Who's right?

[TonyR]

LBC claims a new segregated cycle "superhighway" is not used by 40% of cyclists, London Cycling Commissioner says they're lying. Who's right?

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... -about-cyc

[Pete Owens]

It doesn't matter what the exact ratios are - the existence of any cyclist who has the temerity to use the road when there is an adjacent path brings out the worst in a small minority of drivers. As they see it they have paid good money to fund a facility to get cyclists out of their way so their ought to be a law to force us to use it.

[jgurney]

Did they mean that for every 6 cyclists on the cycle route there were another 4 riding on the immediately adjacent footways or general-use carriageway (and if so which did they ride on), or that 40% of cyclists for whom this was a feasible route chose another possible route along a different road, path, etc, altogether?

[AlaninWales]

I wonder what proportion of motorists are currently not using the Motorways... All those expensively built roads and they don't use them! There should be a Law against it!

[mjr]

I wonder what proportion of motorists are currently not using the Motorways... All those expensively built roads and they don't use them! There should be a Law against it!

This is a retort I often use, also pointing out that in general Roads Were Not Built For Cars (.com) so they should give the rest of the roads back to cyclists.

[MikeF]

Explanation here. It appears it's not completed yet, and a bit of media windup by taking words out of context and omitting other facts. The conclusion is that as there's a protest it shows it's working.

[pjclinch]

Meejah with a bonnet-bee or politicians spending money... Who to trust? Probably neither, TBH.

[Pete Owens]

I wonder what proportion of motorists are currently not using the Motorways... All those expensively built roads and they don't use them! There should be a Law against it!

This is a retort I often use, also pointing out that in general Roads Were Not Built For Cars (.com) so they should give the rest of the roads back to cyclists.

Tis a pity that Gilligan didn't take the same approach - robustly defending cyclists rights to ride on the carriageway - rather than gettting into an argument about how many or few cyclists were on the road thus effectively conceding the point that they shouldn't be there at all.

[TonyR]

Explanation here. It appears it's not completed yet, and a bit of media windup by taking words out of context and omitting other facts. The conclusion is that as there's a protest it shows it's working.

But also it appears its the usual appalling design requiring north-bound cyclists to cross a busy road twice, at either end of the bridge, to use a bi-directional track on the other side rather than building a cycle track on their side. No wonder people use the road instead and this is supposed to be a superhighway.

[AlaninWales]

Explanation here. It appears it's not completed yet, and a bit of media windup by taking words out of context and omitting other facts. The conclusion is that as there's a protest it shows it's working.

But also it appears its the usual appalling design requiring north-bound cyclists to cross a busy road twice, at either end of the bridge, to use a bi-directional track on the other side rather than building a cycle track on their side. No wonder people use the road instead and this is supposed to be a superhighway.

Not really, as MikeF said it just hasn't been built yet.

Equally, if there was a northbound cycleway on the western side of the bridge, linking up with cycling infrastructure on Vauxhall gyratory (plans for which have just been announced today)

Selective misquoting is part of LBCs criticism of the Superhighway, let's not miss out facts simply in order to criticise it from the other direction.

[blackbike]

It doesn't matter what the exact ratios are - the existence of any cyclist who has the temerity to use the road when there is an adjacent path brings out the worst in a small minority of drivers. As they see it they have paid good money to fund a facility to get cyclists out of their way so their ought to be a law to force us to use it.

Many experienced and confident cyclists can't be bothered to use cycles lanes and prefer to use the road.

I'm one.

[[XAP]Bob]

I can't be bothered to take the risk that the facility won't just randomly stop - not a risk I take on the roads...

[mjr]

I can't be bothered to take the risk that the facility won't just randomly stop - not a risk I take on the roads...

You've never ridden past a "no through road" sign when it's reasonable to think that there's a way through on a cycle?

That said, I've gambled and lost on cycle tracks, but I've also gambled and won a more direct route.

[[XAP]Bob]

I have, and I do - but generally only where I have good reason to believe that I can get through, and a significant saving by doing so.

But too many facilities just stop - and if it's a contraflow facility that means it stops with me facing oncoming traffic, which is unacceptable in my book.

From what was said above though it looks like this isn't even finished infrastructure, so we should really be asking why motorists aren't using the M14 (pick some number that doesn't exist)

[Flinders]

It doesn't matter what the exact ratios are - the existence of any cyclist who has the temerity to use the road when there is an adjacent path brings out the worst in a small minority of drivers. As they see it they have paid good money to fund a facility to get cyclists out of their way so their ought to be a law to force us to use it.

Many experienced and confident cyclists can't be bothered to use cycles lanes and prefer to use the road.

I'm one.

Many experienced cyclists find their local cycle routes are far more dangerous than the adjoining roads.
I'm one.