Superhighway

[ArMoRothair]

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.

But over a hundred years' of history sort of proves we can't "fix that problem". We, and our parents, and our grandparents, have been asking motor carriage drivers to please behave nicely since the Brighton run.

Also, we haven't defeated Drink Driving. There seems to be an urban myth that it is defeated but the statistics show otherwise. Fatalities in connection with Drink Driving have come down but that could well be attributable to safer cars and better emergency services response.

[honesty]

I said those things already, but TonyR is ignoring me.

[mjr]

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

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.

Like it used to say beside my supervisor's door: "In God We Trust - all others bring data". So no, I'm not accepting that as evidence. For all we can tell, it's some fantasist telling you what you want to hear. Encourage them to repeat the statements in public.

There's a touch of "not gonna get fooled again" here: I believed the anti-protectionists for some time, until I looked closely at the evidence and found holes you could drive a truck through (and straight onto a cyclist).

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.

I've done it and don't remember having problems (I think I could use an advanced stop box to help get the right lane to go around the square but I don't remember how I got to it) but I thought you wanted a route without using cycling infrastructure? It's only that one right turn that's at all unfriendly, isn't it?

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

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

Yeah but when the road's clear, you could just continue forwards like most people seem to. The last time I used it, that kerb was properly flat at the end, too, while the rest was fairly low.

And what's the problem at the other end? Good visibility and fairly light (for London!) traffic, so you can easily time your traversal to a gap in the traffic, dutch-style.

I'll only go so far to defend those routes because I prefer and use Torrington Place (even though it could/should be better) but they seem fairly good for roads without cycle lanes. How would you make them better?

[mjr]

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.

Please no. You need to weigh in and tell them to fix the flipping thing and warn them that a lot of cyclists will not use the current design for various reasons. Please try to avoid both the Uncle Toad "cyclists don't want this" and the dual-networkist "this is a toy for weaklings" reasons.

Has anyone any idea how much further a cyclist is willing to ride in order to use it?

Personal experience from before I knew anyone cared whether we rode on roads or cycleways: one trip I did a bit, I rode 10 miles partly on cycleways instead of 7 miles on roads because I thought it was nicer by cycleway.

Are the motorists who said they would use it going to find some other excuse as soon as it's built?

Only time will tell, won't it?

Does it have more traffic lights and give way lines than the alternatives?

You could answer that by comparing the consultation plans with the current streetscape.

[mjr]

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.

I agree completely but I can't really see how having messed up (again) in Lewisham is a good reason to object to improvements in central London. Surely it would be better to improve both?

There seems more possibility of extension once there's something to extend. The south end already meets CS7 (which isn't great IMO but at least it avoids E&C and is on fairly wide roads south of there), while the east end meets the end of CS3.

[TonyR]

I agree completely but I can't really see how having messed up (again) in Lewisham is a good reason to object to improvements in central London. Surely it would be better to improve both?

Because as well as messing up with the new Lewisham roundabout, they messed up with the Blackfriars Bridge redesign and the King Cross redesign......... But some have faith that despite the appalling record of TfL messing up, next time they'll get it right.

[honesty]

Maybe not get it right, just less wrong. I am a realist here.

[aspiringcyclist]

... and it looks like the designs for the Royal Parks area in the new consultation are terrible. They include 'shared use paths'.

[ClaytonGrove]

"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.

I couldn't agree more. I really would like to see cyclists behaving well and creating a positive image. I think some of the problem is that often a well behaved cyclist will feel a twonk for not following the dare Devils and simply follow on along the inside, through the red light etc. I'm sick of seeing dangerous near misses and reading about deaths. So here I say- don't feel like a twonk for stopping behind the bus or waiting in traffic until it is safe, just watch others cycle by. Don't feel the need to squeeze past every dangerous vehicle to get to the front of the traffic (into that cycle box that everyone is so desperate to reach, even at their own peril). Remember to check behind before manoeuvring and signal in good time well, not just a quick hidden point but a good arm right up.

[TonyR]

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.

Like it used to say beside my supervisor's door: "In God We Trust - all others bring data". So no, I'm not accepting that as evidence. For all we can tell, it's some fantasist telling you what you want to hear. Encourage them to repeat the statements in public.

There's a touch of "not gonna get fooled again" here: I believed the anti-protectionists for some time, until I looked closely at the evidence and found holes you could drive a truck through (and straight onto a cyclist).

Excuse me if I don't believe you

As for the rest you can always browse back through the newsletter archive of the Camden Cycling Campaign to follow the story of what happened.

I've done it and don't remember having problems (I think I could use an advanced stop box to help get the right lane to go around the square but I don't remember how I got to it) but I thought you wanted a route without using cycling infrastructure? It's only that one right turn that's at all unfriendly, isn't it?

No, there are several awkward junctions. The one leaving Guildford St, the one turning right onto the south side of Russell Square, the one where taxis join the south side of Russell Square from Bedford Place. And I think you need to differentiate between cycle friendly design and cycling infrastructure of the segregated kind. There are plenty of forms of cycling infrastructure I'm not against - cyclepaths that create genuinely alternative off-road routes, cycle parking, priority lights for cyclists etc. Its the segregation I am against.

[fluffybunnyuk]

I agree completely but I can't really see how having messed up (again) in Lewisham is a good reason to object to improvements in central London. Surely it would be better to improve both?

The problem is that the boroughs wont improve lewisham way,or the A2 one way system. And TfL conlcluded the stretch from ele&castle to lewisham wasnt feasible. Also A2 Deptford Bridge junction "Deals Gateway" is just up for "improvement". I sent off my complaint letter for all the good it will do. Its lots of green paint, but no improvement on whats already there.

Why is this a problem? Well if outer london boroughs dont wish to work on real improvements, and just engage in road painting exercises then noone is persuaded to actually get on a bike to cycle on a safe route to the superhighway.

Oh yes we have "new cycle lanes" of sorts along the peckham rd to oval, and the road from greenwich to woolwich. But theyre about 0.5m wide at best (only good for gutter cycling or getting beeped if your not inside it(erroneous motorist conclusion that they must be used by cyclists))...and cars happily park up in them.Or when driving deliberately stick their 2 left wheels into the lane so cyclists cant pass. Its a case of the left hand dealing out plans like the superhighway and the right hand disbelieving the existance of the bicycle.

[TonyR]

Why is this a problem?

The problem is we have highway engineers who have been trained in designing for motor traffic and don't have a clue about the needs of cyclists and how to design for them. You see it every day in the designs we are constantly having to campaign against and London seems particularly bad. One of the senior directors of the Highways Agency said they were not trained in, and more revealingly that they had no interest in learning about, the needs of cyclists and how to include them during the House of Commons inquiry a year or so back.

Until we get people into those departments who know and care about cyclists the problem will continue but there is not the political will to replace the old guard and the old guard will always recruit in its own image. Until then though we will continue to get what someone who doesn't cycle imagines we might want tacked on as an afterthought to doing what they see their real job as which is designing for motor vehicles.

[Wilf Roberts]

The problem is we have highway engineers who have been trained in designing for motor traffic...

And to be honest they hardly do a great job of that. Where I live it's very apparent that road planning has been designed from a motorist's point of view. So - a driving nirvana then? Hardly. The obsession with providing multi-lane high-speed roadways is very good at marginalising and deterring pedestrians and cyclists, but actually not very good at curbing traffic congestion or improving journey speeds.

If planners were prepared to revolutionise their approach and provide urban areas with traffic systems that were "friendlier" (for want of a better word) - ie 20mph limits, broader lanes and provision for pedestrians and cyclists to have priority where possible - I think we would see all travellers having a more enjoyable experience.

[honesty]

Why is this a problem?

The problem is we have highway engineers who have been trained in designing for motor traffic and don't have a clue about the needs of cyclists and how to design for them. You see it every day in the designs we are constantly having to campaign against and London seems particularly bad. One of the senior directors of the Highways Agency said they were not trained in, and more revealingly that they had no interest in learning about, the needs of cyclists and how to include them during the House of Commons inquiry a year or so back.

Until we get people into those departments who know and care about cyclists the problem will continue but there is not the political will to replace the old guard and the old guard will always recruit in its own image. Until then though we will continue to get what someone who doesn't cycle imagines we might want tacked on as an afterthought to doing what they see their real job as which is designing for motor vehicles.

What like people designing and implementing a completely new for the UK segregated highway for bicycles through the centre of the nations capital type of old guards?

[mjr]

There's a touch of "not gonna get fooled again" here: I believed the anti-protectionists for some time, until I looked closely at the evidence and found holes you could drive a truck through (and straight onto a cyclist).

Excuse me if I don't believe you

Heck, I've been online over 20 years now, so it might be archived somewhere. It was when I was in Norwich and riding the utter junk that used to be built in Norfolk which is often worse than nothing and otherwise not as good as it should be.

As for the rest you can always browse back through the newsletter archive of the Camden Cycling Campaign to follow the story of what happened.

I've done that and it seems inconclusive about this but I might have missed a bit you feel is important? CCC also has a summary history at http://camdencyclists.org.uk/seven-stat ... k-history/

I've done it and don't remember having problems (I think I could use an advanced stop box to help get the right lane to go around the square but I don't remember how I got to it) but I thought you wanted a route without using cycling infrastructure? It's only that one right turn that's at all unfriendly, isn't it?

No, there are several awkward junctions. The one leaving Guildford St, the one turning right onto the south side of Russell Square, the one where taxis join the south side of Russell Square from Bedford Place.

Leaving Guildford Street is a simple left turn, the right turn is awkward like I said, and satellite pictures make me think you have priority and good visibility over Bedford Place.

And I think you need to differentiate between cycle friendly design and cycling infrastructure of the segregated kind. There are plenty of forms of cycling infrastructure I'm not against - cyclepaths that create genuinely alternative off-road routes, cycle parking, priority lights for cyclists etc. Its the segregation I am against.

No, it's more than that. You seem to be against all protected space, not only segregation. I'm against segregation, but I see protected space on busy routes as a valid tool as long as no-one is required to use it.

Would it be a good idea to suggest to today's highway designers that they should design cycleways like half-size roads? Then we might get sane turning circles and no obstructions within the cycleway, which are not both givens at the moment.