing the road in rule 170:

Rule 170

Take extra care at junctions. You should

• watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
  
  • watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
    
    

better awareness and more enforcement of this rule would be useful..

The driver's evidence was clear that he looked in his mirrors and saw the taxi, then looked again and did not see Francis Golding. Almost all the other witnesses were surprised that Golding appeared not to have seen the coach.
It is unlikely that a jury would convict the driver on that evidence.
The driver of the bus that killed Dorothy Elder at this junction in 2009 was acquitted after the nury heard evidence that her view of the road in front of the bus might have been obstructed by windscreen wipers.

the evidence the driver gave here is absolutely irrelevant in terms of questions of responsibility. it is the responsibility of the driver turning/changing lanes to know where the blind/obscured spots on their vehicle are, and to double-check to ensure there's nothing hidden in them.

you're right, charlie, that at this time a jury probably wouldn't convict - and they'd be wrong. the 'i didn't see him' excuse doesn't hold up. it really means ' i didn't check adequately' when there was clearly someone there....

(and, vitally, lcc should be campaigning on the position 'blind spots are not an excuse for killing people. look twice..', not accepting the status quo..)

It's clear the the coroner was mistaken here, The coach was in the right hand lane, to the right of another straight on lane. In this context:

Highway code, multi-lane roads:

133
If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over.

applies

It was the coach driver's responsibility to check the lane he was moving into/turning across was clear before moving left into it. He didn't do this.

One would assume Mr Golding was expecting the coach driver to give him priority, as he gave the taxi driver priority, following these rules.

One would expect, in this case, for the coach driver to be prosecuted for careless driving, which this clearly was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiaLOzP1lCA

these left hook deaths are entirely preventable. camden is about to install this:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/londons-first-segregated-cycle-junction-to-be-installed-in-camden-9234680.html

let's work for similar safe junctions on all london's main roads. rip.

The segregation debate is like the helmet debate, futile and circular, it causes infighting between people who want more people cycling. It saps energy from real campaigning.
#whataboutthechildren?
#thinkaboutthepoorgrannyridingat10milesanhour

there shouldn't even be a debate. even at 20mph, even with the best-behaved drivers and strongest legislation possible, can anyone seriously imagine above granniesandchildren sharing the road with 100 buses and 100 hgvs an hour on the mile end road...?

terrifying for parents, but also terrifying for drivers. would anyone really want to drive a hgv surrounded by crowds of 10 yr olds on bikes?

there's no other option to protected space on some routes. so we should all be campaigning to ensure it's as well-designed as possible where it's necessary - and where there clearly is another option (through-traffic removal, in particular) we should be campaigining for that...

There's another tunnel scheme being promoted here - put the A4 underground:
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Hammersmith_flyunder_options_to_be_revealed.asp#4

The A4 and Hammersmith gyratory blight the surrounding area so there is a certain attraction to sticking them underground and out of sight... but this would mean spending billions on car journeys into central London just so they can crawl along at a few mph.

LBH&F don't give a shit about cycling but I'll bet the developers are crawling all over them about this scheme given the potential to release land for development.

I can't see it happening - the Chiswick NIMBYs will be out in force against the big fuck-off Crossrail-like construction that would be needed in W4.

my impression was they were claiming they could fund it by developing the land freed up by knocking down the flyover. is that wrong?

'a kerb nerd protests':

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/a-kerb-nerd-protests/

if she's fully at fault, and you can get her to agree to a written account of what happened (it doesn't have to attribute fault, just be an account of movements on the road that she agrees to), then you can send that to her insurance company with a quote for a new wheel, and they should pay up.

We agree then.

or you can explain to me how you can make 10mph granny on sit-up-and-beg bike feel comfortable and safe cycling on the carriageway on the mile end rd, off-peak, amongst 35mph hgvs.. (or even 20mph hgvs..)

(and why your position isn't a bit elitist, effectively restricting transport cycling to the fit and the brave..?)

I don't get the "go Dutch" thing. On my last visit to 'dam I saw very little segregation outside the main streets, lots and lots of very close shaves, and behavior from both cyclists and drivers which would have led to shouty slanging matches and fisticuffs in London.

Which leads me to conclude that it's the attitude of all the population which makes the difference, not the "rules".

nobody (not even the 'kerb nerds') wants segregation outside of main streets. everyone prefers traffic reduction / filtered permeability on minor roads to a point where it's comfortable for everyone to cycle on these roads, where it's possible..

the argument is only about roads where motor traffic can (possibly) be slowed, but not reduced to a point that's comfortable for most cyclists - and where there are still large numbers of buses and hgvs.. which are (as you say) segregated in amsterdam. that's the point of go dutch.

so, for example, the mile end rd - which, due to canal/ river/ road crossings, is the only useful route between stratford and the city - skydancer, oliver schick, dancing james would all ask for on-carriageway cycling here, and a 20mph limit. the 'kerb nerds' argue that no amount of training and encouragement, or speed limits will make old people, disabled cyclists, children, families with children happy to cycle with buses and hgvs on the carriageway here, and you need protected space. i suspect they're right..

more on disability and the grid here:

http://stickandwheels.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/my-submission-to-tfl-about-planned.html?m=1