Superhighway

[Mark1978]

It's all a matter of evolution isn't it*. London started with blue paint, then had something more segregated and then moving onto this, although I agree superhighway is overstating it. You would hope it would evolve from there. Some here would have nothing done at all and cyclists kept in their place so motor vehicles can continue their reign.

*I don't know why we seem determined to go through the evolution process when we could shortcut it as others have done it before.

[honesty]

And which is why we need to deal with motorists first and foremost. If you can fix that problem with presumed liability and an approach similar to the one that changed drink driving from accepted to unacceptable you would not only make segregated cycling alongside the road unnecessary but you would also open up all roads to everyday cycling in safety - something that can never be achieved by the segregational approach.

1. If you look at drunk driving injuries in relation to total KSIs its an interesting picture. They track. So have we reduced drunk driving, or have we just reduced total KSIs?

2. So the 6 year old is still going to mix it with the lorries, just when they get squished the lorry driver is at fault automatically. Wohoo!

[mjr]

As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way.

or use traversable kerbs, but neither was done in Bloomsbury.

But I don't think that's what's proposed on the superhighway.

Not as far as we know yet, and I feel that's another mistake which has been pointed out by many people... but I think it's still an improvement even without that.

The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing.

Prove it.

I've discussed it on another list with one of the main proponents. Having lobbied for it and then seen what was designed they discovered they didn't have enough political power/influence to change it. At that point they should have said NO to what was being offered but instead accepted it as the best they could get.

Sorry to keep doing this, but prove it: who, on what list, when and is it visible online?

Also, what evidence is there that saying "NO" would have stopped it? I've pulled that move elsewhere and sometimes it has and sometimes it hasn't.

Few alternative roads??? It's paralleled by Euston road to the north and Guildford Road to the south which is part of the reason it uses the streets it does, which are hardly ideal for it.

I used to use Tavistock PIace before the cycle track was built but now tend to use Euston Road.

In other words, you're using one of the alternatives!!!

Guildford St only helps for the eastern most section. Beyond that you have to navigate Russell Square and then thread your way through back streets to get to TCR. A slow and awkward journey.

It's one straight road from Russell Square to TCR (Montague Place, Bedford Square, Bayley Street). OK, there's been building works near the museum for ages and there's traffic lights, but there's traffic lights on Torrington Place too.

In short, I don't believe people are on the cycleway for lack of alternatives. It would be interesting to do an user opinion survey, but I don't have the time to do it... unless anyone would like to pay me?

There are some motorists willing to "physically encourage you" on streets without cycleways too and there were around ULU before that one was built. That's why we need the Road Justice campaign too.

And which is why we need to deal with motorists first and foremost. If you can fix that problem with presumed liability and an approach similar to the one that changed drink driving from accepted to unacceptable you would not only make segregated cycling alongside the road unnecessary but you would also open up all roads to everyday cycling in safety - something that can never be achieved by the segregational approach.

Can we deal with that first? I think not, because politicians will only make those changes once there are sufficient people cycling regularly to have more political clout than the current 15% does (especially given that a non-trivial chunk seem basically elitist and uninterested in campaigning for wider public cycling, especially if it might mean that they lose any of "their" car-dominated carriageway width on even indirect streets). At 15%, we seem only just able to get non-lethal bare-minimum cycleways!

[honesty]

good blog on this topic here: http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/02/bez-just-some-guy/

[axel_knutt]

lol i live near ele&castle...does nothing for me...I'm sure the politicians think its great though.
Why? too many ways into central london, all of them more convenient, and go where i want not where boris wants...

And that's the whole point, isn't it. Cyclists with a bit of common sense need to put a stop to it now, before it's too late, or it will be another useless white elephant that we get blamed for not using. Has anyone any idea how much further a cyclist is willing to ride in order to use it? Are the motorists who said they would use it going to find some other excuse as soon as it's built? Does it have more traffic lights and give way lines than the alternatives?

[honesty]

lol i live near ele&castle...does nothing for me...I'm sure the politicians think its great though.
Why? too many ways into central london, all of them more convenient, and go where i want not where boris wants...

And that's the whole point, isn't it. Cyclists with a bit of common sense need to put a stop to it now, before it's too late, or it will be another useless white elephant that we get blamed for not using. Has anyone any idea how much further a cyclist is willing to ride in order to use it? Are the motorists who said they would use it going to find some other excuse as soon as it's built? Does it have more traffic lights and give way lines than the alternatives?

It's 2 routes. It's not a magical fix for the whole of London. Obviously further routes need to be built at a later date to create a decent network, but saying a route from A to B needs to be kiboshed because it doesn't go from Y and finish in Z is frankly a little ridiculous.

[fluffybunnyuk]

or it will be another useless white elephant that we get blamed for not using

I wouldnt go that far...it will get the avg commuter cyclists who RLJ,filter dangerously,etc etc off some of the busy roads, and onto their own personal 25mph racetrack, where they can dream their winning the TdF.
But for people who cycle like me it does not alot. I do think however that an ad campaign needs to be run telling peds about not wandering into and using it for dog walking...or it will become an extended pavement with potential accidents.

[honesty]

or it will be another useless white elephant that we get blamed for not using

I wouldnt go that far...it will get the avg commuter cyclists who RLJ,filter dangerously,etc etc off some of the busy roads, and onto their own personal 25mph racetrack, where they can dream their winning the TdF.
But for people who cycle like me it does not alot.

"people who cycle like me", oh dear. I would read the blog I linked a bit further up

[Richard Fairhurst]

It's all a matter of evolution isn't it*.

Exactly that. Carlton Reid's new piece is very good on that: http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/wear-d ... lls/017456

But the good news is that, like evolution, it's unstoppable. Already the London segregation schemes are starting to filter out, very slowly, to cities elsewhere in Britain.

Trying to win over malcontents on a forum is a fun pastime, I guess, but they've already lost. The London schemes have established the principle of segregation on busy roads as the way forward. The battle is now to spread it further and faster.

[TonyR]

I've discussed it on another list with one of the main proponents. Having lobbied for it and then seen what was designed they discovered they didn't have enough political power/influence to change it. At that point they should have said NO to what was being offered but instead accepted it as the best they could get.

Sorry to keep doing this, but prove it: who, on what list, when and is it visible online?

Also, what evidence is there that saying "NO" would have stopped it? I've pulled that move elsewhere and sometimes it has and sometimes it hasn't.

Its on a subscription list, not a public one and I am not going to betray people's trust by publishing their contributions to a closed debate. You're just going to have to believe me or not. As to the NO evidence, since campaigners lobbied local authorities to do it and several were quite reluctant I would think saying NO would have had an effect but there is no way of knowing whether "we've started so we must finish" momentum would have seen it continue.

Guildford St only helps for the eastern most section. Beyond that you have to navigate Russell Square and then thread your way through back streets to get to TCR. A slow and awkward journey.

It's one straight road from Russell Square to TCR (Montague Place, Bedford Square, Bayley Street). OK, there's been building works near the museum for ages and there's traffic lights, but there's traffic lights on Torrington Place too.

Well first you've got to get out of Guildford Street and round Russell Square - not the most cycling friendly set of junctions. Then you do the lovely straight on when everything else is turning left ride at the cars waiting in Bedford Square before swerving at the last minute onto the gravel pavement of the cycle path (pictured). And then off again at the other end just at the point cars coming the other way are swerving towards you to overtake the parked cars. A true mess of a journey but on the bright side at least the redone Montague Place is not as bad as what was there before.

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 12.32.03.png (146.33 KiB) Viewed 1175 times

That arrow to the left is the instructions to cyclists on where to go next.

[fluffybunnyuk]

"people who cycle like me", oh dear. I would read the blog I linked a bit further up

haha i'm a POB on a BSO and proud of it. Sorry every day I pull up at a set of red lights on the A2 and some nutter usually in cycling shorts often lycra comes steaming past me and through the lights. Or later on weaves in and out of lanes 1 and 2 to pass cars moving at slow speed. Or tries to come up the inside of vans trying to get into the inside lane. If im really lucky i'll be told to "get out of the way". in a not too charitable way. And im not that slow, Im just careful. The amount of women or kids Ive encountered on non-road bikes crossing Lewisham roundabout to visit tescos in the last year stands at zero. The reality here(in my area) is a bad stereotype of cyclists. male,commuter,fixie,lycra,impatient....take your pick of stereotypes

EDIT :And its not getting better, its getting worse...and that includes in the infrastructure.

[honesty]

"people who cycle like me", oh dear. I would read the blog I linked a bit further up

haha i'm a POB on a BSO and proud of it. Sorry every day I pull up at a set of red lights on the A2 and some nutter usually in cycling shorts often lycra comes steaming past me and through the lights. Or later on weaves in and out of lanes 1 and 2 to pass cars moving at slow speed. Or tries to come up the inside of vans trying to get into the inside lane. If im really lucky i'll be told to "get out of the way". in a not too charitable way. And im not that slow, Im just careful. The amount of women or kids Ive encountered on non-road bikes crossing Lewisham roundabout to visit tescos in the last year stands at zero. The reality here(in my area) is a bad stereotype of cyclists. male,commuter,fixie,lycra,impatient....take your pick of stereotypes

Fair enough!

[TonyR]

...... and onto their own personal 25mph racetrack, where they can dream their winning the TdF.

I think they'll need to dream even more if they think its going to be a 25mph racetrack. At the widths its being built it will probably be a nose to tail cycle jam travelling at the speed of the slowest cyclist on the route at the time as its too narrow for overtaking so probably 8-10 mph is the best you'll be able to expect.

[fluffybunnyuk]

The problem is one partly of image i think, and also of destination. I avoid police here like the plague because their belief is in hi-viz,helmets, and as one inspector told me "body armour might be a good idea...", and mine is in sitting a niece or nephew on the back of the bike to go shopping in day clothes. Dont get me wrong i'm crazy enough to cycle up a fairly major a road like the A10. So if artics at 55mph dont scare me ,what does? Well my local roundabout does (Im not even counting the bricklayers or the ele&castle or oval). Its been recently improved into a gyratory, thats a bigger deathtrap than before. Oh dont worry its a temporary phase so it will soon be gone. However in its place will be a shiny new road system with no place for cyclists. Oh yes...it wasnt even considered during planning...
So on one arm of the gyratory we have tescos, another the railway station, and the other 2 lewisham shops. In fact its so bad I will cycle an extra 3 miles out of the way just to get 400 metres down the road from it, on the other side. Now if I wont cycle it, then what chance has someone less confident, or unsure about traffic. If we want the dutch model, then cycle paths have to go places that people want ie from home to station,shops,parks, and other places. From everything Ive seen about the superhighway it doesnt do this nor does it offer the prospect of extension to the suburbs in south london from wimbledon right round to plumstead. Of course when its done I will ride it once just to see what its really like, but after that I fully expect to go back to the usual rat runs.
I dont doubt the highway will be of use, but just dont expect it to get people on their bikes...its more likely to get the commuters off the roads.
Wow rant over.My blood pressures gone down...I should do this more often

[TonyR]

The problem is one partly of image i think, and also of destination. I avoid police here like the plague because their belief is in hi-viz,helmets, and as one inspector told me "body armour might be a good idea...", and mine is in sitting a niece or nephew on the back of the bike to go shopping in day clothes. Dont get me wrong i'm crazy enough to cycle up a fairly major a road like the A10. So if artics at 55mph dont scare me ,what does? Well my local roundabout does (Im not even counting the bricklayers or the ele&castle or oval). Its been recently improved into a gyratory, thats a bigger deathtrap than before. Oh dont worry its a temporary phase so it will soon be gone. However in its place will be a shiny new road system with no place for cyclists. Oh yes...it wasnt even considered during planning...
So on one arm of the gyratory we have tescos, another the railway station, and the other 2 lewisham shops. In fact its so bad I will cycle an extra 3 miles out of the way just to get 400 metres down the road from it, on the other side. Now if I wont cycle it, then what chance has someone less confident, or unsure about traffic. If we want the dutch model, then cycle paths have to go places that people want ie from home to station,shops,parks, and other places. From everything Ive seen about the superhighway it doesnt do this nor does it offer the prospect of extension to the suburbs in south london from wimbledon right round to plumstead. Of course when its done I will ride it once just to see what its really like, but after that I fully expect to go back to the usual rat runs.
I dont doubt the highway will be of use, but just dont expect it to get people on their bikes...its more likely to get the commuters off the roads.
Wow rant over.My blood pressures gone down...I should do this more often

I think its probably worse than you think on the image front. What image does it send to an average non-cyclists when they see you are expected to don head protectors, hi-viz (with body armour maybe) and cycle in special segregated places away from traffic? It says that a) cycling must be very very dangerous and b) that you would be a fool to do it outside the segregated lanes which as you say don't go to where you want. Compare and contrast that with how the Dutch portray cycling. Which do you think is more likely to entice the non-cyclist to try it?

[youtube]HHIOGA2dDSY[/youtube]

Much of the problem is in our febrile imaginations though. Last week I saw a mother with two kids in the front of her cargo bike happily cycling along a major London road. They all seemed to be enjoying themselves and motorists were giving them plenty of room. If we could get a few more like you and her out on the roads it might start to normalise cycling as something everyone can do.