Superhighway

[TonyR]

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 ... nk-history

Perhaps if you browse the issues from around 1998 when they started lobbying for them to 2001/2 when they started to comment on the implementation problems. Then ask yourself why did they participate in building a two way segregated cycle track with a total width of 2-3m and multiple known problems at the junctions.

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.

Am I to understand your comments are from looking at it online rather than actually riding it?

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.

What do you mean by protected space on busy routes? Usually if space is provided - on road cycle lanes or shared use pavements, motorists are usually very quick to use physical and verbal intimidation to encourage you to use if so the "as long as no-one is required to use it" is a bit moot really.

[mjr]

Perhaps if you browse the issues from around 1998 when they started lobbying for them to 2001/2 when they started to comment on the implementation problems.

I did that but found nothing claiming that something was better than nothing, or words to that effect.

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.

Am I to understand your comments are from looking at it online rather than actually riding it?

I've ridden it years ago but I'm not sure I have since the Torrington Place one opened. I was also trying to check the layout hadn't changed to make the taxis a bigger problem.

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.

What do you mean by protected space on busy routes? Usually if space is provided - on road cycle lanes or shared use pavements, motorists are usually very quick to use physical and verbal intimidation to encourage you to use if so the "as long as no-one is required to use it" is a bit moot really.

Some motorists are very quick to use physical and verbal intimidation to encourage cyclists off the road, whether or not there's any protected space. After quite a while without serious incident, last week I was punishment-passed by a Stagecoach bus, then yesterday I was punishment-passed by a white sports car and a novel type of left-hooked by an articulated lorry within about a mile yesterday. There was no protected space in any of those locations. I no longer believe that presence or absence of a cycle lane or path is a significant factor in motorist behaviour.

By protected space, ideally I mean what you see at http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/#primary but I admit that I do still use some of the better mixed-use paths alongside roads, despite their drawbacks.

[TonyR]

I've ridden it years ago but I'm not sure I have since the Torrington Place one opened. I was also trying to check the layout hadn't changed to make the taxis a bigger problem.

Sorry but then your views on the routes are no more than uninformed guesswork based on viewing a few Google images. The roads around that area have changed dramatically in layout since you rode them and you have no idea what its really like riding round there now.

What beggars belief is you are asking me to prove things I've said while posting as authoritative stuff you've made up. Why?

By protected space, ideally I mean what you see at http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/#primary but I admit that I do still use some of the better mixed-use paths alongside roads, despite their drawbacks.

Based on your link it seems we are talking at crossed purposes. What you are calling protected space for cyclists is what I call cycling with controlled motor traffic - controlled not by segregation or separation but by road layout and speed restrictions.

[mjr]

What beggars belief is you are asking me to prove things I've said while posting as authoritative stuff you've made up. Why?

It's not made up and I've been quite clear all along about what my claims are based on. You can decry them as whatever you like, but the sources are there for all to see, rather than the lurkers supporting them by email, or simply ignoring the requests to substantiate the claim that Royal College Street "was causing more accidents than before" or various other questions I guess you found too awkward.

By protected space, ideally I mean what you see at http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/#primary but I admit that I do still use some of the better mixed-use paths alongside roads, despite their drawbacks.

Based on your link it seems we are talking at crossed purposes. What you are calling protected space for cyclists is what I call cycling with controlled motor traffic - controlled not by segregation or separation but by road layout and speed restrictions.

Some of them have green spaces or whatever between carriageway and cycleway but it's still spaces that motor vehicles are discouraged from entering, which I think is key. While imperfect, what's proposed in London is still a huge step forwards from Torrington Place or the current reality of riding around Paddington - as long as it doesn't get compromised into uselessness under pressure from Armitt and others.