History is littered with events and announcements that didn’t seem important at the time. When the transport planners of the future consider this period in London’s history what will they see as the most significant decision of recent times? The confirmation of Crossrail would be the obvious answer with the Thameslink Programme perhaps running a respectable second. But important as increasing rail capacity in London is, it is hardly revolutionary stuff. At LR towers we aren’t afraid to back an outsider. And we therefore wonder perhaps if the real story will be something else – the point where London began to re-invent itself as a cycling city.
If this proves to be the case then perhaps transport historians will look back at the 2015 TfL February board meeting as the defining moment when the approach to transport in London changed forever. For this was when the creation of the fully segregated East – West Cycle Superhighway was finally confirmed.
Before looking at that board meeting in particular (and explaining our hyperbole) it is perhaps best to set the scene. So, in true LR style, we will look at the Cycle Superhighway itself in part two. First, we will look at London’s relationship with cycling so far.
1960s – the decline in cycling
In our article on Tottenham Court Road, we looked at how changes made to the way we use London’s roads in the 1960s still affect us today. The disappearance of the trolleybus was one obvious change. More insidious was the near total elimination of the bicycle from our roads.
Lest it be thought that bicycles never were that significant, one should look at the importance of cycling for getting children to school. School cycle sheds have almost always been of significant size and much was done in decades past to promote good cycling with the National Cycling Proficiency Scheme. Diamond Geezer even reports on a Model Traffic Area to encourage good cycling which was still active in the 1960s – something that appears to have been a unique example in London and not often seen in other parts of the country but, to this day, is quite common in Germany.
When the love of the motor car began to fade, for at least some parts of society, the dangers of traffic were often over-stressed as a reason why people wouldn’t get “on their bike”. So, of course, because it was perceived as too dangerous to cycle, people took to the motor car in ever greater numbers.
That is not to say that this perception of danger by lone cyclists was irrational. Quickly discovered when people took more of an interest in the subject was that one of the biggest factors that makes motorists drive in a cyclist-aware manner is seeing other cyclists elsewhere on the road. For the cyclist, as far as the danger from cars is concerned, there really is safety in numbers.
Cycling is cool
The overall negative attitude towards cycling has now largely disappeared. It is very hard to pin down just what brought this about, but it may be that a change of attitude to cyclists themselves played its part. Like the Thatcherite idea that a 30 year old who still caught the bus must be a failure in life, there was for some time the perception that many people rode a bike because they couldn’t afford a car and were thus almost meant to be pitied. Cycling was not seen as an ordinary activity and part of daily life – certainly not in the same way as it was in the Netherlands or Denmark – something that is changing now.
It is also fair to say that, perhaps crucially, cycling attracted a new generation of people who had an ability to campaign and get their voices heard. Issues such as keeping healthy and the environment also scored prominently and what possibly started as a sop gathered momentum. Whatever the reasons, this overall change in attitude doesn’t mean that cyclists are universally welcomed now but at least the objections are generally for reasons other than a blanket assumption of both pity and danger.
Indeed it is easy now for people not to appreciate the sheer number of cycle journeys made in London. According to the Managing Directors Report of the February 2015 Surface Transport panel at TfL “More than 580,000 cycle journeys are made every day in London, and cycling in London has more than doubled in the last decade”. To put that in perspective, there are around 50% more journeys made by bike than made on London Overground. Or, perhaps more crudely, that’s roughly the equivalent of the entire population of Sheffield jumping on a bike, every day.
A possible turning point
These, and others, are perhaps the overall trends that have led to a new age of cycling in London. Pinning down the significant events from this century that have contributed though is somewhat harder. With our penchant for the obscure we would, however, like to suggest an unlikely one that may have been highly influential. In 2005 the DfT set up Cycling England to promote and co-ordinate (unsurprisingly) cycling in England. Readers might be interested to learn that one of the board members was one Christian Wolmar, keen cyclist and avowed future mayoral candidate. In 2010 the government, in a move which was clearly designed to capitalise on the public’s apparent dislike of “quangos” announced a “Bonfire of the Quangos”. In reality, of course, in many cases the administrative function simply moved elsewhere with no real saving but Cycling England was one organisation that was genuinely destined to disappear without an obvious replacement.
This populist elimination of quangos in general, and Cycling England in particular, genuinely alarmed some in local authorities and elsewhere who foresaw a lot of expertise and knowledge that had been painfully built being thrown away. This was especially bad for those local authorities who were already now planning to make their roads more cycle friendly as part of their transport policy.
The concern at local authority level was also present within TfL, who had also embarked on a much more pro-cycle policy. Alarm bells rang and Transport Commissioner Sir Peter Hendy got involved to genuinely do something about it. Sir Peter’s reputation as a busman is well known, what is less well known is that he is also a man occasionally prone to put foot to bicycle pedal. At the time, it was probably also rather fortunate that in 2011 he just happened to also be President of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT).
Professional Cycle Planners
The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport is an amalgamation of the Institute of Logistics and the Chartered Institute of Transport. It sees itself as very much as an organisation for “professionals” in the business of transport. It was therefore highly significant that in 2011 it saw fit to add a cycling forum to the various areas of transport that it covered. It also provided a convenient repository for various Cycling England documents – suitably updated and available to all.
On the 4th October 2011 at 55 Broadway Peter Hendy delivered what was billed as the inaugural CILT cycling lecture. This is not to say that the CILT had not had cycling lectures before. It was just that this was the first one that was aimed at professionals in the business – and there are cycle professionals in the transport business. Indeed it was also done to encourage those with a professional interest in the cycling sector to join the Institute.
It is hard to really know what the significance of this promotion of cycling was, but one effect was to at least give those professionals supporting cycling more of a voice as well as re-assurance that the man at the top was firmly behind them. The Commissioner also pointed out that solutions had to come from within TfL as there was no-one else to turn to. At the time this was considered a little bit controversial and, to put it bluntly, arrogant – implying as it did that only TfL was capable of doing the job. Others pointed to the wealth of experience abroad but there was at least an element of truth in the commissioner’s point, for what will work in the Netherlands, with its different attitude to cycling, will not necessarily work in London.
In most cases the cycle professionals in the business are traffic engineers who are also cyclists and the meeting was preceded by a fact finding cycle ride. The bikes at the back of the art deco room normally used for board presentations seemed very out of place and prompted Peter Hendy to point out that this showed how unfit for purpose 55 Broadway was as the headquarters of a transport organisation planning for London’s transport future.
Pinning down a change in policy
It is relatively easy to support cyclists in one’s transport policy when you are an organisation such as TfL. One can provide a few cycle routes and some support. For example Journey Planner has the option of cycling and will provide complete maps for journey from A to B by bike. One can also do relatively innocuous things such as Cycle London events (whose name changes depending on the sponsor) and set up cycle hire schemes. One can also do a lot to educate both cyclists and lorry drivers of the dangers of their respective methods of travel when they occupy the same road space.
One can even, on projects that TfL control, mandate that all lorries must comply with the latest cycle safety features (e.g. additional mirrors). Something that is simple and relatively cost-free to implement but which can genuinely save lives. Crossrail, for example, not only carries this requirement, but is ruthless about its enforcement. It has a very strict policy of not accepting delivery from any lorry that fails to be compliant with its mandated features. If your mirrors don’t allow you to look down, then you are most certainly not getting in.
Indeed TfL do appear to be very much taking the lead on the issue of making lorries safer and one cannot imagine any other organisation (with the possible exception of the DfT) that could have possibly have taken the initiative. The latest step seems to be that TfL want to go even further than Crossrail’s example and work with the Boroughs to ban from London any lorries not suitably equipped with additional cycle safety features. According to the latest TfL budget (presumably in draft form but this is not stated) enforcement will commence on this scheme on the 1st September 2015 and the enforcement area will coincide with the Low Emission Zone.
Crunch time (metaphorically)
The above measures are relatively easy to introduce as they have very little impact on the (voting) private motorist. The current Mayor is a known keen cyclist but, in the early days, was also very keen to have a policy of keeping all the traffic flowing. It was fairly apparent that, then, at the low level of cycling taking place, cyclists and other road users could co-exist relatively happily. What must have been obvious though was that, if cycling increased in popularity to the extent that it was generally hoped, inevitably there would be a critical mass of cyclists by which point it made sense to give them their own, more segregated, facilities even if at the expense of other traffic (including buses).
Cycle Superhighways Mark 1 – swathes of blue paint on the road
When it was time to give more cycle priority the solution seemed to be to paint a blue line on the road to segregate cyclists from other road users. This turned out to be a somewhat simple (and flawed) solution but in all fairness any attempt to be more radical at that stage would have probably not have been politically acceptable.
Expensive
The first problem with the “paint on the road” solution was that it was seen as a quick, cheap fix. In reality, it turned out to be neither.
A lot of the cost of a traffic scheme is involved in the setting up of traffic orders. These can be numerous as even shifting a parking bay slightly involves one of these. As a result, the simple act of reallocating space on the road can actually involve horrendous sums of money in administration procedures. It also generally isn’t quick. On top of that measures such as moving bollards, or even just kerbstones, cost far more then the public would ever imagine. One can also imagine EDF Energy not regarding installing or modifying highway lighting as a priority as far as they are concerned – much to the chagrin of Borough or TfL highway engineers anxious to see their project progress.
Possibly worst of all from a public perception was that there seemed to be very little to show for all the work involved on these cycle superhighways. One report suggested that the cost was between £2-4 million per mile, a cost assumed to be outrageous and inflated. Behind the scenes a generation of railway engineers put their hands on the shoulders of a generation of cycle engineers and said “now you know what we put up with.”
Unenforceable
The second problem with the blue strip on the road was that the attitude in London is not the same as the Netherlands, Denmark or Germany and the road markings were often ignored by other vehicles – sometimes including TfL’s own. At the same time there was very little actual cycle priority, forcing cyclists to stop at numerous traffic lights, so inevitably there were lots of cases of cyclists ignoring red lights – sometimes with fatal results. Whilst the jumping of red lights is not to be condoned, from a human behaviour perspective it is hardly unnatural. For the reality is that a cycle priority route with too much unavoidable stopping and starting is very tiring and leads to a cyclist either not using the route at all or abusing it.
Not under TfL’s control
A further problem with the cycle highways was that they were put on the busiest roads. This may sound absurd, but this was because they were the only roads that TfL controlled and at the time many local councils were (perhaps understandably) unwilling to hand over swathes of local roads for longer distance cycle routes. Even cycle highways on TfL roads required some level of local co-operation and when this was not forthcoming this led to unsatisfactory situations such as Cycle Superhighways ending abruptly at Borough boundaries, or a complete lack of any cycle superhighways at all in some places (Kensington & Chelsea, the Sauron-esque eye atop LR Towers is looking at you).
Not there when needed most
Probably the biggest complaint of all cycle priority schemes is that the priority is there when you don’t need it and the moment you really do need it you find it disappears. So along a stretch of plain road there is a cycle path and when you reach a roundabout (one of the scariest traffic intersections for cyclists) you are thrown into the melée with the other traffic.
The issue concerning roundabouts really came to a head with the notorious Bow Roundabout. Initially the response from TfL was that it wasn’t possible to redesign it to make it safer because that meant cutting overall road capacity. Implicitly it suggested that the Mayor’s policy at the time of keeping the traffic flowing was trumping any attempt to make some of the worst cycling blackspots safe. Diamond Geezer has often reported on Bow roundabout. Whilst just one traffic intersection, it is an important one with a lot of physical and political conflict and the past and present proposals to change the layout seemed to be indicative of the current roads policy at the time.
Six cycle deaths in less than a fortnight
In November 2013 things really came to a head when six cyclists died in the space of less than a fortnight. All but one involved a collision between the cyclist and a bus, coach or truck. Such a spate of deaths attracted a lot of media attention and it was clear that there was a general feeling that things could not go on as they were.
One can never eliminate all road deaths except by imposing conditions so onerous that they disrupt normal life. But that is no reason not to adopt the Health & Safety principle of “As Low As Reasonably Practical”.
Of course by not predetermining what period is being measured and selecting start and end days retrospectively, the result of six deaths in a fortnight was seen by the public as much worse than it really is. For example, for all other fortnights in the year there were not anything like six cycling deaths and in most of them there were no deaths at all. It is also a mathematical fact that inevitably with random events there will be some clustering and to some extent what was being seen on the streets of London was simply down to the laws of chance.
Whether this was a tragic, statistical fluke or not however, ultimately didn’t matter. Clearly it is hard for anyone to believe that six deaths in a fortnight could be considered as low as reasonably practical and thus it attracted headlines. No doubt Lady Bracknell would have complained that the number of deaths was “considerably above the proper average that statistics have laid down for our guidance”.
One clear consequence of the six deaths was that Metropolitan Police were deployed in force at many junctions to check on all road users behaviour and compliance with the law. This produced a dramatic fall in collisions but clearly must have been very expensive to implement. It was obviously thought worthwhile though because the scheme was recently reintroduced as a result of a rise in road deaths. This time most road deaths did not involve cyclists. In some ways this helps show us the financial cost of road deaths if it is considered worthwhile to run an operation of this magnitude and costs in order to reduce them. It should hardly need stating but if cycling was more popular, and consequently it reduced the amount of other traffic and more segregated (or otherwise fairly safe) cycleways were provided, then this economic cost associated with road deaths would be reduced.
A segregated cycleway along the Embankment
It was thus almost inevitable that, with just about everyone regarding the current situation as unsatisfactory, a proposal would be made for a truly segregated cycle route. The Victoria Embankment was quickly identified as a particularly suitable place to put one. Or to put it another way, if you can’t get it to work along the Victoria Embankment then you probably can’t get it to work anywhere.
One big attraction was the Victoria Embankment has no daytime TfL bus routes running along it. Another was that a segregated cycleway next to the river would have the considerable advantage of not having many traffic junctions and also no issues with deliveries to adjacent premises.
It was clear that the mood had changed. One criticism of the previous cycle highways was that they were compromises which, amongst other things, gave cyclists a false feeling of safety. In March 2013 the Mayor published his Vision for Cycling with much emphasis on the segregated route along the Victoria Embankment.
The City of Westminster has had a history of not wanting the vista of the Victoria Embankment in any way diminished by prominent transport infrastructure and this turned out to be no exception. They objected to the scheme as it was. Fortunately, their main concern was that they objected to the blue paint – arguing that as the cycleway would now be fully physically segregated from other road users it was unnecessary. It was a reasonable point.
Whilst it would be going too far to suggest that there was now an attitude of “no compromises” one could at least fairly say that there was now an attitude of “we do this properly or we don’t do it at all” – a remarkable contrast to what had hitherto been the approach.
In February 2015, something approximating the final extended scheme was unveiled at a TfL board meeting and approved. In part two we will look at the scheme in much more detail and we will also look at the concerns some board members had with it.
When discussing this article please remember the spirit of LR. This is not an opportunity for other roads users to make derogatory statements about cyclists or vice versa. Any comment containing such statements will be deleted in its entirety.
As an ex pat (NL for 15 years) I feel so estranged from the British new policies towards cycling. I am used to seeing grandmas cycling to their coffee mornings, droves of schoolchildren cycling to school, dressed in ordinary clothing. In NL, if you started to talk about showers and changing rooms for folk who have simply cycled to work, they would think you were bonkers.
So the whole ‘super highway’ concept is alien to those of us who took up this immense cultural difference. My daughter cycled 13 kms to her secondary school and the boys and girls used to debate who would lead the massed V formation against the prevailing wind. Healthy stuff.
A super Part 1 article, well done Pedantic (or maybe PedalAntic). Your write-up deserves a much longer and thoughtful read, so maybe just two immediate observations here.
A learned book published ca. 1969 was published by George Allen & Unwin, entitled Use and Non-Use of Public Transport: The Case of London, with lots of case studies. The point was made inter alia that Hampstead was more effective in complaining or lobbying or both, compared to areas with less elevated socio-economic groups, to ensure that its public transport was looked after. The saving of the North London Line from closure (and, post-book, the subsequent growth of the North London Line into the Overground) is a nice example. The reader was invited to draw some conclusions.
In the case of the not-now-so-humble-bike, part of the new lobbying success is surely down to the type of user having changed radically from the 1969 Ford car production line worker cyclist from Becontree to Dagenham (no doubt there are still many equivalents), into the e-tech-staffer cycling from Inner London (another different housing origin previously in decline) – much quicker easier less crowded then the tube, faster than the bus – to somewhere like Hoxton.
Sorry that these seem like stereotypes, but the point is that there ARE modern comparators now for cycling in London – though arguably still without mum and kids well represented in actuality, unlike in the Netherlands – is that the next phase? – which thanks to the LCC (London Cycling Campaign, not the former local authority) and other groups are now an increasingly effective and articulate cohort of the London population.
The second point is that Cycle SuperHighways appear to be a means of encouraging more cycle-based commuting into Central London – a CrossBike rather than CrossRail – whereas, given that the bulk of ALL urban journeys takes place in the 0-3 mile zone, anywhere within Greater London, surely the core (Dutch-style) opportunity could be in suburban London, not focused on the Central Activity Zone?Perhaps you are covering that aspect in Part 2.
Thanks again for the stimulus given by this article.
This is an excellent scheme which still has *just* enough time to be held up by a judiciary review by the LTDA/Canary Wharf. It is worth noting that the Director of Canary Wharf Group Lives in Mayfair and so has to drive along the embankment every day which may be a reason for their large opposition! On the topic of compromise, it seems odd that TfL decided to have semi segregation outside of Cycle Superhighway 2 by Whitechapel Market (in the original consultation there was full, curb segregation), thus giving into the demands of market users and creating a section where cyclists are thrown into the bus lane, setting a dangerous precedent for future schemes. And we’re still waiting for the Royal Parks to stop throwing a tantrum outside of Buckingham Palace. It is worth noting that a chain is only as good as it’s weakest link. It’s all well having an excellent trunk route only to then be thrown into sub standard infrastructure. Don’t get me started on shared space!
‘Cycling is cool’? Maybe amongst the white middle classes but there’s a hell of a long way to go with the white working classes. Interestingly as well, quite a few minority groups I know well have a stigma around it, and see it as a failure. Getting a car is seen as very important, and a sign of having ‘made it’.
Have a look at most cyclists around say the east end, where many Asians live. Most are white, professionals under 40. Same thing in West African areas.
Until more is done to make it acceptable to various groups growth is likely to be limited, but many are reluctant to acknowledge it.
Another point is that as central London becomes increasingly for the well off, and much housing old and particularly new, is bought by investors not to live in but as an asset, so more people are forced out to areas where cycling is not very enticing, good lanes or not. Having said that, there’s still scope for so much more than the terrible provisions there currently is.
Cobarn
Director of Canary Wharf Group Lives in Mayfair and so has to drive along the embankment every day
No he doesn’t. He could cycle! More seriously, he could get the Jubilee Line from Green Park like ordinary mortals. From 2018 he could walk to Bond Street and catch Crossrail.
Well done on the article PoP – breaking new ground for LR, I think!
A few observations are:
– there is understandable focus on the superhighway schemes and these seem to be very much focussed on the peak time weekday commute into central London. Other types of journey such as popping down to the shops or the school run are undertaken by a somewhat different segment of the population and will require different types of infrastructure if there is a desire to enable cycling for these journey types.
– I think two key factors behind the recent growth of commuting cycling are money and time. Compare the cost of an annual zone 2 or 3 season ticket with even a brand new half decent bike (without even factoring in the cost of a gym membership…) A bike will also be the fastest mode of transport for a high proportion of journeys. It is really door to door time where the bike does well, compared to door to station or bus stop to door.
– I think the importance of political will can’t be over emphasised. Really the deck was stacked against cycling infrastructure being treated as a serious mode of transport as traffic modelling didn’t even consider bikes (computer says no…), the lack of good design guidelines and expertise (or willingness) to apply them.
– I also wonder if TfL were influenced by the ability for cycling to add people carrying capacity to the road network for a fairly cheap price and rapid timescales compared to other options. We may have reached “peak bus” in central London as it may not be practical to add more in the central zone and rail schemes come with a big price and long times to implement.
Great article – thanks. As a occasional cyclist in London (after travelling down from Scotland by train), I have seen the growth in cycling numbers over the years. Infrastructure has got better – relatively speaking – but I can see the difference over here in the Netherlands, where I have been working for a while.
I also remember being aghast when talking to a colleague, who revealed he used to cycle to work every day from Brentwood to Aldgate – it was not just the distance that got to me but also the Romford Road/A12/A11 combination en route – not a nice place to cycle in the early eighties!
The Superhighway I await with interest – and Diamond Geezer’s (always) interesting analysis of it. In the last few years I have taken my bike to both Brussels and Paris. he latter was interesting in that motorists there gave me both more room and respect, than they give each other. Here in the UK, there does need to be some attitude change in both the cyclists and motorist groups (broad generalisation I know – and taking no sides) in getting used to each other being there.
Incidentally, I did cycle round the Arc de Triomphe three times whilst I was there – Again, I was given space and was spared the honking and road grabbing that is par for the course there and necessary to navigate successfully in a car.
Two points to add.
First, the tube bombings of 2007 seemed to lead to many people abandoning the tube for new bikes (or so I heard). This did seem to provide a spike of cyclists on the road, as people reacted from those terrible events, tried a different way of getting to work and stayed with the bike.
Second, you make no mention of Andrew Gilligan, the mayors cycling Tsar, appointed in 2013?
Looking forward to Part 2 already
I do think you’re perhaps being a little kind with TfL regarding the first superhighways. As soon as they were announced there was much criticism of it being mainly ‘just’ a bit of paint and a recognition it was far from what was needed, from the public and many in authority too, yet they ploughed on with it.
That link showing how Chicago managed a far better segregated lane at a fraction of the cost using no more than some cheap bollards is revealing. Just why is everything seemingly overpriced in the UK – rail, cycle lanes etc? Yes, they generally have wider roads but so does London in many areas yet it still fails on the basics in areas quick fixes could be made.
Putting up some cheap bollards along the road is far from expensive. In many countries they also do the same on wide paving as an interim measure before removing the slabs and making it smoother. Seen that often in Europe. Cheap, easy and it works. It could take a couple of years to get around to removing slabs and laying tarmac but better than nothing in the intervening period. In the UK it seems to take 5 years, endless studies and then only be permitted once all the paving is ripped up. Things move so slowly, and often what does happen in fragmented and flawed.
While I understand the point you’re making when you say that 580,000 bike journeys is the equivalent of “the entire population of Sheffield jumping on a bike, every day”, I would surmise that the large majority of cyclists are two journeys a day – one to and one from their destination. Might a comparison with Newcastle-upon-Tyne (popn: 280,000) be fairer?
Here’s a good link showing how the ‘interim’ sort of measures (which still get more people cycling) are then changed to full segregation and upgrading of the whole street, and just how much cheaper they do it too in the Netherlands – http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2009/11/costings-of-improvements-for-cyclists.html
Well worth a read. You can see similar things in many developed nations. I don’t know where it is going so wrong in the UK in terms of refusing to find out what works abroad, getting the basics right and the excessive costings. It would likely take quite a few articles to figure out.
@PoP
You imply that Lordship Recreation Ground Model Traffic Area is unique. Maybe in London, but not in the UK. See here for a video including the Queen opening the Model Traffic Area in Scunthorpe. I was banned from the Tufty Club for talking cheekily to the officer who ran that Model Traffic Area, but that is another story 🙂
There are also small model traffic areas in at least two Southampton parks.
[OK. I get the point and have modified the wording. PoP]
Some interesting points raised and I look forward to part 2, however I too must take issue with the numbers (as does Mu). 580,000 trips isn’t very many actual cyclists, given that there will be a minimum per person of an ‘out’ and a ‘back’ – so maximum 290,000 people, and many will probably take the opportunity to stop off at least at one other location en route given the almost-zero additional cost. When it comes down to it, the number of cyclists is around the same as one not-too-busy outer bus route.
This makes the amount which will be spent on them seem very excessive, and the disadvantage to other travellers (inc. pedestrians) substantial for the numbers concerned.
If London was flatter and/or smaller the calculations would be more positive, but it isn’t.
btw. surely “fully segregated” would be a tunnel from point A to point B with no intermediate access.
With regards to the Sheffield thing – that was an addition by me during the edit process.
I did think about going with Newcastle for the reason you identified, Mu, but then I also thought that this wasn’t any better because, as AlisonW points out, it would still be a gross generalisation based on the assumption of two journeys.
In the end, I decided to go with Sheffield as my goal was to try and give a reasonable, easy impression of what 500,000 means as a number for people who were struggling to visualise it, but also tried to make sure the wording was precise enough to avoid giving the impression that this was in terms of journeys, not people making actual trips.
Ultimately I knew whatever I picked would be imperfect (hence the description of it as a crude metaphor), but it needed something.
Hope that helps give some context behind my thinking.
@John – perfect sense, thank you for clarifying
We could – and should – make cycling easier and safer than it is. A staggering number of parks, for example, have a no cycling policy – which is a nonsense. Parks are perfect places for bikes.
But we also need to look beyond roads. Canal towpaths – for example – are great to cycle along if they are properly maintained. Many railway cuttings could make great cycle routes too – flat and direct with no road junctions. You’d just need a fence to separate bikes and trains. In many cases these sort of routes – parks, canals, railways – could be much better used for cyclists. We just lack the imagination to do it.
@Milton Clevedon: I think the point about the changing social profile of cycling is an important one and links directly to Reynolds 953’s about political will if you consider that the turning point came when journalists started cycling to work, given the outsized influence journalists have on London politics ( Boris Johnson, Christian Wolmar and Andrew Gilligan having been mentioned so far). And some of the short-comings of the initial Superhighways can surely be put down to self-confident middle aged men (and the three mentioned are nothing if not self-confident) under-estimating how intimidating and dangerous some roads could seem to less confident cyclists. Hence Boris’ breezy comments of a few years back about how easy it is to cycle through the Elephant and Castle roundabout.
@Andy M -few, if any, of the railway cuttings I have seen are wide enough at the bottom to take a cycleway,let alone leave any room for the necessary safety separation measures.
More generally, the trouble with this debate is that it privileges cyclists over other modes, in particular over pedestrians. Parks and canal towpaths do not have wide paths and mixing pedestrians and cyclists is difficult. (Yes, I know it ought not to be so and there are many places where this mix works, but in the UK too high a proportion of cyclists consists of mamils, not grandmothers,whose attitudes have been neatly exemplified in this forum by those who argue that cyclists really can’t afford to stop because of the effort of getting going again…)
This may be of interest to readers: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/
@Graham H: “too high a proportion of cyclists consists of mamils, not grandmothers”
a) please avoid derogatory terminology
b) surely then the answer is to increase the number of grandmothers?
c) “those who argue that cyclists really can’t afford to stop because of the effort of getting going again”
Can you please point to an example of someone who has argued that, in those terms?
@IanJ
I don’t think there is any derogatory intention – I think many of us here are potential mamils (=middle aged men in lycra).
@Ian J -if you read the more recent posts on the TCR thread, you will see just that argument advanced…
@Tim Burns
The London Bombings were in 2005, not 2007 (and I’m sorry but if you’re going to bring up that horrible day it’s kind of bad form to get it wrong; it takes 5s to Google something like that if you’re not sure).
There’s no statistical support for your anecdotal claim that commuters have abandoned the tube for bikes. Look at the ever increasing tube ridership stats (or visit the Victoria line at 0845) for the evidence. Also, the chances of being injured or killed in a cycling accident in London have to be far far greater than ever being involved in a terrorist attack on the tube, even for seasoned cyclists, so anyone who truly rides a bike simply because of a fear of terrorism on the tube is both deluding themselves and letting the terrorists win.
I seem to recall that in the early 2000’s (before 2005) TfL brought out a series of paper cycle maps for most of London. I think they each covered a part of London, but all also had the central area on as well? (Similar-ish to the bus maps) They had suggested routes/etc overlaid on a base street map. This is long before cycle highways, etc let alone travel planners on the internet, and must indicate that some work was going on around cycling not long after TfL were formed. Yes, they were probably going through the motions, but it was something.
It’s all a bit hazy now, but I was cycling from W1 to N16 daily, and remember smiling at how odd some of the suggested routes were.
@Graham H: I think the point about stopping and going again is that good design accommodates human nature rather than ignoring or fighting against it. The millennia spent by our ancestors on the Africa savannah means humans seek to economise effort. Poor design for pedestrians ignores this and corrals people where the designer thinks they should go rather than along natural desire lines. People frequently ignore this and walk where it is most convenient, irrespective of signs and risk. The same happens with infrastructure imposing frequent stop starting on a bike. There really shouldn’t be much of a surprise that many people whether on foot or on a bike often choose to ignore signs and designs put there primarily to manage motor vehicle traffic.
Ere, mister, I don’t arf like the legs on that one there in the pik-chuer!
[ see picture @ head of article ]
Now then, seriously …
Noting the advisory about derogatory remarks … I’ve been cycling since I was 10 – I’m now 69. I would no longer cycle, as I once did, frequently from Walthamstow to Raynes Park & back (the latter late of a Sunday evening)
I fear the new cycle schemes, as I equally fear the dreaded tipper lorries [Perceptions snipped as not adding constructively to this post. LBM]
NOT helped by local authority so-called “mini-holland” schemes that actually do nothing for cyclists, but totally screw up local businesses & local car journeys.
Please note the deeply cynical outlook, therefore?
Oh & HowardGWR +doubleplusgood!
Reynolds953
Good point
If you are in zone 2 then cycling can make a lot of sense, further out – not so sure, for commuting.
I now only use my bike [ and a frame made-to-order for me, not an off-the shelf purchase, incidentally ] for “local” journeys, never more than 5 miles, any more.
I am also a motorist & I give cyclists space, but many other motorists don’t. At the same time, I have been repeatedly abused, in discussions & public meetings, because I’m a motorist/diesel user/4x4driver by cyclists representatives.
Something is seriously wrong, that’s for sure.
Every mode of transport in London is stop-start, because London is a crowded and busy place. All modes of transport have to fit around each other, so I’m not sure why we should aim to have non-stop cycle routes just because cyclists don’t like slowing down and speeding up again. None of us like that, whether we are driving, on the bus or train, or even walking along Oxford Street.
@Alex Ken’s London Cycling maps are available free here https://tfl.gov.uk/forms/12419.aspx (that URL does appear to have changed at some point – google “site:tfl.gov.uk” is your friend). I believe redesigned in 2007, so a bit dated.
@Graham H: if you read the more recent posts on the TCR thread, you will see just that argument advanced
Not so. I think you are alluding to the argument (from timbeau I think) that cycle paths should get priority equal to that of the road they run along, not having to give way to side streets. It’s a big stretch from there to the claim that this argument is that “cyclists really can’t afford to stop because of the effort of getting going again”, and equally nonsensical to say that this would pose a particular problem for pedestrians, since it is no good being able to stroll confidently across a cycle path, only to get flattened by a bus in the parallel bus lane.
[Inappropriate text snipped. LBM]
@ChrisMitch: fair comment, but note that each mode has its own hierarchy of priority: cars on minor roads give way to cars on major roads, road traffic gives way to rail traffic at level crossings, pedestrians give way to cars except at zebra crossings where cars give way to them, and at pelican crossings where priority is shared out by time. So should cyclists on a trunk cycle route give way to vehicles on a minor road? Should cyclists have to halt at a road crossing and press a button, or should there be detector loops ahead of the crossing to let them keep riding through where possible? And if there is spare land available that is relatively free of conflicts with other road users, say on the Embankment (on the site of the reserved tram reservation where there was once a tram every 30 seconds), or on the Westway, why not use it?
@Graham H
While you’re spot on in identifying the problem of mixing pedestrians and cyclists (which will only get worse as numbers of both increase), I’ve a bit of an issue with the concept of “privileging cyclists” in this context. There’s an unspoken assumption there that “cyclists” are, and always will be, a minority of _people_. Nobody sane would argue that cycling is ever going to account for the majority of trip stages – even the Dutch are only at 30% – but what we should be aiming for is that _almost everybody_ has cycling in their choice matrix. Naturally that will mean some people use it for 50% of trips, others for 5%, but that’s fine. At the moment it feels like it’s 70% of trips for 10% of the population (commuter MAMILs, singlespeed hipsters and a smattering of lawyers on Bromptons), and 0% for the rest. Mode vs distance statistics seem to bear that out – for 10 mile cycle trips we have almost the same cycle mode share as the Dutch (most Dutch people, like most English people, won’t cycle 10 miles each way routinely), but for 2-mile and 5-mile trips they’re massively ahead of us. Not really surprising when you think about it – if you can deal with cycling on London’s roads at all in their present state, you can very likely deal with cycling 10 miles, and vice versa.
“Privileging _cycling_”, well, perhaps, but cycle infrastructure no more privileges cycling than a bus lane privileges buses or a railway privileges trains. Only Taxpayers Alliance types have any problem with either of those, because (Mr. Toads and libertarian nutjobs aside) it’s generally understood that most of us will use rail/buses some of the time.
@ChrisMitch The reason that cycling is more affected by stop start than other means of transportation is related to the amount of energy a rider has to put in in order to regain lost speed. Walking is inherently stop start in that you can stop, start and change direction very easily. Cycling takes much more time to regain top speed and that means that stop start has more effect on the total journey time and effort involved. [see this report on page 12 for cyclist comments] The same could be said for motor traffic, and hence the entirely understandable desire to keep motor traffic moving however if the desire is a modal shift to cycling then you need to ensure that a cyclist on a given route has no worse priority to that of a car. I.e. a cycle path needs priority over side roads’ motor traffic.
As for the number of journeys. This press release suggests that a significant proportion of rush hour traffic is cyclists. How much more would it be if there were better infrastructure to speed them on their way.
Finally I would bring up the thought of bike parking. Just as driving into work means you need to park your car, so does cycling. Were the number of cyclists in London increased significantly, where would the bikes go?
CM “don’t like slowing down and speeding up again.” – not so much don’t like, more absolutely knackering. When you’ve only got maybe 100W or so of power on tap of your own personal energy (as opposed to a big tank of fuel), accelerating 70+ kg on to 20+ kph hurts.
Ian J “So should cyclists on a trunk cycle route give way to vehicles on a minor road?” – a real peeve of mine. The biggest problem is that you have to give way to traffic approaching you from behind (vehicles turning left). A local cycle route to me (on the way to the station) has the shared use path giving way to five factory entrances in a 1/4 mile stretch. I cycle on the road …
@Ian J -“as direct AND UNITERRUPTED as possible.” I’d assumed that timbeau’s capital letters were there for a purpose. In the context of the TCR, that would imply two privileged streams of vehicles,neither having any requirement to stop, which pedestrians would have to negotiate.
should have said “70+ kg on to 20+ kph repeatedly”
@ChrisMitch
I don’t think anyone is arguing for non-stop cycle routes, that’s plainly impractical, it’s just about aiming for the right granularity of stop/start. Realistically on a Z1/2 main road you’re going to need a zebra or signal controlled crossing every 300 metres or so – which as a cyclist is mildly annoying, but better than making pedestrians go out of the way (hierarchy of provision puts pedestrians at the top!)
The designs for Cycle Superhighway 1 are interesting in this regard. They’ve come in for a lot of criticism from the cycle campaign groups for not using the obvious main road in the area (the A10), but because the route uses quieter streets which apparently don’t need controlled pedestrian crossings (though whether locals will still think that when they’ve got thousands of cyclists an hour using it, I’m not sure), its designers are claiming it offers a shorter and more convenient journey time than the main road would.
‘ian J
“Can you please point to an example of someone who has argued that……. cyclists really can’t afford to stop because of the effort of getting going again”
In the original article:
“………..there was very little actual cycle priority, forcing cyclists to stop at numerous traffic lights, so inevitably there were lots of cases of cyclists ignoring red lights – not to be condoned, [but] from a human behaviour perspective…………..too much unavoidable stopping and starting is very tiring.”
The physical effort involved in getting moving is greater for a cyclist than a vehicle driver (who just has to move his right foot slightly). And acceleration is not as great – it is not pleasant to be trying to get underway on a bike with White Van Man and Cabbie re-enacting the start of the Monaco Grand Prix six inches from your back wheel. So it is hardly surprising if some cyclists choose to anticipate the lights by a few seconds.
Simply barrelling through a crossing because you are going too fast to stop is quite a different thing.
Thanks for another interesting article – I always enjoy LR’s clear and detailed analyses. (This is the first time I’ve known some of the information beforehand, and unlike most newspaper articles about things I’m familiar with, LR knows of what they speak.)
@AlisonW – if the money is spent on existing cyclists, I agree. But if TfL want all those kids to use bikes instead of buses or Mum’s taxi, they have to do something to make parents feel like they’re not sending their children into a death trap. Ditto for anyone else (like me) who finds sharing the road with London drivers too stressful.
To continue the conversation from the TCR thread:
@Malcolm Of course there are many benefits beyond efficiency to consider! But I’m now curious about network efficiency. If say every other additional trip made in London in the future were by bike instead of public transport, what effect would that have? Halving additional demand, but…?
@Eddie
‘Cycling is cool’? Maybe amongst the white middle classes but there’s a hell of a long way to go with the white working classes. Interestingly as well, quite a few minority groups I know well have a stigma around it, and see it as a failure. Getting a car is seen as very important, and a sign of having ‘made it’.
Especially for middle-income people living in social housing, who can earn enough on London wages to buy a nice motor, but haven’t a snowball’s chance of getting a deposit together to buy their own property in Z2 (and would be insane to try, given they’ve got guaranteed tenure at far below market rent).
Until more is done to make it acceptable to various groups growth is likely to be limited, but many are reluctant to acknowledge it.
And that surely comes down to making a more relaxed style of cycling possible. Normal clothes and no helmet required (I know it sounds frivolous, but hair is a very, very big deal for some groups). Lower speeds and shorter trips, which in a London context very likely means multi-modal – two miles to a Tube station may be more attractive than six miles to work.
@Graham H
“I’d assumed that timbeau’s capital letters were there for a purpose. In the context of the TCR, that would imply two privileged streams of vehicles, neither having any requirement to stop, which pedestrians would have to negotiate.”
My capitalisation was not to suggest that pedestrians shouldn’t be able to cross cycle paths, but that cycle paths shouldn’t have to give way to side streets, or negotiate awkward chicanes, or take three phases of the lights to negotiate one junction, or be expected to get off and push at random moments – all of them common features of so-called cycle routes.
@Greg Tingey
If you are in zone 2 then cycling can make a lot of sense, further out – not so sure, for commuting.
YMMV – the financial, and fitness benefits are greater the further you go. Outer edge of Z3 is practical, especially on the east/west axis (Thames valley floor – no hills!), but also depends where you live & work – Brentford to Victoria is easy for most people (or would be, given benign road conditions), Brentford to Docklands not so much. Assuming no hills, cycling’s energy efficiency is 3x that of walking, making 6-9 miles a reasonable distance for a 45-60 minute commute without breaking a sweat.
However, once you hit Z4/5 you’re probably better finding a fast rail stop – a Richmond, East Croydon or Stratford – but the distances involved mean that for most people, getting to the station by bike ought to be ideal. One of cycling’s less well-acknowledged benefits is extremely high journey time reliability – only bettered by walking (provided you look after your bike & fit puncture-proof tyres). This is a particularly big deal at suburban stations with a fast train every 20 minutes. But politically it’s very difficult – outer-suburbanites are much more wedded to their cars than those who live in Z2, the roads are every bit as bad as those in central London, and with the exception of a few upper-middle-class enclaves like Richmond, there aren’t really enough people cycling to push for meaningful change.
Main & “side” road priority
I was always under the impression, that, provided there were road-markings (as in “give way” dotted lines etc) then the “main” road traffic had priority whatever the mode. Otherwise motorists would be fully within their rights to pull out immediately in front of an oncoming cyclist (for instance) &, somehow, having ended up sprawled across someone’s bonnet about 15 years ago, when exactly that happend – & they paid-up for a new front wheel, rather than lose “points” on their licence, I’m pretty sure that is the case.
timbeau
Simply barrelling through a crossing because you are going too fast to stop is quite a different thing.
Yes, but this applies to everyone, not just cyclists.
Last night, at a set of lights, that had been fully red for 2-3 seconds, when a mototist decided he/she couldn’t be bothered to stop, after I had already stepped off the pavement. I was unimpressed, to say the least. ( Neither were they a couple of seconds later, but that is another story )
Hilltopper
Normal clothes and no helmet required
Err, Like THIS do you mean ??
@timbeau – thanks for the clarification.
@Hilltopper – spot on. My main concern , as a pedestrian, isthat too many cyclists see the activity as a quasi-competitve one and anything that gets in their way is a vile object to be abused. All too often – the Waterloo Road is a classic case – cyclists simply ignore the pedestrian crossings and ride through shouting abuse at the luckless foot passengers. Dress and demographics reinforce this. Quite how you make for a cultural change, though,is unclear. It has taken the best part of a century of fairly intrusive law enforcement, education, and physical measures to achieve that with motor vehicles and even now the Clarkson faction isn’t exactly invisible. The thing is two-sided, isn’t it – you give a section of people a privilege, and in return, you expect them to use it responsibly; so far as cycling is concerned, the entire discussion has focussed on their side of the coin.
@The Other Paul – my mistake, no offence intended. Thanks for the spot
My main concern , as a pedestrian, isthat too many cyclists see the activity as a quasi-competitve one and anything that gets in their way is a vile object to be abused.
That may partly just be Londoners for you, sadly. The only city worse for it is New York. I suspect Tube crowds would be almost as bad if people thought they could get away with it – there’s a lot of suppressed aggression. It doesn’t help that your average cyclist has probably got their adrenalin levels through the roof by the time they reach Waterloo – half an hour of life-threatening close passes from white van man will do that to a lot of people; the mindset needed for interaction with traffic vs that needed for interaction with pedestrians is quite different. I’m not making excuses for unacceptable behaviour, just explaining why it happens.. a bit more of a police presence would help hold people accountable for their actions.
I sincerely hope that when they build the protected Superhighways it will chill everybody out a bit – they are supposed to be for all ages and abilities, but I wouldn’t be that much more keen for my kids or my elderly mother to be cycling amongst the Embankment commuter-time-trialists than I would for them to cycle in the traffic.
Re Alison W
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/bike-future-part-1-londons-cycling-revolution/#comment-242585
In some areas for example Inner SWT / Northern line land i.e. Mortlake / Raynes Park / Colliers Wood inwards cycling is effectively providing the marginal extra capacity (and has been for about a decade) as the trains are effectively full (more 10/12car progressing glacially due to stock issues) in which case the economics might look far better than adding a new rail line for a small number of people. CR2 being the long term solution. Ultimately lots of new housing added but public transport provision added looking into the distance in the rear view mirror hence the only option apart for motorbike etc is cycling. (Westminster charging for motorbike parking has pushed some commuters to swap to pedals instead).
Hilltopper
6 March 2015 at 08:35
The last thing they want to do is encourage more people onto the tube / rail and no chance they will take cycle security seriously at stations either!
YMMV your mileage may vary
That may partly just be Londoners for you, sadly. The only city worse for it is New York. I suspect Tube crowds would be almost as bad if people thought they could get away with it – there’s a lot of suppressed aggression.
I’d go further and say it’s just an element of human nature in general. Human beings (or at least a large subset of us) have a natural tendency towards competition, whether with ourselves or others. That’s mostly harmless, but it can surface and cause issues.
So yes, in a way, the embankment time-trialist commuters getting annoyed at dawdlers will be no different from me having to suppress my rage at tourists dilly-dallying on escalators or Tube platforms. Nor is it different from my wife getting annoyed when someone in the fast lane at London Fields lido should really be in the medium, or at how the organisers of the Parkrun initiative have to spend a lot of time and effort gently reminding some people that it’s not a race.
As you say, this doesn’t make it right, but ultimately that doesn’t really matter anyway. You don’t deal with problems of human nature by telling people they’re wrong (at least not entirely anyway). You deal with them through a combination of education (“you want to do X without thinking about it. Here are Y reasons why you shouldn’t”) and by engineering – i.e. you find some way, through design and construction, to force better behaviour without people realising they’re even doing it.
Would the Post Office Railway tunnels be big enough for cyclists ?
The last thing they want to do is encourage more people onto the tube / rail and no chance they will take cycle security seriously at stations either!
No, but in the case of Zone 4/5 stations with fast trains, it’s about substituting for other less efficient modes for getting to the station (buses, slow connecting trains and mostly a lot of cars). While you can cycle (or drive) from East Croydon to Central London, the train is so much quicker than any other mode that there’s really no contest unless you’re either completely skint, on a serious health & fitness kick or love sitting in traffic jams.
So yes, in a way, the embankment time-trialist commuters getting annoyed at dawdlers will be no different from me having to suppress my rage at tourists dilly-dallying on escalators or Tube platforms.
The psychology’s no different, but the consequences are probably worse. An eejit on a racing bike is capable of causing more harm than one on foot, and an eejit at the wheel of a BMW so much more again.
That said, I suspect that, as with the supposed Crossrail overcrowding, it’ll be rather few years before complaints start to be raised about “traffic jams” on the Cycle Superhighways.
@Anonyminibus – I think this issue has been beaten to death in these halls recently, but at the risk of reigniting a fire that has been extinguished, the short answer is no – they are too narrow in diameter.
Would the Post Office Railway tunnels be big enough for cyclists ?
No – by the time you bring the floor up to a height allowing two reasonably wide cycle lanes, the ceiling is too low.
Post Office railway – 9 foot diameter, or twin 7-footers near stations – as Hilltopper says, if the floor is raised high enough to get adequate width, there would only be headroom for recumbents could be used.
@Greg
“Main & “side” road priority
I was always under the impression, that, provided there were road-markings (as in “give way” dotted lines etc) then the “main” road traffic had priority whatever the mode. ” – according to the Highway Code even pedestrians have priority over turning traffic. But then you get this sort of thing
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.428401,-0.307186,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sy7-BzC-vMFfrJQxhwDppug!2e0
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.429245,-0.307012,3a,37.5y,283.72h,79.69t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1svpyO-8HwdLT1yZjQNKEw9A!2e0
Not to mention this
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.411299,-0.23982,3a,30y,284.49h,84.63t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDombjH8nOYq_qo6U9WRbzg!2e0
(Do you expect bus passengers to get out and push if a bus lane is dug up?) Note the cyclist doing the sensible thing rather than what the sign suggests.
Excellent read, I did not realise that the reason for the placement of the superhighways was because of lack of local authority engagement. Very interesting.
I know that Waltham Forest council is trying to create a ‘mini Holland’ and improve cycling in the borough, which is most welcome.
I cycle most days, from Manor House to Farringdon, and I’m fortunate that my route is relatively quiet, the busiest part for me is a short stretch on Farringdon Road. It is clear to me that there are too many cyclists competing with motor vehicles, which pleases nobody. Commuting in general is on a knife edge, it only takes one minor annoyance, slight, or delay and people (and this happens on the tube too) react quite angrily.
I would very much enjoy a segregated cycle route, it seems to be the only solution, as the painted lanes are so common now that drivers tend not to see them. There is a segregated lane along Tavistock Place, but it is fairly hair-raising. It’s narrow, and is two-way. It also has lots of traffic lights, and a lot of traffic turning across it. Quite a few cyclists do not use it, sticking to the road instead. This creates trouble, as drivers are less likely to be expecting cyclists in the road, and often act annoyed when they encounter them. There’s also the problem of cyclists at different speeds, in single file. The route along the Embankment looks sufficiently wide to accommodate speedier cyclists!
Cycling versus driving: nothing much changes
In the 1950s my father was commuting by bike from Staines to Fulham, then to night school in Islington and/or to Blackheath to visit his fiancee (later to become his wife and, shortly afterwards, my mother), and then home to Staines again. And he recounts stories of altercations with taxi drivers, and beating Aston Martins from Piccadilly to Hammersmith.
He finally gave up cycling last year, at the age of 84.
I have never seen a cycle use this
http://goo.gl/maps/vRsH1
It doesn’t even look as if anyone could pass in opposite directions without falling down the kerb into the traffic. An obvious waste of money.
First link in the article (top of “1960s” section) is broken.
[Sorry. Now fixed. PoP]
Re: cycling deaths in London. From the reports, it would seem that an above-average number of those killed by left-turning lorries had recently come from countries that drive on the right. In other words, they hadn’t yet gained that instinctive caution for left-turning vehicles that someone who had grown up in the UK would have.
Re: Hilltopper -“making a more relaxed style of cycling possible. Normal clothes and no helmet required”
Completely agree. Hence I ride a folder, whose additional advantage (apart from the ease of taking it on trains) is that one can be getting off and putting feet on the ground before it stops. A conventional bike has to be fully stopped before one can safely swing a leg over the crossbar. With a folder one does not stay tangled up with the bike in dangerous situations.
Add to that the following features:
Bench seat (once again, easier to get off . Also comfortable to ride)
No gears (because gears need energy to overcome the additional friction. Also they are inherently less reliable)
20″ wheels
Full mud guards
Chain guard
Handlebars higher than the seat so that one is not crouched forward with the forearms having to take the weight of the upper body. The aim is to sit upright as one would when driving a car. The head is not tilted back and it is easier to look over one’s shoulder.
Bell!
@kit Green
“I have never seen a cycle use this
http://goo.gl/maps/vRsH1”
I go that way every day, and rarely see anyone use it (occasionally cyclists use it to get to the front of the queue at the lights, which is not its intended purpose (as a staggered junction carrying CS4 across the A201). It will probably disappear as part of the north-south superhighway works.
Cycling mini-Hollands: TfL funding was given to Kingston council:
What we have now
http://kingstoncourier.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/half_page/public/images/20150127_093250%20(1)%20(FILEminimizer).jpg?itok=VEB0Vy3g
What we were promised
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/resources/images/3470145.jpg?type=article-full
What we are going to get
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/resources/images/3483451/
Will
I know that Waltham Forest council is trying to create a ‘mini Holland’ and improve cycling in the borough, which is most welcome.
Err … NO.
They squeezed it through with 43% “for” & 41% “agin” – the rest undecided …
Actually, the particular scheme right next to me (150 metres away) is about preventing rat-running, & nothing really to do with cycling, more’s the pity.
[Suspicions without basis snipped. LBM]
Kit Green
If you think that’s bad, try this one: ..
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.583381,0.010892,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1slRoFUzGfYv9XqkZaTCHXgQ!2e0?hl=en
– that I pass regularly, on the boundary(ish) of LBWF & LB_Redbridge … the cycle path is on the lh pavement – suddenly it has railings & a traffic-light planted in the middle of it.
I’m not sure what cyclists are SUPPOSED to do – I just go into the road …
That first linkie didn’t work – try this
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.405308,-0.30817,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1ssMvN0wv2bdOzkLGEYycvzg!2e0
@Hilltopper
Can we not use derogatory terms on LR please? We would very much like to maintain the civil discourse here. Whilst we realise that cycling and roads is an emotional topic for a lot of readers, we don’t want to start sliding down the slippery slope and heat up the sang froid.
Moreover as a general point can we also please not use any stereotypes of cyclists – there are good and non-law-abiding ones, just as there are good and non-law-abiding drivers. The degree to which a group obeys traffic laws is not up for discussion on LR. There are other sites for that.
I would like to commend the commentators for staying within the lines (!) on this topic, it’s been a lot more civil and easier to moderate than we thought.
LBM
While being 100% in favour of anything that allows cycling to flourish, I’m a bit worried about conflicts with pedestrians. Although the London pedestrian infrastructure is generally poor, the mode really does dominate a lot of busy areas, especially in Central London. Pedestrian flows work here because the UK has no anti- jaywalking laws, unlike a lot of our neighbours. For a pedestrian, quick intuitive thinking is essential to be able to manoeuvre through crowds and to cross vehicular traffic safely. Adding cycle lanes will create an extra level of complexity to the potentially dangerous trick of crossing a busy road. Stepping in front of a vehicle having instinctively moved to avoid a tricky-to-spot cyclist is one possibility. I know that Tavistock Place cycle lane well. Mere ingrained traffic awareness is not enough there. It’s necessary to engage conscious thinking to look both ways at the cycle lane and not stop in the path of either cycle or vehicle.
My feeling is that the necessary culture change will not happen unless the provision for cyclists on the cycle superhighway is at least as good as for the vehicles travelling in parallel. Then the arguments for cyclists to stick to strict traffic law will stand up. If the provision is seen as at all grudging, then law-breaking will be seen as a ‘fair’ way of redressing the balance, with pedestrians left as the ones who really lose out.
As always a well thought out piece. As for any tipping points to the change of heart, my mind turns to the original plans for cycling provision that were presented for the re-worked top-end of blackfriars bridge in about 2007. As far as I remember in order to preserve general road capacity the cycle lane was routed past a machine gun nest and straight into a piranha tank. Well maybe not, but you get the idea.
This caused something of an uproar and I even remember some sympathetic press coverage. So then, and time polishes events into a good story, was that TFL were pushed into revealing that they had modeled the cycling volume based on studies last done in 2002 – it was obvious events had moved on, and that if high speed 2 could forecast demand into the 2030’s couldn’t TFL do it bit better than that?
Then one of the cycling action groups decided to actually stand at Blackfriars and count passing traffic and revealed that 40% of all rush hour traffic – the largest single type – were bicycles. TFL went “hells bells! really?” and went to count themselves, found it to be so and the rest is history.
Well that’s my version. I’d be fascinated to know if anyone here was around during the time and can confirm if any of it was true.
Approximately what proportion of cyclists in London ride electric (or electro-assist) bikes? I read that electric bikes are becoming cheaper, and selling better, every year, so are electric bikes a factor in cycleway or cycle lane design?
If you want pedestrians to look out for cyclists, the cycle path needs to be clearly marked – especially where pedestrians desire lines are unpredictable.
This is how not to do it
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Market+Place,+Kingston+upon+Thames,+Greater+London+KT1+1JP/@51.409894,-0.306637,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sABLF9ybrfOMAAAQYPMgGsQ!2e0!3e11!4m2!3m1!1s0x48760b956783693f:0x92bb3a91a44c68b1
yes, this is part of the national Cycle Network
@LBM I have no idea about the proportion of electric bikes. However, I would suspect that, when it comes to provision, conflict with other modes, and such-like, it doesn’t really matter. An electric bike, and its rider, behaves like any other. Legally (to avoid being treated as a motor bike or moped) the electric motor must only assist, and only when the rider is also pushing on the pedals. (This does vary a bit from country to country).
Unlike electric cars (let alone trolleybuses), an electric-assisted bike needs no on-street provision for recharging. The battery is just unclipped and taken indoors, to add to the row of gizmos charging overnight.
@Ben – “40% of all rush hour traffic” – 40% of vehicles or 40% of “passengers”? – A crucial difference: one bus (90 punters) occupies the same road space as at most 8 decorously positioned cyclists neatly 2 abreast.
@Fandroid – the problem with pedestrians is that they include the most vulnerable and least careful sections of society – the old, children, the blind, the halt and the lame – probably about 1/3 of the population (as well as, of course, a raft of other people who don’t happen to be using wheeled transport at the time).
@timbeau
6 March 2015 at 17:11
Your ex-pat from ‘DutchLand’ here again. Nothing wrong with that layout at all. One just pedals as though one was walking. No lycra mentality. I just realised that on my last visit to a town in NL with just the same layout you criticise unfavourably, I only saw housewives, pensioners, schoolchildren, office workers, in such a square, on their bikes.
No lycra, no Tour de France types. Those who do that sport cycling do it at the weekend down the inter urban main roads that have cycle paths (of course).
The reason why cyclists get treated with much more respect in other European countries is because they have laws of liability. If there is an accident involving a motor vehicle and cyclist or pedestrian, the motor driver is assumed to be responsible in the first instance.
The UK has consistently refused to adopt a similar law.
@Long Branch Mike
apologies!
@Kit Green
I have never seen a cycle use this
http://goo.gl/maps/vRsH1
It doesn’t even look as if anyone could pass in opposite directions without falling down the kerb into the traffic. An obvious waste of money.
If I remember correctly, it used to have cage barriers on it & may have been wider. I used to use it in the mid 90s, prior to the South Bank redevelopment: west of Blackfriars there were few enough pedestrians that you could cycle to/from Westminster Bridge at 9:30am without any aggro; east of Blackfriars Bridge was an inaccessible walled-off building site. So I’d ride along the South Bank from Westminster, up on to the weird islandy thing via Upper Ground, and down to Southwark Street (also a relatively quiet backwater in those days). Nowadays you can’t really cycle on that bit of South Bank – it’s still legal along most of it, but rather antisocial most of the day given the crowds.
In any case, the island will presumably be disappearing in a few months when the North South Superhighway goes in. Doubt it’ll be missed by anybody!
@Keith Hales. That’s an interesting observation, and such a legal difference could be a factor. But it’s only one factor among many; the word “respect” is the give-away. Respect is not generally conferred by a law.
I think it is possible to fire up some web cams of every day scenes in the Netherlands. There is definitely one of the Konigsplein (Kings Square) in Amsterdam that displays the whole shamozzle of trams, bikes, taxis, you name it. Here is a link but I see it is OOA at present. The still, however, displays what I mean. This is an extreme example and is very busy indeed but, as it is a capital city, it is I suppose comparable to a London square such as Piccadilly. In both, motorised traffic is somewhat restricted.
Fandroid says “Pedestrian flows work here because the UK has no anti- jaywalking laws, unlike a lot of our neighbours”
I dispute the “because”. Pedestrian flows also “work” in the neighbour countries.
I am no fan of jaywalking, but on balance we’re probably better off keeping the law out of it. But flows would not be altered much either way.
Re LBM and Malcolm,
Electric bikes few and far between.
Most have lockable removable batter packs – (the power ratings appear to be very similar to cordless lawnmovers made by the same ultimate manufacturers)
Several years ago a friend was lend a prototype electrically assisted bike (not exactly build for speed) and soon discovered the speed limiter software didn’t work under a particular scenario (the speed limiter for assistance set to slower than their normal steady state commuting speed on their own bike!) and then loaned it to another friend to see what it was capable of on a dual carriage way at a quiet time of day.
I won’t say what the GPS tracking suggested or what one of Mr Gatsonides contraptions did… but London’s roads aren’t designed for them!
Motorists (in general) resent cyclist because they pay so much to use the roads in this country, knowing that the cyclist pays nothing and when ignoring pedestrians on crossings, and red traffic lights, seldom get caught. How many prosecutions have there been?
Quite often, they have headphones on and are concentrating what they are listening to, and not on the traffic around them. Yes, I’m generalising, but without any legal responsibilities, it will never get any better.
I understand that many years ago, on Guernsey, every bicycle had to carry a big yellow license disc with a black number easily visible. Every cycle was registered. But I understand this law has since been repealed
[And the point of any relevance to the article was what ? PoP]
Dr Richards Beeching, for heaven’s sake, please read the comment at the top of this thread “This is not an opportunity for other roads users to make derogatory statements about cyclists or vice versa”. Yes, you are generalising. No, your comments are neither original nor helpful. And in case you didn’t realise, most people who use bikes drive too, they are people who make rational travel choices appropriate to the journey. That’s right, not “motorists”, nor “cyclists”, just sensible and rational people.
And if you worry about cyclists with headphones, please reassure me that you never play the radio in your car, or at least only when you have wound all your windows down.
@Fandroid – New York experienced a reduction in pedestrian casualties on streets after a cycle lane was introduced. There seems to have been been a number of reasons, one being the pedestrian is crossing less road space – crossing 2 lanes is safer than 4, and so on. Also if a pedestrian fixated on their smart phone steps off the footpath, the consequences of a collision with a bike are generally less serious than being hit by a bus.
@LBM – on e-bikes, in 2013 there were about 20k e-bikes sold in the UK but 300k in Germany so needless to say, German companies dominate the manufacture of such products. In Germany, use seems to have been mainly amongst the elderly making it easier to tackle longer journeys or hillier routes than a conventional bike.
One of the questions posed in the article was what lead to the increasing popularity of cycling in London (and maybe by extension UK as well). May I suggest that the extraordinarily successful UK cycling team from Chris Boardman through to the 2008 and 2012 Olympics must have something to do with it.
This may have an influence as my impression of the UK compared to where I now live (Brussels) and of a small city, Dordrecht, in NL that I often visit is that the UK cyclists are in general rather more ‘sporty’ than over here.
Allied with the far longer cycling tradition, especially for the Dutch, this gives to my observation a much different type of typical cyclist (UK = more lycra & speed on ‘racing’ bikes, NL = everyone in normal clothes trundling along) and a different awareness and maybe acceptance of the motorist to accomodate them.
I would also throw in another thought: the more TfL invest in cycling infrastructure the more they potentially encourage people to move from public transport, which brings a revenue for TfL, to cycling which does not! I am sure the counter to that is the public transport capacity will always be used by replacement ‘new’ pasengers…!
Re Dr Beeching
“Quite often, they have headphones on and are concentrating what they are listening to, and not on the traffic around them.”
Applies to many pedestrians too… (I witnessed 1 with headphones in step off the pavement into the path of a taxi earlier in the week)
As a cyclist I have never worn headphones because it deprives you of all the useful sensory information about what the traffic is doing especially traffic coming from behind as humans don’t have eyes in back of their heads.
A 2nd year undergrad (that I taught while a post grad) was I think the first UK cycling fatality while using an ipod (vs refuse lorry who was not at fault).
CdBrux says “… to move from public transport, which brings a revenue for TfL, to …”
Fortunately, TfL is not about raising revenue. That may be one of the reasons for its success in (to a significant extent) meeting the transport needs of the capital, though of course it does not satisfy all the people all the time.
But even from a strictly money angle, abstracting certain passengers from certain modes at certain times (particularly peak times) will save more money in costs than it depletes farebox revenues. Commuters (with some exceptions, doubtless) are not money-spinners for transport providers.
The contrasts with the Netherlands bring to mind my initial amazement, on a first visit, at seeing many cyclists using umbrellas. I have not yet observed this in the UK.
MAMILs?
Middle aged men in leotards?
Motorcars and mothers in liaision?
My aunty Mabel’s in London?
I assume some take on the former.
[Yet more speculation snipped. LBM]
ngh/Dr R Beeching
http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/121213_R272012_Johnsons.pdf
Euw
As defined earlier: Middle Aged Men In Lycra
@Jeffy – can’t you google it, like everyone else did…?
An article on London’s Cycling Revolution, and not a mention of the Green Party and the 2004 Assembly elections!
For that’s very much the key background: After those elections Livingstone needed the Greens to pass his budget, and the price was sustained increased in funding for cycling. Livingstone was note happy after a couple of years there was so little to show in terms of increased cycling. But that was, as he was told, because cycling always lags early infrastructure improvements because it needs a network of good routes (and not just individual, often interrupted routes) to take off.
A few years later, with no additional boost, cycling then started to increase dramatically, and this gave confidence to the TfL senior staff that it may be worth investing substantial sums, up to the current super-highway proposals. But without Darren and Jenny we surely wouldn’t be where we are now and have these discussions…
@Dr Richards beeching
“Motorists (in general) resent cyclist because they pay so much to use the roads in this country”
Many cars, including mine, pay the same VED as a bicycle – zero. the maximum VED is less than £20 a week. Duty and VAT on petrol is about 75p / litre – or about 11p per mile at 30mpg.
Traffic on Blackfriars Bridge – whether cycles are the largest group depends on how you categorise the other groups – e.g do cars and taxis form a single group or two? Observation suggests that most vehicles other than buses have just one person on board (other than taxi drivers, who would not be there if their passengers were using their own transport). Counting people rather than vehicles, cyclists are probably the third largest group after pedestrians and bus users.
two articles about the discredited 2011 proposals for Blackfriars – prompted by the supposedly increased footfall around the expanded station – which rather oddly assumed many people would continue to cross the bridge to get to the station, despite the new entrance on the south bank!
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/transport-for-london-blackfriars-designs-looks-pretty-but-are-only-skin-deep
https://cycleoffutility.wordpress.com/category/blackfriars-bridge/
@Howard GWR
“Nothing wrong with that layout at all [Kingston Market Place]. One just pedals as though one was walking.”
The problem is the lack of signs, resulting in collisions with unwary pedestrians, or abuse from pedestrians who think you shouldn’t be there. https://kingstoncyclecampaign.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/yes-you-can-cycle-in-kingston-market-place/comment-page-1/
@Kit Green
“I have never seen a cycle use this http://goo.gl/maps/vRsH1”
It’s not a waste of money – it;s part of NCN4, an east-west route that runs from Fishguard to Greenwich. It just makes it possible to cross Blackfriars Road without mixing with the traffic. The separator was already there so it was just an opportunistic way of continuing the route at a time when there was no commitment to spending proper money on cycling. The only cost was a couple of signs.
@CdBrux
I am pleased you made the contrast between British cyclists – or at least London cyclists – and those in the Benelux because I have made the same observation. Cycling in Belgian cities seems much more laid back, slower .., pedestrian. The last adjective was chosen carefully because on the Continent cyclists and pedstrians are much happier to share space because cyclists aren’t so intent on speed. It means that it is easier to find space for cycle paths. In contrast, in London neither pedstrians nor cyclists seem happy to share space: pedestrians see cyclists as an unruly mob dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists feel that having to mix with pedestrians slows them down. So cyclists end up mixing it with motor vehicles instead which is unsafe. In turn that deters many more casual cyclists.
If London cyclists behaved more like Belgian cyclists then I think finding space for bikes – mixed with pedestrians – would be much easier.
Christian Schmidt,
A fair comment about the Green party. The problem with all this deciding what was a game changer is trying to form a conclusion as to what changed things that wouldn’t have happened anyway sooner or later. It is impossible to have a right or wrong answer but the question is how much the later increase would have happened anyway and how much it needed a bit more input to make things happen. There is no doubt that Green policy helped and was a factor.
CdBrux,
Personally I am sure the that British cycling successes at the Olympics and elsewhere were a factor but it is very difficult to prove it. There are other events apart from the Cycle London mentioned in the article that must have played a part. Even the long established London-Brighton cycle ride must have done its bit to get people actually using their bike.
The (now annual) Ride London 100 kilometre event to Box Hill is really quite extraordinary in terms of giving prominence to cycling. The behind the scenes organisation involved in making this happen is probably much greater than most people could imagine. Surrey County Council are a bit peeved because the name refers to London but the bulk of the route is in Surrey. It really is a major logistical exercise – especially when you see how many diversionary routes in the event of the M25 being closed are rendered unusable by this event. Of course, quite how much events like these inspire ordinary Londoners to use their bike more is very hard to tell.
Re: Blackfriars Bridge
I remember I did consider writing about this at the time and subsequently regret that I didn’t although perhaps it is just as well as reading the comments has given me a bit of an insight I don’t think I was ever aware of. From memory this was the first occasion where TfL was really put on the spot. As the Bishop of Hereford likes to point out, you can support two football clubs but eventually they will play each other and you have to make a decision as to where your loyalties lie. I think of the allocation of priorities to different forms of traffic there was that defining moment for TfL. Was it just lip service given to cycling or were they genuinely going seriously do something about it when it clashed with other policies?
Re: Taxation on bikes and registration
All very worthy things to discuss but they are really not relevant when discussing cycling policy in London especially as the revenue goes to central government. It is precisely the sort of thing we feared would be brought up. We don’t want a discussion of it here because it is distracting.
Ummmm. That cartoon on the front page. Could we have something that y’know, reflects London’s diversity? Even if limited to the diversity of cyclists who happen to be women? Because cycling’s future in London is a subset of London’s future.
@ Theban @ 01.01
Cycling does reflect culture. And yes, London is becoming less ‘liveable’ by the day. Or is that my advancing age?
But London is sucking in talent from all over the planet and if the transport system is to cope, we need to add diversity and choice as well as capacity and efficiency.
Perhaps Londoners from the ‘near Continent’ can improve our cycling habits rather than adopting our current habits. Discuss (but perhaps not here; I fear the vorpal blades of LBM et al).
One reason to take cycle lanes off main roads and onto nearby side streets is that it cuts down on how much polluted air the cyclists breathe.
LBM
Not speculation – years of observation of said individual & his public record, which is well-documented.
[It’s still off-topic. LBM]
However …
Theban
Agreed …
there’s also the problem, that, even when there is no need for cyclists to use a path (Not designated for their use, a regular footpath) they do, …
See here:
https://goo.gl/maps/XGmzx
This is the view (ish) after I have walked to the top of my road, turned right & am heading for the pub – I would be walking along the segregated footway in front of the big (girls) school in the direction of the view.
The number of cyclists who use that footpath!
When I’m cycling in that direction, needless to say, I use the road, so my viwpoint will be virtually identical to that of the camera.
Bearded Spotter
Oh dear – time for two, perhaps lighhearted comments:
1: Bet yours ins’t as long as mine …
2: I note that the attractive young cartoon-lady has, very sensibly, STOPPED to use her mobile phone, rather than carrying on cycling.
Whereas it seems that some cyclists are picking up bad habits from the motorists & using a “mobile” whilst cycling (shudder).
Incidentally, is it just me, or do other people have the perception that “driving whilst on the phone” is getting commoner?
Interesting stuff.
Just to add, my recollection of London in the late 1980s there were an large community of cycle couriers who took documents between offices. Mainly for things that couldn’t be “faxed”.
There was often a sweaty “Lycra-clad” courier hanging around the receptions of most buildings. back then.
The often used sturdy but light “mountain bikes” and were also equipped with (analogue, as I recall) mobile phones.
@ Mr PoP
You ask what relevance my comment was to your article? Sorry, you didn’t “get it”
When traffic offences are committed by cyclists, a highly visible license number displayed on the bike, as they used to have in Guernsey, would discourage the offender from going through red lights and other similar offences. Without licensing, and more bikes on the road, it will become a free for all without fear of transgressors being brought to account.
Dr Richards Beeching,
I get that. What I don’t get it what relevance it has to discussing the principle of how cycles should strategically be catered for in London’s traffic policy. Simple test: Ask yourself it it is a national issue or a London specific one? If the former then it is not really relevant to this thread.
It might be worth noting that the draft regulations on CCTV enforcement of parking contraventions published yesterday, while keeping CCTV enforcement for parking on bus stops and in bus lanes, do not appear to be good news for either cyclists or pedestrians. A vehicle stationary on a red route will remain subject to CCTV enforcement, so the following only appears to apply to the remainder of the road network.
Parking on a cycle lane (in practice only enforceable by virtue of any yellow lines at the roadside, not the fact that it is a cycle lane) will only be enforceable by a an on-street PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) served by a CEO (Civil Enforcement Officer).
For pedestrian facilities, pavement parking, parking across dropped footways and parking on the zig-zag lines of a zebra/pelican/puffin crossing will apparently cease to be subject to CCTV enforcement. The latter will remain an offence which can be enforced under the criminal law, but it remains to be seen whether it is actually enforced, or will simply join advance stop lines and mandatory cycle lanes in being almost completely unenforced offences where “a highly visible license number” has no deterrent effect whatsoever – FPNs and NOIPs will never be forthcoming.
The draft regulations published by DCLG on 06/03/2015 are here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/409821/150305_Civil_Enforcement_of_Parking__England__General__Use_of_Approved_Devices_Amendment__Regulations_2015.pdf
[Again, interesting, but let’s not get distracted by going down the road of enforcement today. In any case it shouldn’t greatly affect segregated cycleways where part of the enforcement will be the almost physical impossibility of entering them. PoP]
Waltham Forest have started work on their Mini-Holland, details of which can be found here. There’s been a lot of hoo-ha about the disruption it’ll cause for motorists, but designing out motorists to encourage other modes of transport is surely part of what this is all about.
Eddie pointed out
I know it’s technically East London than East End, but I’d say the ethnic make-up of cyclists round here are a decent reflection of the borough’s population.
Martin
I live there
It is amazingly unpopular with large numbers of local residents …
In fact it is thoroughly divisive ….
[Snip. PoP]
OK?
( I think I’ll stop now, before we go to far off-topic. )
The culture difference between London and Amsterdam (as they are capitals) is huge, perhaps changing somewhat with the arrival of the hipster era here.
But the thing about the Netherlands is that it is one great village. there is no demarcation between city, town and rural, where cycling is concerned. I remember being shocked when seeing cyclists taking the dog for walkies on a bike with the lead trailing behind. Er, it is apparently against the law to lead *two* dogs at the same time though!
What I really love is a boy (husband) cycling his girlfriend / wife side saddle on the pillion. Charming.
[Please, no comments about whether or not Amsterdam is the capital of The Netherlands. Indeed, I suspect a bit of mischief making going on given that HowardGWR himself previously clarified the ambiguity. PoP]
@HowardGWR
“I remember being shocked when seeing cyclists [in NL] taking the dog for walkies on a bike with the lead trailing behind.”
I’ve seen that on many occasions in the UK
[Snip. Specific request not to pursue this subject ignored. PoP]
@Greg
“I note that the attractive young cartoon-lady has, very sensibly, STOPPED to use her mobile phone, rather than carrying on cycling.”
How does she manage to cycle in those stiletto heels though?
Although I have attempted neither feat, I suspect that walking in stiletto heels is significantly more difficult that cycling in them. The pedals are generally operated by the ball of the foot, and heels are not involved – which is not the case when walking.
I’m pretty sure this statement is totally wrong: “To put that in perspective, there are around 50% more journeys made by bike than made on London Overground. ” I believe there’s over 2m journeys per day made on the Overground but also it’s palpably wrong – have you been on a tube 😉 Unless I’ve misunderstood the statement, but I think it needs checking and fair enough if I’m wrong!
KateM,
From the latest London London Rail Managing Director’s Report paragraph 5.1 published last month:
“London Overground (LO) carried 105.0 million people in Periods 1 to 10″.
So that is roughly 10 million journeys in a 4 week period or 2.5 million a week. I understand that to be, in practice, around 400,000 per day Mon-Fri with the weekend accounting for the rest. In contrast the Underground has around 4 million passenger journeys per day Mon-Fri.
Note: always be aware of sloppy use of reference to people or passengers when, nearly always, passenger journeys is what is actually meant.
The cycling commuter boom was ignited on 07/07/2005.
Having spent the last week in Cochin, I’m sure the concept of a cycle lane would be treated with some amusement! Indeed the concept of a lane is treated with a certain “flexibility”, as are round abouts or the concept of left and right….
However (and becoming relevant again) what has been very apparent is the degree to which all modes of transport (bike, moped, tuk tuk, bus, truck and car) cooperate to keep moving (albeit with a lot of honking).
It’s now nearly a week and the worst I’ve seen is bumper damage…
I think in London (and the rest of the country), this class like divide between various types of road users needs to disappear before things really get better….
Not a cycle super highway…
In the Netherlands that divide never existed (or never was created), hence a greater acceptance of cycle lanes…
The concept of cycle superhighways makes sense in a huge but dense city like London. As long as they are given specific individual identities (like the road numbering system) then their existence will be a navigational aid for cyclists venturing into unfamiliar territory, cycle-wise. What I am trying to say is that named routes will be more use for getting across unfamiliar areas than just having a maze of local streets that are cycle-friendly. Think of trying to navigate by car between Southampton and Swindon in the pre-motorway era with no road numbering system in place, and no road signs. The superhighways provide a structure upon which cycling journeys across London can be based.
I haven’t been there for a while now, but my memory of Amsterdam suggests that there are no cycle superhighways. However, the structure of the central area is based around rings of canals plus radial roads. So the city itself provides the geographical structure that is absent in London (except for the river- which the east-west route uses in part).
In Münster, ‘Cycle Capital of Germany’, there is a Ring-park where the old city walls used to be. That includes a segregated cycle route for most of the circumference, with some grade-separated crossings of the radial roads (they are cycle friendly underpasses- allowing cyclists to gain speed on the downhill bit in order to hoard energy for the uphill part). That Ring route again provides a serious bit of structure for cycle route-finding. I’m not sure that we’ll see any cycle underpasses in London, but the concept is a good one if TfL are serious about making cycling the transport mode of choice for those are willing to try it.
@me 17:11 Friday
Correction – Kingston Market Place is not part of the National Cycle Network – NCN4 crosses Kingston Bridge. However, it is part of three routes of the London Cycle Network – routes 3,33 and 75.
@anon 1622
The language used for that remark is in poor taste. And it is not accurate anyway. There may have been a spike in cycling as a result of three sections of the underground being out of action, pone of them for nearly a month, but cycling was already on the increase long before that. See here https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/travel-in-london-report-6.pdf (table 3.4) and “The Other Paul’s” comments at 2351 on March 5th.
[Agreed. Thanks timbeau for providing the facts. LBM]
A few observations:
1. When there is only an occasional bike on an urban road busy with motor traffic, the cars, vans, lorries and buses seem to be able to maintain a higher average speed. When there are more bikes, it is harder for motor traffic to pass them safely. This seems to bunch the traffic and appears to cause lower speeds and congestion. You then get more frustrated drivers, some of whom behave badly. You also get higher fuel consumption and more exhaust emissions.
2. I would very much doubt that the small minority of aggressive bike riders (I’m trying to steer clear of terminology which might seem discourteous) will use the superhighways at times when these are occupied by the sensible majority of the pedal powered community. I would confidently predict that the aggressive minority will choose to mix it in the lanes now reserved for motor traffic or use the pavement if there are few pedestrians about.
3. Where there are 20mph speed limits enforced by cameras, these fast cyclists will probably exceed them.
4. If TfL considers that it must provide for disabled users of buses, taxis and rail, whether actual or potential, I’m curious as to what provision will be made to ensure that the disabled are not disadvantaged as a result of making special provision for people on bikes.
5. If TfL does more to prefer bikes, how does this affect bus journey times, frequencies, running costs and emissions?
NB, I use a car, often with a disabled passenger. I am also a pedestrian, use TfL buses, tubes, Overground and other rail. I have never owned a bike.
“inevitably there were lots of cases of cyclists ignoring red lights – sometimes with fatal results”
AFAIK, this is not in any way true. Which fatalities have been caused by cyclists jumping red lights?
“Which fatalities have been caused by cyclists jumping red lights?”
The Wikipedia(!) Cycling_in_London page points to a spreadsheet and map of severe walking and cycling crashes in London. The former says that the cyclist killed on the Bow Roundabout on 13 November 2013 “most likely” jumped a red. There are other references to jumping the red in there, but not by the victims. IIRC (no links), the aftermath of Boris shooting his mouth off about cyclists going through reds showed that it is very rare for cyclists to be killed that way, but it does happen to motorcyclists.
Having been hit from behind by a car (who jumped a “Give Way”) while riding my bicycle around Highbury Corner,I was accused by the Police officer attending that I had “jumped a red light”….when I asked him to point out which light I had jumped,he went quiet (there was no light to jump on the stretch of road I had used).
Had I not escaped injury,and so been able to challenge his assumption,his version of events would surely have been put on the official report.
Consequently,I would take the “official explanations” of fatalities with a dose of scepticism.
@Anonymous 23:18, regarding your points about the disabled, mobility scooters also use the cycle lane infrastructure in the Netherlands although it remains to be seen if that will happen in London and the cycle superhighways may not be a favoured route for mobility scooter users anyway.
It is indicative of the culture in the UK that cycling is associated with the fit and athletic but someone who may only like walking short distances will generally be able to cycle much further (on the flat anyway), and carry a load on the bike as well. You are sitting down, after all.
Reynolds, indeed.
An elderly neighbour of mine who had severe Emphysema used to be able to cycle the half mile or so into town to collect his pension on his 1950’s Rayleigh, albeit at walking pace, but would have to stop a couple of times to catch his breath when walking to his car (100yds away in a local flats carpark). The efficiency gain over walking is not to be sneezed at.
Red lights
I suspect (back of the envelope calc.) the clearance time for many traffic lighted junctions doesn’t factor in the speed of a slow moving cyclist at the back of queue of traffic especially in heavy traffic with narrow lanes (+ long junction areas & lights stepped back a fair distance from the actual junction area or just after an up hill stretch). The cyclist is a lot less obvious and more vulnerable than a big red bus or a large lorry that is slow to clear)
If on certain road layouts traffic lights effectively control 2 or more junction areas in 1 direction it could be quite easy for the lights to have turned green in one of the other directions before a cyclist has cleared the last junction area in the first direction.
How many investigations would involve a reassessment of the modelling work for the road layout or traffic light set up as that might be an effective admission of fault by TfL or the Council that all the other parties would pick on….
[Comment removed. Description of an incident about one particular section of cyclists (about something that didn’t take place in London) not helpful and the sort of thing we are anxious to avoid in order to stop this thread degenerating in the way that other ones on cycling seem to do. PoP]
Malcolm
Indeed – except in a classic case, seen in Peterborough, more years ago than I care to remember, when we saw a traditional “Constable” on a bike, cycling with his insteps & his boot-toes stuck out @ 45 degreees – my father, who was driving the car burst into the policeman’s chorus from “Pirates of Penzance”
Oh dear.
[Rest of comment deleted as either adds nothing, has been said many times before or, somewhat sadly, for consistency had to remove as I had removed Castlebar’s remark. PoP]
@ PoP
So discussing the Netherlands is OK, but Dorking isn’t?
Castlebar,
Discussing the Netherlands is OK if used for comparison. If we start discussing incidents in Haarlem that are of no relevance I will stop them. Also, even if what you mentioned happened in London I would have still have deleted it.
An anecdote on the cycle safety in numbers phenomenon:
My parents are keen cyclists in a very car-based area of zone 6 (which bit of zone 6 isn’t?). They are told by their friends surprisingly often “I always give cyclists more room now, just in case it’s you” (!!!!!!!??????????). So my mum reckons the safety in numbers happens because as more people cycle, more drivers have a friend/family member who cycles that they are trying not to run over!
Superlambanana,
Almost trite but I think there is a lot in that. Cyclists cease to be “them” and become “one of us”. As people have tried to point out on many occasions, people tend not to be just one type of road user, families even less so, but that is the way it is often portrayed. Hopefully it works the other way around too and cyclists become more aware of other road users (especially pedestrians) and their needs.
@superlambanana
In a way your anecdote is shocking, with the implication that people are willing to risk strangers’ lives but not their friends’ lives. But a slightly gentler implication might arise by remembering that crowding a cyclist is also unfriendly to them in a rather less drastic way than that. A cyclist feeling the need to cycle defensively can still get about, but with more effort (giving way before pulling out round parked cars, etc), more slowly and with more anxiety.
@superlambanana/PoP – what you say is true within any given community – and not just for cycling or, indeed transport: one looks out for one’s friends and neighbours. But it is much less true, surely, for commuters, who simply pass through a neighbourhood that is wholly anonymous to them.
@Reynolds
My father, who has walked with difficulty for several years now because of deterioration of his knee joints, was still able to cycle until last year, when he was 84, although a back injury has now made such activity unwise.
@Anon 2318
“When there are more bikes, it is harder for motor traffic to pass them safely. This seems to bunch the traffic and appears to cause lower speeds and congestion. ”
The same can be said of anywhere where different types of traffic interface – you don’t expect to drive, or cycle, at a steady 20mph down a busy shopping street. You drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions, and if the conditions are that there are a lot of road users about whose speed is slower than your vehicle is capable of (whether they be pedestrians, cyclists, marching bands, horses, heavy lorries, steamrollers, or Chieftan tanks) you have to adapt to those circumstances.
And if you can’t beat the cyclists in your car (or indeed on a bus), why not join them? (Leaving driving to those who need to carry heavy loads.
timbeau,
Indeed. There is another way of looking at this. 20mph is now seen by some as a more appropriate speed for all but the main roads in London. There is already a 20mph speed limit in force in most of the City of London and it appears to be uncontroversial. In reality it adds very little time to journeys. The perception of speed and consequent time taken, as opposed to the cold hard facts as a result of measuring it are two different things. The slower speed limit in central London, especially with a large variety of traffic, actually helps traffic keep moving (and in doing so reduce the exhaust emissions that Anon seems to think will increase). I am not disputing that traditional vehicles with their axles driven directly from their internal combustion engine via a gear box operate more efficiently at higher speeds but that seems a curious basis on which to decide future transport policy.
In any case I suspect the exhaust emissions argument is soon going to be a complete red herring. As buses and taxis move to either electric or electric-capable operation the argument will be more and more about avoiding unnecessary braking – which of course is much desired by cyclists.
Finally can I point out, yet again, for Anon’s benefit, that, except in the Royal Parks, there is no specific offence of speeding on a bicycle – neither is there one of using a mobile phone come to that. There may be other offences committed depending on the circumstances.
An informative and interesting article.
Neither the article nor the comments so far mention TfL’s London Cycling Design Standards now in draft. More mature standards codes have been produced in the UK by other bodies. TRL conducts research and trials on what will actually work.
The Stationery Office, publishes a comprehensive guide to good practice for cyclists themselves (ourselves!), Cyclecraft, as well as the Highway Code.
It is clearly possible and desirable to build infrastructure which will be used gladly and safely by cyclists obeying good practice, and which facilitates that practice, just as roads can be built to encourage good driving.
It is possible and sometimes desirable to build infrastructure which is differentiated for different use cases, e.g. cross-London commuting and local utility or leisure cycling, just as roads and railways are differentiated for their different motorised traffic. It’s possible and desirable to know what demand is now and to model how it is likely to change with time or react to new facilities.
It’s impossible and undesirable to optimise the use of London’s restricted space for transport infrastructure if the decision-making and debate is framed in terms of them-and-us cultural differences, moral outrage, or finger-in-the-air hunches.
PoP
Hopefully it works the other way around too and cyclists become more aware of other road users (especially pedestrians) and their needs.
As individuals, often, yes, you are probably correct.
However, I have my doubts about the cycling “organisations”. I used to be a member of the London Cycling Campaign, but got so tired of their rhetoric that I just let my membership lapse.
This is also used as a patent excuse by Local Authorities (certainly LBWF), without actually, you know, making cycling easier.
[Suppositions and presumptions of organisations’ behaviours snipped to maintain polite discourse. LBM]
20 mph limits are difficult
I very rarely drive in London, except to “leave” it, but even so, I find 20 mph limits on some local main roads intensely irritating, especially at the time of day/week that I am usually around, which is when the roads are anything but full – so schools are “Out” & there usually are not too many pedestrians about either.
And, of course, when the roads are full & there’s lots of pedestrians, exceeding “20” for any length of time s going to be difficult, ayway.
More very careful thought needed on that one, IMHO.
[ Unlike full-width speed humps which are a pain for everyone, whatever sort or number of wheels they are travelling above. Incidentally does anyone know if the London Ambulance Service has an official opinion on “humps”? ]
It would be interesting to see the effect this has on the rest of the transport network.
As much as there is a need to improve facilities for cyclists the balance and political will does appear to have shifted too much towards cyclists.
The TfL consultations (& bloggers like Diamond Geezer) show journey time delays for other modes in the region of several minutes due to these schemes which seems to go against the policy of “smoothing” congestion and reducing emissions. London Travelwatch appear to show predicted decreases in the quality of the bus service and increases in excess waiting time.
Maybe we have reached “peak bus” but the peak could have been sustained by integrating the cycle designs to include buses otherwise the cyclists are going to end up cycling past queues of stationary traffic and their fumes.
What TfL need is a more holistic approach where cycling design should also incorporate more public transport provision (6 million bus journeys per day) and the private car use should be constrained by more stringent central and London government policy.
The policies for goods vehicles are good but they aren’t necessarily reducing the number of goods vehicles or improving driver behaviour and private car policy is non existent because politicians aren’t brave enough to enforce something that may lose them votes.
What we are left with is over engineered facilities for cyclists which will cause delay to all other road users but wont have the political objection to it as it does not directly hit the pocket of the user through road charging.
Better policies would lead to better designed facilities for all.
AnonWill wrote: I would very much enjoy a segregated cycle route, it seems to be the only solution… There is a segregated lane along Tavistock Place … quite a few cyclists do not use it. This creates trouble, as drivers are less likely to be expecting cyclists in the road, and often act annoyed when they encounter them. There’s also the problem of cyclists at different speeds, in single file.As someone who cycles quicky (albeit helmetless and always wearing normal clothes), many cycle lanes are difficult to use since other cyclists and pedestrians can’t be relied upon to maintain lane discipline (and why should they). These cycle lanes can only be safely used at relatively low speeds (making sure you can stop before colliding with other road users), hence the need to use the normal road. Vehicle drivers should always pay attention to other road users [and mostly do].
Generally, using a bike is safe in reasonably slow moving traffic, as is true for most of London, or where the road is quite wide. I find the most dangerous thing not the lack of segregation, but where the road suddenly narrows.
PS. There is no speed limit for cycles or indeed any other non-motorised traffic.
Walking up the east side of Hyde Park yesterday shows the need for proper cycle lanes well away from pedestrians. What ought to be an excellent route avoiding Park Lane had aimless pedestrians, slow and counterflow tourist cyclists. I counted myself as a gormless pedestrian, as it was all to easy to wander into the cycle area of the path.
And if you can’t do it in Hyde Park, where can you do it?
I also walked along the Embankment, and can see similar problems there with speedy commuters and pootling tourists admiring the view across the river.
I see PoP has finally decided to tackle this topic. Well done!
A few points from me:
– When I started cycling to work in 2008 the Zone 1-2 annual season was about £850 or so. Today it is £1264. But £600 will still buy me about the same amount of bike today as it did then.
– Also, the congestion down below is starting to seriously affect am peak journey times. If you look at my commute from Canada Water to Chancery Lane, I often cannot board the first train along at Canada Water; then I usually have to catch the second train at London Bridge and the third (or even fourth!) one at Bank. This adds about 8-10 minutes on top of what the TfL journey planner says. My journey times on the surface haven’t really increased at all over the past few years. Cycling is therefore becoming more and more competitive in the commuting market.
– Please do not make the mistake of generalising ‘cyclists’. In London the currently prevailing type of cyclist is the commuter, who is concerned first and foremost with speed (see above). They are usually men, usually fit, and who usually don’t care about segregated cycle lanes – or indeed the Highway Code – if they slow them down. If they have a choice of using safer side-streets to bypass Elephant & Castle or to go through the roundabout, they will go through the roundabout because it’s faster. TfL have already captured the majority of this market with their current initiatives.
Other groups, for whom safety is more significant (older cyclists, people taking kids to school, shoppers, BorisBike tourists and many others) will care less about speed and more about being separated from those that could cause them harm. It is a largely untapped market in London, and one at which the current TfL initiatives are aimed at. Sadly, these initiatives are misplaced as they largely impact Central London, whereas lots of these people would probably make their cycle journeys outside of the CAZ.
– Paint markings on roads in London are widely disregarded by everyone for a host of reasons. Lanes are usually too narrow for anything other than a Corsa-sized car to fit into, and so many other vehicles (buses, lorries, etc.) straddle two or more at a time, particularly at junctions and corners. Junctions often have confusing layouts, meaning motorists often change lanes or straddle them without even noticing. Also, the proliferation of deliveries and the amount of parking on narrow streets means that the marking denoting the middle of the carriageway is little more than decoration, and nobody cares about it. The same is true of cycle markings: filter lanes, boxes at lights, cycle lanes, and blue-coloured superhighways. They just don’t mean anything. This is why – to my mind – segregation – ANY segregation (bollards, kerbs, armadilloes) is the only means of keeping motor vehicles out of the space designated for bikes in London.
I forgot to add: The economics of cycling also works for longer-distance commuting. I will be moving home within the next few months, and my nearest station will switch from being Canada Water (firmly within Zone 2) to a location that is further-than-walking distance from each of Southall, Hayes & Harlington, and Hatton Cross. I am already contemplating whether I would prefer to cycle to Ealing Broadway and then taking the Central Line to work; or to bus/train/tube to the boundary of Zone 1 and cycle across to the office; or to cycle to the office all the way. Either way, I am definitely not selling my bike just because I am moving out from Zone 2 to Zone 5.
Guaranteed a seat @ Ealing Broadway!
Crossrail, though from 2018/9 I suppose?
@timbeau
“And if you can’t beat the cyclists in your car (or indeed on a bus), why not join them? (Leaving driving to those who need to carry heavy loads.”
As I posted above, I am often carrying a disabled passenger, her rolling walking frame, sometimes a wheelchair and other kit. (Without a miracle, she will never ride a bike or drive again.)The person in question cannot use public transport safely and for example, even with a taxicard, the round trip from Winchmore Hill to the Royal Free in Hampstead is prohibitive.
Add in the current state and likely future of various bits of my spine and cycling is not viable.
The effect of the 20mph limit through Camden has added about 15 mins to the round trip. One of the problems is that you can no longer drive fast enough to safely overtake bikes before they slow down on hills.
@GT
So far as 20mph limits and humps are concerned I agree entirely.
Others
I know that there is no legal restriction on bike speeds. But 20 or more is a hazard to pedestrians and the standard of bike brakes in the wet is lamentable. Many of the aggressive minority do not slow down sufficiently to enable them to stop at a pedestrian crossing. Just plain selfish. My car has also, on occasion been rear ended by a cyclist when I stopped at a red light. Thankfully no injuries yet.
@PoP
“There is already a 20mph speed limit in force in most of the City of London and it appears to be uncontroversial. In reality it adds very little time to journeys.”
The City is not a typical example – access by motor vehicle has been heavily restricted since the original Ring of Steel was implemented.
For each borough that implements a blanket 20 limit, the length of off peak journeys affected increases and the journey time is increased. For example, a round trip from my part of North London to Tooting used to be faster by taking the direct route via Waterloo Bridge. It is now faster to use the North and South Circular Roads, the A3 and then through Wimbledon. 30 minutes quicker but about 15 miles further.
Anonymous 22:48
The 20mph speed limit in force in the City of London is probably fairly typical for central London the consequences in central London.
It is now faster to use the North and South Circular Roads, the A3 and then through Wimbledon. 30 minutes quicker but about 15 miles further.
But isn’t this precisely how it should be? We don’t want traffic going through central London using it as a short cut or a glorified rat run. It should be using the North and South circular. The South Circular is lamentable as a road but that is a different issue.
@Anonymous West Cross Route, Wandsworth Bridge, Trinity Road?
Honestly though, 20mph can’t add 30 minutes. It’s one minute per mile at the absolute worst, and even if you stuck to the 20mph roads – some roads are excepted – it’s only 12 miles or so from the northern tip of Camden to the southern end of Wandsworth.
Not sure if it’s relevant, but TfL have publlished a leaflet ( & proposed stratagy?) on Motr-cycle safety
See: HERE
Worth a skim, at least.
BUT – there is a fascinating (logarithmic) graph on Page 9 of said *.pdf-file that I really think everyone should look at – a correlation of fatalities / transport mode / age.
Conclusions can certaily be drawn from that.
One of mine is a question – given that the deaths/injuries are shown as a “rate” not an absolute figure, why are cyclists so privileged, given the pedestrian numbers?
@anonymous 9 March 2211
Nobody expects that everybody can or should use a bike on all occasions – or even at all. But most people can use a bike for many of they journeys they make. The more who use a bike, or walk, instead of driving the more road capacity is left for those, such as you, who have to drive. For that reason, if for no other, we should be encouraging as much cycling as possible in London.
@anonymous 9 March 2248
If your journey is 15 miles further but 30 minutes shorter then you are breaking the speed limits at least part of the way. If you don’t take speed limits seriously then (a) why are you so concerned about 20mph speed limits and (b) why are you still driving?
Anonymous “30 minutes quicker but about 15 miles further”
Impossible to know what is meant by this, as we don’t know what journeys are being compared. If the North-South-Circular route is 30 minutes faster than going nowadys via Waterloo Bridge, then that probably has little to do with any 20 mph speed limits, but is all about congestion, queuing for lights and so on.
(And yes, I would probably have chosen West Cross or Blackfriars Bridge, back in the day).
On the other hand, if it is a general lament for times past, when you could drive from one end of London at mostly 30 mph, stopping only occasionally for lights which happened to be red, then, shrug, those days are gone. And they are gone because of the general overloading of London’s roads, not because of any particular details like 20 mph zones.
@Greg Tingey: Yes, once Crossrail is running THROUGH Paddington (rather than terminating at high level from the West and low level from the East) it will be rude not to use it. Although I am still thinking about a motorcycle…
…which brings us to the issue of the graph. The logarythmic scale is a little confusing and pretends that motorcycles are safer than they are in reality. And the pedestrian casualties need to be examined against the growth of the population and the impact some road schemes have had on pedestrian safety. I mean: everyone hates pedestrian subways, but if pedestrians DO use them then the risk of being hit by a car is zero.
Even as a regular cyclist, I do not agree with the imposition of blanket 20mph limits. Sure, we can argue that it makes traffic flow smoother or that the journey time implications are negligible. But what it does is it makes main roads as slow – or slower (due to congestion) than side streets. Provided the 20mph limit is properly policed (they just introduced it in Southwark and nobody – even the buses – do not respect it) I would expect a resurgence in rat-running in places, where it still has not been prevented by physical barriers. Also, if the 20mph limit is meant to discourage through traffic transiting through the areas affected, then the alternative, which is longer in distance terms, should be made more attractive. However, as it stands, no such alternatives exist in large swathes of London…
There’s an excellent blog post on the creation of the Royal College Street and Tavistock Place cycle tracks and all of the politics and lobbying that made them the way they are.
The big problem in Tavistock Place was the refusal to reduce motor traffic to one way, so it ended up about half the width it should be. It’s one reason cycle lanes make much more sense on main roads than back streets, because they can be made adequate width.
(Even so, I still know people who plan all their journeys around it)
@Malcolm -“when you could drive from one end of London at mostly 30 mph, stopping only occasionally for lights which happened to be red, ” . There may be an element of nostalgia there. Studies of long term trends in average London traffic speeds since the C19 suggest that speeds have, if anything, declined since the days of horse traction. It may be that there were – and still are – short stretches of road where you could reach 30 mph, but surely those were the exception, and a steady 30 mph was something that “Slough Safety Town” offered as a mark of unique distinction… If you examine early photographs of major junctions within the CAZ, the traffic is usually very congested indeed.
Despite it being on my regular commute, I’ve only just remembered to come back here with an example of infrastructure being disadvantageous to cyclists at junctions.
There’s a shared footway along Ruckholt Road / Eastway, outside New Spitalfields Market:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.554522,-0.017461,3a,75y,12.93h,72.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spwBymj9p_Eto6Dpuh4m3sg!2e0?hl=en
Cyclists (legally) using the pavement can cross this junction by way of three signal controlled crossings, each phased separately. Motor traffic going in the same direction just has to wait for one set of lights. Alternatively, cyclists can join the main carriageway, where the advisory cycle lane disappears just in time for the road to narrow down to one lane to cross the railway bridge.
(And that’s if it’s not at a time of night when the pavement and cycle lane are blocked by vans visiting the market.)
I think this can safely be filed under ‘cycling infrastructure not designed by cyclists’.
Quintet 09:29
And now very similar views have been expressed by the Mayor in a press release.
“Getting more people on their bikes will reduce pressure on the road, bus and rail networks, cut pollution, and improve life for everyone, whether or not they cycle themselves”.
I am not saying everyone will agree with that but it clearly shows the thinking behind it and why those in a position to decide these things believe that we should give more priority to cyclists and cycling schemes.
Malcolm 09.33
Reminds me of my ex mother-in-law, and her reminiscing of the mid-50s “nipping down” to John Lewis from Finchley in 20 minutes and -according to her- parking for free.
My “when you could drive from one end of London at mostly 30 mph, stopping only occasionally for lights which happened to be red, ”
There is not “an element” of nostalgia here. It is pure 100% unadulterated rose-tinted nostalgia (blended in with a pinch of unplanned ellipsis – to the other should have been in there somewhere).
But whether or not this world ever actually existed, it forms, I think, the comparator, against which any long motor journey in greater London is measured. So it should not surprise us that any little extra burden, whether it be 20 mph zone, cycle priority, bus lanes, speed humps or something else, provokes anguish, especially among those whose journey is unavoidable. (Which is of course just about all drivers; the days when one drove in London for pleasure have gone, if they ever existed).
@martin
“Cyclists (legally) using the pavement can cross this junction by way of three signal controlled crossings, each phased separately. ”
A similar situation here
https://goo.gl/maps/eYGG2
@Malcolm, anon et al
““ Impossible to know what is meant by [30 minutes quicker but about 15 miles further], as we don’t know what journeys are being compared.”
We are told north London, so if we assume the straight line route from “North London” to Tooting was about 15 miles, the NCR/SCR route would be thirty miles. Doing the sums then therefore implies 30miles in time t and 15 miles in time t+30.
Even assuming that the speed limit was the limiting factor for the entire journey (i.e there was never a point where your progress at that speed would be impeded by traffic lights, congestion etc), the value of “t” would be fifteen minutes (i.e fifteen miles at 20mph = 45 minutes)
This implies your thirty mile journey round the NCR and SCR is done in fifteen minutes, at an average of 120 mph! Even at a still-unrealistic average 30mph on the NCR/SCR (taking full advantage of the short 40mph and 50mph stretches), you would take an hour, meaning the fifteen mile cross town journey is taking 90 minutes – an average of 10mph. So something other than the 20mph limit is holding you up.
Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be of course , but my father says that sixty years ago he could cycle along the Great West Road and catch up with the same car at each set of traffic lights.
@Anon
““And if you can’t beat the cyclists in your car (or indeed on a bus), why not join them? (Leaving driving to those who need to .”) As I posted above, I am often carrying a disabled passenger. ”
Quite – the more cyclists there are on the road, the fewer cars – making it easier for those, like yourself, who don’t have the choice.
parking for free
It would be an interesting bit exercise in historical geography to plot the gradual expansion of the circle round London inside which free roadside parking was not possible. My friend and I commuted daily by car to County Hall for one holiday job, parking almost outside Lambeth North station. Needless to say, this was some time ago.
News on today’s Evening Standard site of BORIS starting work on North South Cycling highway –
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/boris-johnson-hails-big-day-for-cycling-as-work-starts-on-superhighways-across-london-10097375.html
Illustrations still show a car dominated Parliament Square and no southbound bus lane on Vauxhall Bridge .
[Please let’s keep emotionally charged words and statements out of the comments. LBM]
Malcolm – parking for free
On stree paid for parking started in London in 1958 with the installation of the first parking meters in Manchester Square. This revolutionised parking at the time, providing more parking turnover and better oportunities for parking while eliminating much of the double parking that then existed.
The paid for parking zones grew in central London until the mid 1960s when the Metropolitan Police made it clear that they had no more resources for enforcement, and then opposed any further extensions.
Barbara Castle sought to break this logjam with the 1968 Transport Act which created traffic wardens. The original idea was that these should be the responsibility of the GLC, but strenuous lobbying from the Met – who didn’t want to do the enforcement but resolutely resisted the idea that they should lose the powers – resulted in the traffic wardens becoming part of the police.
The introduction of traffic wardens resulted in an expansion of paid for parking across almost all of central London and into some parts of inner London (such as Camden and Hammersmith) and one or two town centres, through the 70s and into the early 80s until the Met decided that they had had enough of traffic wardens and retreated into their policy of the mid 1960s of opposing any new on-street parking schemes on the grounds that they did not have and would not provide resources to enforce them.
The GLC between 1981 and 1986 managed to introduce only one paid-for parking scheme, in Tower Hamlets, as a result.
Lobbying from all the boroughs and the collapse of the London Asessment Studies in 1990 led to the Government establishing the wonderfully named WPPE (try saying it as one word) – Working Party on Parking Enforcement – and then the Road Traffic Act 1991 which transferred responsibility for enforcement to the boroughs. At this point the flood gates opened and all the pent up demand for better controlled parking now broke out, with a huge increase in the amount of on-street paid for parking and residents zones being implemented in the 1990s.
Had the Met not opposed them, most of these would have been created at least 10 years sooner.
@PoP
I’m not at all surprised that my views have been echoed by the Mayor. They came from the Roads Task Force report, which very cleverly defused the roads v public transport argument by concluding that we need as many people as possible to use modes other then the car simply to give a chance of being able to provide a reasonable level of service for those who need to continue to drive.
Hence the best way of improving traffic conditions on London’s roads is maximum investment in public transport, walking and cycling!
@Malcolm -those were indeed the days-my parents used to drive up to Kensington sometimes to shop in Derry and Toms or Barkers and always found spaces in which to park (usually in Lansdowne Gardens as I recall).
BTW, the way to do it style: when Jimmy Knapp retired,the relevant Board member summoned me: “I’ve forgotten to buy him a retirement gift. Would you mind? Here, have Board’s credit card and my chauffeur. Something silver from Selfridges perhaps?” I really enjoyed spending someone else’s money on a suitably grand scale and telling the chauffur to wait outside…
As mentioned earlier, Southwark have just introduce a a borough-wide 20mph limit (except for TfL-controlled trunk roads, such as the Old Kent Road), but it’s believed that it won’t be enforced by the local police, who voted against it. I won’t bother posting a link, but there’s five pages of discussion on the East Dulwich Forum, with predictable for and against opinions. Anecdotally, writing as a local, many drivers do seem to be slowing down to mid-20s speeds.
Definitely an interesting and emotive subject. As an occasional cyclist, the two things that prevent me from making more use of the bike are a) a fear that, having locked my bike up outside a shop/etc, by the time I return it won’t be there any more, and b) not wanting to arrive somewhere hot and sweating.
I previously commuted to work along the canal towpath through Hackney and it was generally a very pleasant route, and I never experienced much trouble on the roads at either end. Unfortunately my route to work now would involve crossing Central London end to end (without a major detour the most direct route would involve going straight along Oxford Street!) so the Central Line tends to win there. As such, the announcement of the East-West cycle superhighway is something I’m watching with interest.
Something else I’m pleased to see being worked on is the idea of running the cycle routes down parallel but quieter streets. Trying to slot normal traffic, buses, cycles and pedestrians along some of the narrow main roads in London just isn’t going to provide enough room for everyone, so using routes that aren’t particularly longer but can be made safer with minimum inconvenience are definitely worth investigating. This is particularly relevant when considering buses, which carry large numbers of people but can be adversely affected by certain types of cycleway improvements. It’s a balancing act…
[Repetition of point without any new information snipped. LBM]
David G
Would abolishing both 20 & 30 limits & making 25 the norm be a suitable path to follow ???
New York has introduced a default 25mph speed limit recently. Though their roads are slightly wider than ours.
As a southwark resident I can tell you 90% of vehicles drive past my flat at 30 or above!
Greg, personally, and without any supporting data, I’d say that Southwark Council’s previous policy of imposing 20mph in densely built-up areas only and enforced with raised tables and speed bumps was a sensible one. This left the busier roads, some of which are TfL’s, at a default 30mph. However, the very recent blanket 20mph limit for the whole borough, which isn’t currently being policed, “may” be ignored by local drivers once they realise they won’t be penalised.
I’d be interested to know what instructions, if any, have been given to local bus drivers, and whether the enforcement of the 20mph limit would affect bus timings and any bus company KPIs.
All comments from 13.45 to 16.45 seem to have disappeared – was this intentional?
David G
Good point – 20 mph down “back” roads is probably a very good idea. Along major bus routes maybe not.
[Sound of an axe being ground snipped. Hopefully not much of the axe left now… LBM]
In fact, it is quite noticeable as to the different approaches to this problem being taken by different London Boroughs – & they can’t all be the correct one, can they?
Contrariwise, one or two of them probably are doing the right combination of things.
Now, then, which is which?
@poP 1130 9th march “Finally can I point out, yet again, for Anon’s benefit, that, except in the Royal Parks, there is no specific offence of speeding on a bicycle”
I thought there had been a change there and the speed limit was unenforceable, but it seems not.
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/11844876.Cyclist_clocked_at_41mph_admits_speeding_through_Richmond_Park/
As a driver, I am all for segregated cycle lanes. Much safer for cyclists and, despite losing road space, this will increase throughput as drivers won’t be stuck behind cyclists travelling at slow speeds.
My only concern is looking at other segregated Cycle schemes. Case in point is the A217 and A297 coming from Sutton up into Morden. You have bi directional cycle lanes, on the pavement, completely separated from traffic. Cyclists, however, very rarely use them. It’s a frequent site during the morning and evening commutes to have complete slow downs and dangerous overtaking as cyclists continue to use the road instead of the cycle lanes…
A quick check of Street View says that while bits of it are good, it suffers from the same problems as other suburban cycle tracks: Narrow lanes, lack of priority at side streets, frequently disappearing into “shared space”, variable surface quality, filled with sign posts, etc. The biggest thing is that it seems to completely give out at major junctions, forcing you either on to the main road or to meander through pedestrian crossings.
The other problem is that isolated bits of cycle track don’t really work. You’ve got to have a network of safe, high-quality routes that properly connect to each other. A successful cycle network is going to be built outwards from the central London schemes, which is why they’re so important.
@Drew
The segregated cycle path on Hampton Court Road (which has a 40mph limit) is interesting – about half of eastbound cyclists seem to use it, but westbound hardly anyone does, perhaps because this is how it starts –
https://goo.gl/maps/PnK3x
and this is how it ends –
https://goo.gl/maps/idrzI
necessitating two separate uncontrolled crossings of a fast-moving two-way road.
There is of course no reason why faster cyclists shouldn’t mix it with the motor traffic, leaving a shared-used path for those who only want to cycle slowly. If you can hare along at 25mph (or even 41 in news reports today!) you would be a hazard to any pedestrians, but can easily keep up with the traffic. If you are only doing 10mph you should be able to avoid pedestrians, but may be a liability on a busy road – although of course you have as much right to be there as any other slow-moving vehicle, be it electric milk float, horse-drawn cart, steamroller, or tank, and other traffic will just have to wait until it is safe to overtake you.
@Drew: I think we need to distinguish between cycle paths and cycle lanes.
A cycle path is part of the pavement and as such as per the Highway Code cyclists have to give way to car traffic crossing the path (just like pedestrians do). Also, from my experience, whereas most drivers do pay some sort of attention to the cycle lane markings on the road, pedestrians could not be less bothered, even if you painted back-to-back bicycle pictograms on the pavement.
A cycle lane is a lane on the roadway dedicated to cyclists and as such cyclists have to obey the same road signs and priority regulations as other vehicles on the road.
Looking at the scheme you described, I can see cycling on the road as being much faster than on the pavement. I can also see a few places where cyclists are supposed to cross a four-lane road without there being any traffic lights to stop the traffic for them. If this scheme was converted to two one-way segregated cycle LANES as part of the roadway, then I could see order being restored.
@Straphan
“A cycle path is part of the pavement and as such as per the Highway Code cyclists have to give way to car traffic crossing the path (just like pedestrians do). ”
Not so
Highway Code rule 170
“Take extra care at junctions. You should watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”
@timbeau: Have a look at a Google Map of the cycle path in question. At every junction with a side street there is a clear ‘Give Way’ triangle on the cycle path, whereas the ‘Give Way’ line for cars coming in from the side streets is at the roadway rather than the cycle path. Why should I have to brake every couple of hundred metres on the cycle path when I can cycle on the roadway and have priority?
Even on the Cycle Superhighway 3 through Poplar (B216 Cable St), where the ‘Give Way’ lines have been moved behind the cycle path, the junctions with roads have deliberately steep ramps to make sure cyclists slow down before crossing. Not sure why they should do so if they are supposedly the ones with priority. Also, having cycled there a number of times, I noticed drivers only stop in front of the roadway rather than at the cycle path. Hardly encouraging for cyclists, that…
“My only concern is looking at other segregated Cycle schemes. Case in point is the A217 and A297 coming from Sutton up into Morden. You have bi directional cycle lanes, on the pavement, completely separated from traffic. Cyclists, however, very rarely use them”.
Cycle lanes on pavement is a bad idea, it creates conflicts between bicycles and pedestrians. Several years ago I was cycling on a clearly marked cycle lane on the pavement, ahead of me I saw a little old lady on the side of the pavement smelling flowers, just as I reached her, she backed into the lane I was riding on, I hit my brakes and swerved out of the way, if I hadn’t been paying attention I would have hit her, but I didn’t, however she started to yell at me telling me to watch where I was going (even though she was the one who wasn’t paying attention). Even though I believe that I was in the right, I still understand her position, one should feel safe on the pavement, one should feel that that can suddenly stop, turn around, etc. Since then I rarely ride on cycle lanes on the pavement (except when unavoidable). I prefer riding in the street. Let me modify that statement a little, I will ride on shared routes if it is wide enough, i.e. at least 12 foot wide.
LBM
By snipping that middle bit, it is now totally unclear as to which problem(s) were under consideration & solutions sought (or found/not ) by the various boroughs.
[Fair enough. Problem is traffic calming and vehicle speed reduction; solutions implemented include road redesigns, humps, & others. LBM]
I’ve seem to be reading a lot of complaints about the 20 mile speed limit, I think it time to reiterate why it’s being implemented. 20 miles per hour saves lives.
Please see this study from the America Automobile Association: https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf
Even though the study isn’t from London, the physics remain the same.
See especially page 9.
If you are struck by a car going less that 10 miles an hour, you have a 99.5% chance of living, if struck by a car going between 10-20 miles your chance of living are still 97.7%. However if stuck buck by a car going between 20-30 miles an hour, your chances of surviving drops to 84.5%, if struck by a car going between 30-40 miles an hour, you have an 64.6% change of living, and if stuck by a car going over 40 miles an hour you have less than a 50% chance of surviving. If you are over 70 years old, the 50% survival rate is nearer to 30 miles an hour.
The cycle lane on Gordon Square not far from TCR shown in the attached is a bit unnerving in that it is two way but on the left hand side of the road only (if heading east). Cars are supposed to give way as can be seen but they have to wait (both in the side road and the main road) for the two way cycle traffic to clear before doing so. The danger is that the car drivers only look the way they expect cycles to be coming from as if it was a one directional cycle lane. I don’t know if there is any evidence to say two way lanes are more dangerous at junctions such as these but if I was cycling against the traffic eg west bound I would be particularly cautious at such junctions.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.523447,-0.13078,3a,75y,16.49h,68.25t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJGBhI6M1RwPkxNm-o2MOCw!2e0?hl=en
@Phil
The danger of cyclists going the “wrong” way on a two-way track (as per your example, westbound through Gordon Square) is around three times higher than those going the “right” way. This is mainly a function of drivers not looking/seeing cyclists coming from the unexpected direction.
The solutions to this problem could be any of:
– Recess cycle track around 5m from main carriageway so drivers cross it at right-angles and can see cycles from both directions;
– Signalise the side road;
– Close the side road to traffic
– Make cyclists give way to drivers or convert cycle track to shared-use footway (risk of making cycle track unattractive to faster cyclists)
If you look at the proposed designs for the new Cycle Superhighways they feature all of these solutions.
In some cases, the number of side roads on one side of a road may be so much higher than the other that the 3x higher collision rate may still lead to a reduction in casualties. The CS East-West alignment along the Thames is an obvious example. Another might be along the A315 from Hammersmith to Hyde Park Corner through Kensington High Street, where there are six times more side roads on the south side than the north side.
@ Chris H
Thanks, I suspected the casualty rate would be higher. As for recessing the cycle paths back from the junction I can see the idea but am not sure it will necessarily work unless there are physical obstacles to stop cyclists heading in a straight line over the junction (maybe that is part of the design?). I think it’s a case of cyclists and drivers having to adapt and learn how to interact appropriately with any new design features. There was talk earlier about cycling in the Netherlands being safer though as a driving tourist I was taken aback by cyclists crossing your path on raised pavements as I was approaching a roundabout with them heading against the normal directional flow. I got a nasty look as I screeched to a stop as if to say why on earth do you think you have the right of way!
There seems to be a big danger with ‘clever’ bicycle solutions that lots of different solutions just confuse everyone. Treating the pavement behind a 4′ curb as a pedestrian (and 4 year old with stablilisers!) zone, and the road as a car/cycle zone with same priority rules for both. Demarcating the cycle lane with a raised but cycle friendly tactile set of cats-eyes or rumble strips would keep cars out of the cycle area, but allow faster cyclists to overtake at car speeds.
Side road traffic stop lines would align with the pavement edge, behind the cycle lanes.
I’m not keen on other clever stuff like advanced stop lines for cyclists, or special routes or traffic lights, and it just allows the planners to introduce inconsistency.
@Straphan 1603
You mean this sort of thing?
https://goo.gl/maps/74MNj
I linked to a similarly bad cycle path (6 March 11:25)
https://goo.gl/maps/bDKSl
I agree they are an abomination and contradict the Highway Code. The cycle path should be marked across the side-road entrance, not vice versa.
See
https://goo.gl/maps/nlknP (Gordon Square – referenced above)
https://goo.gl/maps/fUYTi
https://goo.gl/maps/KASV0
(neither of these are perfect examples)
@Chris H
The simplest solution to the Gordon Square one would be to make it clearer to motorists that it is a two way cycle path, for example by putting up a sign saying so, and/or putting the white two way arrows on the cycle path itself in plainer view of motorists’ eye lines.
With additional phases for cyclists being required at some junctions, obviously it would be beneficial to minimise the period of downtime between traffic light phases.
At Trafalgar Square/Whitehall junction, there is a traffic light which shows the red-man for approximately 25 seconds before the traffic lights turn green for cars. The road can be crossed in about 6 paces and there is zero possibility of cars from any other direction.
So why have 25 seconds of wasted time, when both pedestrians and cars are standing still?
OK this is an extreme example, but there are many much more common examples where 5,6,7 seconds could be saved with quicker traffic-light transition between phases. Could these saved seconds then be apportioned to cyclists to help prevent eating into the motorist phases at traffic lights?
@timbeau: Indeed. Note the StretView photo you linked shows a stonking big bus shelter covering most of the cyclists’ side of the pavement…
And in terms of signage: if there is a sign ‘TRAMWAY LOOK BOTH WAYS’ why can’t we have a ‘CYCLE PATH LOOK BOTH WAYS’ sign as well?
Phil, Chris H, and others considering the 2-way cycle tracks.
You are correct in assuming that these would have a (slightly) higher collision rate that uni-directional tracks which fit with driver’s expectations of other traffic. Royal College Street in Camden was recently redesigned for precisely this reason, as a study showed a significant increase is risk to cycles coming from the “wrong” direction. In the 2013 consultation to redesign the tracks quoted:
There have been 17 accidents on Royal College Street within a 3 year period up until February 2012. This includes 2 serious and 15 slight accidents. 15 of the accidents involved cyclists and 2 were pedestrians. The vast majority of the accidents occur at junctions with side roads and many involve cyclists heading southbound colliding with vehicles turning out of a side road. Our evidence suggests that drivers are not anticipating southbound cyclists as they turn onto Royal College Street.
David G yesterday at 10.59 mention Southwark’s very recent blanket 20mph limit with speed humps/tables. This is an example of one of several now on Denmark Hill and adjoining Herne Hill:
http://tinyurl.com/qe9es6l
If you scroll around to face the other way and click along a couple of times down the hill, you will see another in the making.
Now, it doesn’t look much but note that it includes the bus lanes. Even for seated passengers upstairs with the bus having to slow down to well below 20, the experience is uncomfortable as the bus brakes, hits the rise and drops again. Whilst it would be exaggerating to say that passengers hit the ceiling, the bounce is certainly unwelcome and is certainly more risky where they are negotiating the stairs for bus stops near some of the humps. I wouldn’t mind so much if the Council hadn’t relaid the whole road beautifully smoothly only a couple of years ago. The pedestrian islands in the middle were already there and almost all bar motorbike riders took the road steadily within what was the 30mph limit.
What cyclists think of these I don’t know.
P.S. Going even further down Denmark Hill and looking back up again:
http://tinyurl.com/oon7lb8
you can see the cycle lane protecting cyclists climbing the steeper part of the hill up from King’s College Hospital but approaching the summit the bus lane commences and cyclists are forced into the general traffic stream. That doesn’t seem to be very clever, either, and is usually ignored.
The arrows are misleading, as they antedate the (“mandatory”, i.e. exclusive) cycle lane and were an instruction to general traffic. Cyclists can keep entirely legally (look at the blue sign) to the bus lane.
Riding in a bus lane it is very like a cycle lane except wide enough to avoid potholes within, properly respected by drivers, safe from unexpectedly opening passenger side doors, safe to ride along faster than the queuing traffic in the general lane, and unlikely to give out suddenly or divert abruptly and bumpily onto a shared pavement. Bus drivers leave a cyclist as much room, or more, when passing in a bus lane as they do when squeezing past you in your narrow bike lane, and in bus lanes they are much less likely to half-overtake you before pulling into a bus-stop with you still alongside—a terrifying experience. I love bus lanes.
LBM
Thank you.
I should have added, of course, things like “permissive” gates that allow buses through, but not other traffic & width-restrictions & also variations on the “woonerf” principle.
I am a particular fan of the latter, since it allows access for all (even small delivery lorries), but enforces low road-speeds.
In parenthesis, it would seem that Southwark are closer to a correct solution than LBWF (Which, as a resident of the latter suprises me not at all) – but – it may not be relevant on this thread @ this time …
What other/different/contrasting measures are other London boroughs using, & what are people’s perceptions of their efforts?
timbeau
What about the cycle path in Wanstead I linked to earlier, with a fence & a traffic-light planted in the middle of it?
GF
11/03/15 @ 21.51
Thank you, too.
You have expressed perfectly why I keep moaning on about this …
I consider it cruel & stupid, yet several London Boroughs persist in doing it – & worse they won’t be told, not even by their own voters.
Cyclists don’t like them, either, I can tell you, especially in wet/slippery/windy conditions.
I see that TfL have now announced seven places on their roads where they are thinking of introducing a 20mph limit.
• Upper Street and Holloway Road (between Pentonville Road and Seven Sisters Road);
• Westminster Bridge, Stamford Street and Southwark St (between Victoria Embankment and Borough High Street – this trial would also incorporate the previous 20mph trial at Waterloo Roundabout);
• Brixton Town Centre (between St Matthews Road and Stockwell Park Walk);
• Clapham High Street (between Clapham Park Road and Bedford Road, which forms part of Cycle Superhighway 7);
• Earls Court Road and Redcliffe Gardens (between A4 Cromwell Road and Fulham Road);
• Kings Cross Road and Farringdon Road (between Pentonville Road and Charterhouse Road, linking up with the previous 20mph trial along Farringdon St and Blackfriars Bridge);
• Camden Street (between Camden Road and Crowndale Road).
Graham Feakins,
Speed bumps are unpleasant for all road users:
– people inside vehicles experience deceleration, a jolt, and acceleration;
– pedestrians and residents suffer the noise and pollution of vehicles accelerating after each bump
– the vehicles themselves incur greater wear and tear
The jolt when a vehicle hits the bump is particularly unpleasant for those with back pain. Bus passengers suffer enough without deliberately adding to their misery.
There are many other ways to slow down traffic. My favourite is to narrow the road with chicanes or pinch-points. These can be built with a cycle lane or a bus lane around the outside, bypassing the pinch-point. These are very effective in slowing traffic without all the negatives of speed bumps.
Sorry Andrew M, chicanes have one major flaw. As a driver I detest them – they force the law abiding with the right of way into head on conflict with the speeding vehicle. Practically no other road formation does that.
They are no fun as a cyclist either.
No bypass lane and the chances of being given way to if you have right of way are low. Not fun to share the narrow space with an oncoming car.
If there is one the bypass will be a bumpy (hand laid, no machine that narrow), debris strewn invitation for the the puncture fairy to visit. Ignore the lane and you get flattened by the vehicle behind who assumes you will use it.
Not that cushion speed bumps are a lot better – vehicles tend to swerve to minimise the bump, irrespective of who they are overtaking at the time.
And normal speedbumps tend to be an utter pain in the sit bone unless the gradient transitions are very well done.
In fact, I’d go as far as to suggest traffic calming is a worse experience on a bike than it is in a car.
[Emotionally charged word snipped. LBM]
@Graham Feakins: As long as the bumps are not across the entire width of the road but are ‘outcrops’ with spaces on either side for wheels of wider vehicles then I have no problem with them as a cyclist.
I think the UK is unique amongst European countries in having full-width traffic calming measures on roads which are served by low-floor buses. It also explains why London Buses in particular very quickly feel ‘clapped out’.
I think ‘pinch points’ are the best way to slow traffic down, however, as long as these have by-pass points for bikes on the side – car drivers don’t like giving way to smaller and slower vehicles or think they can squeeze past a bike.
Other than that, from a cyclist’s perspective, bus lanes are a pretty good way to get around. They are reasonably safe, are frequented by large vehicles which move predictably (after a while you know which route turns/stops where) and if it wasn’t for those pesky taxi drivers life would be nice. Of course I appreciate the view from the bus driver’s seat looks much different…
As a general reminder on all threads, please avoid calling people or groups names ie ‘idiots’ ‘mad’ or worse in comments; even if you believe you are justified. It is unnecessary to make a point, and introduces negative emotion into otherwise level-headed discussions.
It can slip into thought patterns and writing subconsciously. There is no commentator edit feature, nor will there be, so please take a deep breath before submitting your comments.
The conversations on even emotional topics like cycling have been civil to date, which also reduces the workload of us Moderators considerably.
LBM
Ok – the “I” word was maybe a little charged, but what you’ve left doesn’t really reflect my point.
It’s not necessarily a speeding vehicle, but one that is being driven by someone who a) ignores the priority right of way and b) does so with the clear assumption that the law abiding driver is going to take evasive measures.
And if we are worrying about reducing vehicle pollution and improving fuel consumption we need to get rid of speed bumps and the one way at a time chicanes.
HM Treasury would be less pleased as less duty and vat with lower fuel use…
Agree with Staphan on cyclists “losing” at pinch points.
“And if we are worrying about reducing vehicle pollution and improving fuel consumption we need to get rid of speed bumps and the one way at a time chicanes.”
Could you expand on this argument? Are you suggesting that the Treasury like this solution because it increases fuel consumption and thus income from fuel duty? I think that you will find that the amount of fuel involved is very small (though the dominance of the point of view of the Treasury over other government policies is something we should be concerned about).
The thinking behind speed bumps and the one-way-at-a-time chicanes is “nudge”: it is supposed to signal to drivers that this is a residential area and therefore
– they should drive slowly
– they should find another route next time that avoids residential streets.
This nudging and signalling appears not to work. Living on a street that has become a rat-run since a pedestrian-only section was removed and speed cushions installed in their place, I can see that this isn’t a residential street to the rat-runners, but a “nice little short-cut and why have they spoilt it with those bumps?”
I’m in favour of removing speed bumps and the one-way-at-a-time chicanes, because the theory behind them does not work. They need to be replaced by something else though, such as actual street closures and strictly enforced 20 mph speed limits.
@Greg T
“I should have added, of course, things like “permissive” gates that allow buses through, but not other traffic & width-restrictions & also variations on the “woonerf” principle.
I am a particular fan of the latter, since it allows access for all (even small delivery lorries), but enforces low road-speeds.
In parenthesis, it would seem that Southwark are closer to a correct solution than LBWF (Which, as a resident of the latter suprises me not at all) – but – it may not be relevant on this thread @ this time …
What other/different/contrasting measures are other London boroughs using, & what are people’s perceptions of their efforts?”
Indeed there are many other traffic calming measures such as you’ve listed, including the Dutch one(s) (mini-Holland not the same as woonerf?), but the names of which slipped my mind at the time.
Doesn’t TfL have a study on the different implementations of such measures, comparing effectiveness according to situation and Borough?
@ Graham Feakins
That looks like a raised table crossing. Uncomfortable for bus passengers but welcome for pedestrians with buggies, and those with mobility difficulties. Don’t think it’s a big deal for cyclists either way in this instance – up the hill you’ll be too slow to care, downhill it’ll encourage common sense riding.
The main thing that promotes speeding on that road, though, is the central reservation. Given modern air bags etc., there’s really no need to protect cars from other cars at inner-suburban speeds. Better to realign the carriageway & use the space a different way – in this case probably a continuation of the uphill cycle lane (or a wider bus lane with room for buses to overtake) where slower cyclists will hold up buses.
@ L B M & Guano
Another thumbs up for the woonerf model here. The difficulty in Southwark is that they’ve allowed a lot of the minor roads to become part of a traffic system – especially where they cross the borough’s numerous overground railways. Closing the various minor-road bridges and underpasses around Peckham, Camberwell, Dulwich etc. to traffic would do wonders for the borough’s back streets, sadly I suspect they’d have a mutiny on their hands from some quarters.
Given the speed of some of London cyclists I don’t think speed calming measures should be designed to allow them to slip around the side or through the middle.
@ straphan
This is why pinch points with cycle bypasses are not the answer
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/sites/cycling-embassy.org.uk/files/styles/large/public/images/dscn8977.jpg?itok=FDm_rNtQ
@greg
What’s a woonerf
LBM
Indeed a mini-Holland is (in Greg’s view) an excuse by a council to close off roads, & provide a figleaf of “Cycle-friendly” supposed provisions, without any actual traffic CALMING measures (as a woonerf does) but simply enforce tiny enclaves with no actual outward/through travel possible at all.
Ask WW about LBWF & road schemes.
[ Sorry about the tone, but sometimes, the approach of LBWF & one councillor in especial really gets to me – no names, no pack-drill. ]
[I have attempted to translate the Greg rant into polite prose whilst maintaining the essence of the points. LBM]
timbeau
Google for it!
@HTFB et. al. – Thanks for your replies; not being a cyclist these days rather concentrates my observations from the bus, taxi or walking. I agree that bus drivers seem to be particularly observant and respect cyclists keeping kerbside, especially when approaching bus stops.
Hilltopper says “That looks like a raised table crossing. Uncomfortable for bus passengers but welcome for pedestrians with buggies, and those with mobility difficulties.”
But why is that road formation welcome when the previous pavement/road interface at those crossings was already a ramp recessed in the pavement rather than a kerb stone? Today, if anything, it’s worse because allowance still has to be made for the drainage gutter passing through, so any pram has to drop down into the gutter and then be pushed up onto the road ‘table’ and vice versa on the other side. More bumps all round.
And to think that generations of tramway engineers worked to overcome the problem of ‘dished joints’ (sunken rail joints) to ensure a smooth ride in the street!
The views I illustrated include “Hill” in their name and for a bus slowing, going down on the hill, amplifies the effect of the speed hump no end and thus increases the physical strain of passengers on board trying to move around the bus for the next stop whilst attempting to keep a hand hold somewhere. Cyclists merely grip their handlebars tighter (and should hope that long-term spinal discomfort or worse does not result).
GF
Cyclists not only grip the handlebars more tightly, but, in many cases, they will also raise their, err, posterior off the seat/saddle until past the hump, as some can be very painful.
This one …
https://goo.gl/maps/3OAz7
near me is a junction hump, but there are “plain” humps on either side in the same road.
They are incredible pains in the *rse if you try to cycle over them, whilst sitting down.
It’s to do with the shape/profile of the hump/bump edge.
Now look at this one:
https://goo.gl/maps/8KoMf
As you can see, it’s a bus route, but double-deckers (the mentioned-elsewhere 212, in fact) also use the road.
Going over the ‘ump in a bus isn’t funny – oh & as someone said before, the residents notice every time a bus or lorry goes over, as the ground shakes.
LBWF resolutely refuse to acknowledge any liability for property damage resulting from the increased vibration, too.
@timbeau: well if someone painted a parking spot straight in front of the cycle path then what can I say – nobody invented a cure for stupidity as yet…
@Theban: Just how fast do you think cyclists go? Hardly anyone will exceed 20mph in central London…
@Greg Tingey
The posterior-off-saddle thing has become so automatic for me I’d barely even registered it. The full width humps are preferable to badly positioned cushion humps though. Well-positioned cushion humps (which you can cycle between or around) are fine, but in some cases they’re placed such that you either have to cycle in the gutter / door zone or in the centre of the road.
Good:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.422513,-0.083464,3a,75y,343.56h,59.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seFoy_VaTAlCclY3ClTgVNw!2e0
Bad:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.423984,-0.083557,3a,75y,208.45h,58.78t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1so5AVhKCQ3cFqW8MKe_35yQ!2e0
(Same road – trust me you do NOT want to be cycling in the door zone at the speed you’ll be going down this hill!)
We’ll have to agree to disagree over WF and traffic calming. IMO the best way to calm traffic is to eliminate “through” movement. Through motor traffic doesn’t want to be calm – it wants to get from A to B as quickly as possible. Most “calming” measures antagonize as much as calm. As long as permeability is maintained for pedestrians, cyclists and possibly buses, I don’t see a problem with keeping through-traffic out. To you it might represent an enclave, to me it’s a place, a destination.
I’ll admit that I’m one of those fast cyclists and can give a good estimate of how quickly the faster-speeding cyclists will go. I come in from SE London through Crystal Palace, Dulwich, Denmark Hill, Camberwell, London Bridge and on empty-er roads (6.30am) will average, including stops, 28-30kmh (16-18mph ish I think). On the way home at 5pm it’s peak traffic and ave. speed slows to ~22-24kmh. Usually its less than 20kmh until into zone 2/3 borders. Max speed between lights is 35/40kmh (22-25mph).
I usually keep pace with slow mopeds and I generally ride in a similar style. Given this, you won’t be surprised I don’t use cycle infrastructure. That said, there is no infrastructure on any of the roads I use that I can think would improve my experience, either safety- or speed-wise. I tried using a ‘quietway’ route earlier this week near Sydenham and found myself buzzed by trucks and the type of car with plastic bits on it to make it look sportier.
Couple of observations: I read that TfL has struggled to spend its cycling infrastructure budget. I spend a considerable proportion of my bike rides wondering why infrastructure solutions in place are so weird. Like this: https://goo.gl/maps/ckQHy
And why can’t we have a greenwave solution? It would speed up my journeys as well as motorists.
I posted a couple of days ago but I think I escaped instead of saving. (Thanks to LBM for looking into it.)
@timbeau
I haven’t been speeding – I can’t afford a fine, points or a speed awareness course. My driving is annoyingly pedestrian.
I posted that the 15 minute saving was for the round trip, having quoted the one way distance saving on different routes from Winchmore Hill to Tooting. I do this journey late on Sunday nights when there is little traffic. When I last compared about 5 years ago, there was barely any time difference between the straight route via Waterloo Bridge and the fast roads route via NCR, SCR, A3 and Coombe Lane. There are significant 40 and 50 mph clear stretches.
The introduction of 20 mph on large chunks of the “straight” route with associated “calming” has now made it significantly faster to go the long way round.
I don’t think that there is a significant fuel penalty as my car is much more efficient at 40 mph in 5th gear than it is at 20mph in 2nd or 3rd.
@ GT
I agree about speed humps, tables and the like. If you have a dodgy back like me they actually hurt.
@ Whoever et al
We will still have a problem with those cyclists who will go as fast as they can for as far as they can. These individuals won’t slow down and they can’t stop. They certainly do not give way to pedestrians at junctions.
My 5.1 mile commute (Greenland Pier to Chancery Lane tube) takes me 25-30 minutes, which on average is 10-point-something miles an hour. I abide by all traffic rules as far as possible (although I do sometimes pass an empty pedestrian crossing when the light is ‘dark orange’ – nobody’s perfect). And I am one of the faster cyclists off the lights. I do wonder therefore what cyclists Theban is speaking of…
@Tom
It looks like that weird bit of infrastructure is to join up two minor roads, for cyclists who don’t feel comfortable riding on the main road. Judging by its location it’s part of the Waterlink Way NCN route which runs from South Norwood Country Park to Greenwich. That’s a route aimed at families and leisure riders who may not be too comfortable on the A234.
It’s not up to modern standards, nor in a particularly good condition, but I think that’s why it’s there. Probably got put in 15 or so years ago when they built the NCN. So it’s an oddity, but not entirely without purpose. I tend to ride quieter routes (can deal with main roads fine, just find quieter roads a bit more enjoyable – also means far fewer sets of traffic lights), sometimes 50m of infrastructure to avoid a bad junction is just what’s needed. (But there’s plenty of pointless stuff too, like this one over the other side of Sydenham.. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.433824,-0.051747,3a,75y,324.89h,72.78t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sQXAs2OZoocYuKRpk-1H0PA!2e0 )
NCN National Cycling Network
I spent the ride home looking carefully at the signs and routes and cycle infrastructure available. My best experience was along a bus lane (A23 to Brixton) and probably the worst was Brixton town centre itself, and then the roads through the inner suburbs, which, ironically, seem to be largely on London Cycle Network 25 and 27. Finding myself chopped off by a bus does on a narrow, busy main road (Railton Road) and then looking up to see I’m on a cycle network does bring a wry smile.
The choices made are peculiar. The obvious way up to Crystal Palace is College Road/Fountain Drive, which is a tolled road (yes, really) that’s a quiet, wide road regularly used by cyclists puffing up the slope. Instead, the route signed followed narrow busy streets (Croxted Road) full of cars ignoring the 20mph speed limit – I was riding 20mph exactly and being overtaken at speed by frustrated vehicles – and then climbs the hill on the main road. Oddly, the lane up the hill starts as a cycle lane with a permanent line, then it becomes a broken line and then it abruptly ENDS just as you reach the steeper part where space or separation would be most beneficial. https://goo.gl/maps/JJUmg
I could go on though this picture sums it up well: https://goo.gl/maps/05Bie
There seems to be a lot of paint and a few signs but the actual infrastructure is patchy, incoherent and barely usable.
I hear what you are saying Hilltopper – there seems to be a school of thought that cycle infrastructure should be for “families and leisure users” and so routing away from simple, direct routes in preference for complex routes often sharing space with pedestrians. This works for some people, clearly, and I don’t want to make too many assumptions, but I’m going to suggest that the NCN routes in London are pretty irrelevant to not just the bulk of people actually riding to work but to leisure users as well, as well as to the suppressed demand for people that would ride more if they felt willing.
There is evidence for this. Not just that in the years I’ve ridden along that part of Beckenham I’ve never seen anyone riding on that cycle infrastructure (and who would want to ride along a narrow pavement in the opposite direction to the oncoming traffic?) but also because we do have the data on what actual cyclists do.
http://www.strava.com/saturday-heatmap#0|6|12|51.42971|-0.03077
Strava is commonly used App used by many regular commuters and leisure cyclists.
Compare south London’s most popular routes with the NCN map:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map
You’ll see that there’s little overlap. People take the direct routes on main roads sometimes, on quiet roads where it also makes sense (so Fountain Drive, for instance).
We do have the problem of train lines in SE London, making it very difficult for alternate routes to avoid main road crunch points. But I’d be interested if anyone thinks there’s any good cycling infrastructure in SE London.
Re Tom,
“The choices made are peculiar. …
Instead, the route signed followed narrow busy streets (Croxted Road) full of cars ignoring the 20mph speed limit – I was riding 20mph exactly and being overtaken at speed by frustrated vehicles – and then climbs the hill on the main road. Oddly, the lane up the hill starts as a cycle lane with a permanent line, then it becomes a broken line and then it abruptly ENDS just as you reach the steeper part where space or separation would be most beneficial. https://goo.gl/maps/JJUmg”
When heading south I would recommend turning left off South Croxted Road at Park Hall Road and then next right going up Alleyn Road till you get to the roundabout – a much more pleasant experience. Instead of taking Dulwich Wood Park up the hill from the Paxton Green roundabout take the actual cycle route (23?) up Dulwich Wood Avenue /Farquhar* Road on to Crystal Palace Parade (lots do as seen from the Strava trace)
Cycle route 23 is technically split from the Paxton roundabout with 2 routes the original going up both Dulwich Wood Park till 50m before the abrupt end you illustrated where you turn right on the Faquhar Road (completely nuts!!!) or the more sensible option of Dulwich Wood Avenue which was added later.
*Farquhar of LBSCR and moving the Palace to Palace fame
From Herne Hill going via Route 25 (Rosendale Road) then left on to Park Hall then outlined as above etc is probably a much better route (don’t use the last bit of 25 South of Park Hall it is awful…) thus enabling complete avoidance of Croxted/South Croxted.
Seeing as we have digressed to National Cycle Network and other stuff …
To me a fundamental problem seems to be the dual nature of cycling routes as outlined above. Are they intended for commuting and getting from A to B quickly and relatively safely or are they meant to be “a destination in themselves” and be a pleasurable route with less emphasis on directness and more on family cycling appeal?
A problem I find with the National Cycling Network – which, as others have grasped, does extend to London, is that it goes from the two extremes without making it clear as to what its purpose is. So the direct NCN to Brighton is absolutely awful in places as it parallels the A23 through the gap in the Sussex Downs (mercifully with a crash barrier between you and the ever so close cars) whereas other NCN routes are truly pleasurable to cycle on, even if extremely indirect or located where it is easy to locate it (e.g. old railway line) rather than on a route people would probably normally make in the course of their daily lives.
As far as I can tell we are to some extent not making the same problem in London by having both the concept of Cycle Superhighways (direct but not necessarily pleasant although they might be) and Quietways which prioritise a more pleasant experience at but usually at the expense of time taken for the journey.
I also note that the NCN does seem to be unrelated to Cycle Superhighways and Quietways and it is as if TfL haven’t acklowledged the existence of them. Just about everywhere else starts of with the objective of incorporating new local cycle routes into the National Cycle Network.
Having ploughed my way through the article and many many comments a few observations.
1. We appear to have a legacy of fairly rubbish cycling facilities across London that are not understood by users or potential users nor do they form a coherent network. We are left with a question as to whether this legacy can be adapted / improved or should be scrapped and local authorities have to start again (assuming there is any money so to do).
2. It’s unclear to me what the point of TfL’s cycling funding is. Based on the many comments here and elsewhere it’s not obvious whether we are improving cycling in Central London, making life better for commuters, trying to facilitate local journeys or whatever. So much of the big TfL spend is on radial routes or trying to emulate the tube (e.g. Crossrail for bikes). Without clarity how on earth can anyone have confidence that the right solutions are being proposed and implemented? I have lost count of the tweets from cycle campaigners where TfL’s proposals are slagged off / criticised / rubbished. I am left pondering whether anyone will ever be satisfied with any scheme that is built.
3. I cannot perceive how the cycle spend fits alongside the vastly increased spend on roads and the proposed increases in the bus budget. It is already clear that bus routes are needing more and more resources for the same, or in some cases, worse service levels due to roadworks and lower speed limits. The Southwark 20 mph seems to have caused a revised timetable for route 78 which needs more buses. We therefore have money being poured away for a slower service.
4. What objectives are being achieved? TfL proudly say “every journey matters” but as a bus passenger I have to say it doesn’t feel like it. While I am not about to issue fatwahs against local councillors as Greg may wish to I am not particularly impressed with the Mini Holland for Waltham Forest. It certainly would not improve my local trips which could be converted to cycle trips. I believe it is going to vastly slow down buses and traffic on Hoe St, Forest Road and Lea Bridge Road. Given how utterly awful traffic conditions can get I don’t see this as much of a step forward. I would also question what it does to road network resilience when an accident or road works block one route and people divert. It’s already bad when that happens now but I fear it will be appalling in the future as the network capacity falls.
5. Without going into a tirade about traffic calming measures I am fed up with being bashed up and down speed bumps and humps. I have nearly lost my footing twice when coming downstairs on a double deck bus on humps near to my home. Where’s the risk assessment or even consideration about this sort of effect and potential accident risk?
6. I note in the Q3 TfL Performance and Investment report that many of the cycle schemes are late and expenditure is lagging. A key factor in these delays is cited as the personal intervention of the cycling commissioner. The other problem that is going to emerge is that too many schemes have a completion date of April 2016 (can’t think why). I fear we have two political influences that are going to combine to cause appalling traffic conditions as TfL and their contractors dash to meet an immovable completion date.
7. One issue that is not yet clear is who will adopt, own and manage / maintain all the cycling infrastructure. For segregated cycle lanes / highways to work well they have to be kept clean, well maintained and appropriately weather treated to avoid melting surfaces / flooding / ice / blocked drains etc. With local authority budgets under pressure for day to day spend are we going to see these new facilities slowly because unusable because no one can afford to maintain them? When I used to cycle commute to work I used a variety of routes including towpaths, main roads, side roads, cycle lanes, cycle traffic lights etc. I ended up not using specific cycle lanes because they were never cleaned so became littered with glass, metal and dust thereby increasing puncture risk. There were also silly problems with detectors at cycle lights not detecting cycles so you never got a green phase! I hope all those nonsenses have been dealt with these days.
8. Although I may invoke the axe of PoP/ LBM in saying this one major issue that emerges from the comments is that highway rules, signs, driver / cycle training etc need to be modernised to give a balanced set of rules, responsibilities and awareness to make the new designs of cycle facilities work coherently for everyone. I suspect that’s a national issue not a London one but the success of London’s projects is surely dependent on changing the rules, improving awarness and progressively changing attitudes and expectations?
A brave article from PoP. Not sure I agree with all that’s being said despite having been something of a cycle enthusiast in the past. I think we’re decades away from seeing a more “rounded” use of cycles by people across the population. That’s unfortunate but we’ve decades of lost experience and practice and changed behaviours to undo.
Unless I missed it above, this is The Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London (unsure when this dates from but available on TfL site):
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/gla-mayors-cycle-vision-2013.pdf
I know now – 2013!
@ Graham F – and in the recent Finance and Policy Committee meeting was the annual update on the vision. Not wonderful progress and note the juggling of some of the numbers and “reprioritisation”.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-20150311-part-1-item12-cycling-vision.pdf
@WW – And within that recent report, it mentions that “TfL’s 2013 ‘Central London Cycling Census’ showed that cycles make up almost half of the morning peak traffic on Blackfriars and London Bridges.”
The census is here: https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/cycle-census-technical-note.pdf
which explains that e.g. “Cyclists made up 24 per cent of road-based vehicular traffic in the morning peak and 22 per cent in the evening peak, whilst making up eight per cent in the inter-peak period”, with buses accounting for 5% in the peak. The census is per vehicle, not per passenger, whilst ignoring pedestrians totally.
So, one cycle = perhaps 80+ passengers per bus.
Not biassed at all, is it?
Graham Feakins,
Except that the average number of actual passengers on a bus is around 17. And a bus is much longer, and much wider so occupies more road space. You could double the size of a bus so it could carry 160 people but that wouldn’t make it an even more efficient user of road space unless it actually carried more than twice as many people.
You only have to see some of the mass cycling events such as the London to Brighton cycle ride to realise that if you compared road capacity if the traffic consisted entirely of bikes with that if it consisted entirely of buses to realise that, depending on how you measure stuff, bikes can come out of this a lot better than buses.
Not biased at all?
Perilously stepping between two august authorities, just to point out that both counting vehicles and counting people carried are perfectly valid things to do, and which is best done depends on your purpose.
If there is any bias in the piece cited, it comes not from the use of a vehicle count, but, arguably, from not spelling out clearly that that is what it is.
@ PoP – I’m sorry but can we compare like with like please. There is no point in using an *average* bus loading of 17 people (based on the entire bus network across the whole of Greater London across the entire operating day) when Graham F’s quote relates to the AM peak period on two bridges. I’d be astonished if buses crossing London and Blackfriars bridges have an average loading of 17 people in the peak. Heck most buses crossing London Bridge on a Saturday afternoon board more than 17 people at London Bridge n/b never mind the loading they had on arrival.
I am not saying there is no case for sensible cycle priority but can we please stop this odd stance of buses being an “inferior” mode relative to cycles or rail. Each mode has its place and TfL’s knowledge of cycling use is clearly not as comprehensive or long lasting as it has for the Tube and Buses. As you have stated above a lot of work is being done to build that knowledge and in house expertise.
I am concerned and will remain so about the future of the bus network in Central London over the next 2 years while we go through the construction phase of the cycle superhighways and other road works. TfL’s published analysis of the impact of the works on buses has been partial and isolated to each bit of work being consulted on. We do not know the full impact on journey times, reliability or the eventual end state of bus routes once the diggers stop working. We also have no idea how the budget will be affected in terms of revenue and contract costs. There are already worrying signs about reliability and increasing cost just from coping with the impact of works at Bridge St (not a cycling scheme) and Aldgate. And just to restore a little balance we also do not know how cycle journey times and safety are going to be affected while roads are narrowed, closed and dug up for months on end. We desperately need a good old dollop of transparency from TfL and then we can discuss something official rather than trading numbers that are not a valid basis for comparison.
The official capacity of an NBfL is 87 including 25 standing. Standard buses are allowed a few more because they lack the weight of a supernumary staircase and platform.
The three routes crossing Blackfriars Bridge have peak frequencies of 8bph (route 45), 13bph (63) and 7bph (100, single deck). My observations, from the saddle of a Boris Bike, suggest they are loaded to capacity. Allowing a capacity of 45 for the single deckers, that would make about 2200 people, about 37 per minute. If 24% of vehicles are cycles and 5% are buses, there are 134 cycles per hour or just over two a minute. That seems very low – there are usually a dozen or so of us in the cycle boxes when the lights change.
@ Timbeau – none of the NB4Ls so far delivered have met the TfL minimum standard of 87 passengers for a double decker but as they don’t yet cross the bridges in question it’s a tad irrelevant. The Volvo double decks used on the 45 and 63 over B’friars Bdge do meet the 87 minimum and as you say may well be carrying a few more than that if really crush loaded. I don’t know how busy the 100 is given it starts at the Elephant but its buses are relatively small as you know. Perhaps I will endure the agony of the rush hour one day and go and take an unscientific look for myself?
My questions are driving at a similar place to the initial ones of WW: is the cycling infrastructure we have in London fit for purpose? It’s illustrative that the answer to the route that I suggested was, partly (and apologies if I’m misparaphrasing) “ignore the cycle route”. Certainly that’s what commuters do on that route: from the City we ride through Borough, round Elephant & Castle, to Camberwell (A23 or Walworth Rd), up Denmark Hill, cut left to Dulwich Village and then past Dulwich College and up Fountain Drive. Not a cycle route in sight.
So referring to the original subject, the cycle superhighways may be the start of the solution for probably the largest (certainly fastest-growing) group of cyclists: commuters. These will seek out direct simple routes and ignore quiet/side roads. This challenges the kind of fudged and rather ignored cycle infrastructure we’ve been highlighting and is something of a national joke (http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/)
For those that say there’s been a huge change, it’s that kind of huge change going from 0 to 1, for at present there is very little separated infrastructure that’s not deeply flawed (cf Cable Street).
@WW
only three NBfL routes cross the Thames: the 137 crosses Chelsea Bridge and the 148 and 453 both cross Westminster Bridge.
Correcting my earlier post slightly – there is some cycle infrastructure on the route described above: Elephant & Castle down the A23 is part of a cycle superhighway. But this part of the superhighway is just blue paint.
@timbeau – “If 24% of vehicles are cycles and 5% are buses, there are 134 cycles per hour or just over two a minute. That seems very low – there are usually a dozen or so of us in the cycle boxes when the lights change.”
I suppose what we need now is how long do you have to wait maximum at those traffic lights until they change and/or what do you reckon is the rate of cyclists crossing freely between traffic light phases without hindrance at those lights?
I often see the melee of cyclists darting hither and thither approaching the south side of Waterloo Bridge and circumnavigating the Imax roundabout ‘to get ahead’ but it is difficult to count imagining the absence of the traffic lights and their mostly long, time-consuming red phases (for everyone on the road).
I have found a poor (and may I suggest also biassed?) pastiche to include cyclists of a well-known* London Transport poster which showed a load of cars, the passengers from those cars and an RM bus carrying the whole lot in far less space:
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/news/sustainability/iconic-waste-of-space-photo-keeps-on-giving/
* Depends how old you are, I suppose but I can’t readily find a copy of the original on the internet or a later one including (from memory) cyclists.
Please view particularly the 3-part images. I leave you to draw your own conclusions from the rest.
As an aside**, I am reminded that between 1952-9, Solingen (Germany) obtained a fleet of 67 2-axle, single-deck trolleybuses that had 28 seats, 72 standing places and were 11.10 m long including room for driver and seated conductor. Ideal for the long trunk routes of that busy town (but with quieter outer areas) all of which the new versions serve to this day. Remind me, how many are the ‘New Routemasters’ meant to carry? Today’s articulated trolleybuses in Solingen generally seat 46 passengers and up to 100 standing. And they are “all-electric” (except when running at line speed ‘off-wire’).
Now work out how many cycles on our roads would comfortably occupy c. 12 m of road in length and, say, 3.5 m width just considering one of Solingen’s 1950’s trolleybuses to compare.
** This bit also applicable to bus topics.
“And my point is?” – as PoP could ask – TfL must not forget – and indeed remember not to be allowed to be commanded by The Patrician – that the number of bus passengers on busy routes in the likes of Zone 1 have priority over cyclists. Bus passengers, one way or another pay for their fares. Cyclists do not pay fares at all. Both bus passengers and cyclists may well contribute towards the upkeep of the roads which they use but the balance of commonsense suggests that bus passengers are entitled to rather more corporate respect design-wise than recently shown by TfL in comparison to cyclists where the same roads are shared. An example here, which may be long-term, is where northbound buses at the Elephant & Castle can no longer use London Road and thus the bus stops outside the Bakerloo Line entrance have been taken out of use, requiring a trek up and down the ramps of those (infamous) subways from the Northern Line bus stops to access the Bakerloo Line station. Cyclists appear to be able still to use London Road northbound.
Graham Feakins, Walthamstow Writer et al,
I was merely trying to point out the absurdity in these comparisons. At least the TfL one is assumed to be factually correct. It is also clear that it is only taking vehicles into account. It might well be better if it had pointed out that, as a bike normally carries only one person, this figure is not necessarily the appropriate one to use but, equally, one would have thought that was fairly obvious.
How efficiency different vehicles use the road depends partly on the nature of the road layout which has probably been optimised for a particular mix of traffic which in turn is based on usage. So, there is a great danger when considering road use that a certain type of vehicle appears to perform better than it should simply because the the road was laid out to favour it. That in itself makes it very difficult to argue that one vehicle uses the road more efficiently than another (even taking into account the number of people carried) – especially as bikes and buses are so very different with different requirements.
So, like our completely pointless argument many months ago about whether you should count or weigh passengers, it depends entirely on what the objective is. If you are a traffic engineer and only want to design the best road layout possible to keep the traffic flowing then raw vehicle statistics is what is required which is what TfL gave. Of course this figure is based on current usage with no attempt at social engineering to deliberately introduce a bias towards one type of vehicle or another – which is what Graham Feakins seems to want but, presumably, doesn’t want to call it a bias (a perfectly respectable term in statistics). So we have no bias, no artificial weighting, no social engineering. Just plain facts which are available to be used appropriately (or inappropriately).
Whilst not arguing in favour of policy based on crude vehicle measurement, I do see this as a bit rough on cyclists. In the second half of the last century one argument for not giving them special consideration is the fact that they were only a minority and roads were designed for the dominant traffic which was generally cars which also generally had only one person. It seems that the very arguments used to favour the car in the sixties and subsequently now apply to bikes are attacked as being biased. I know it is more complicated than that but one can understand why cyclists feel that they get a rough deal with the goalposts changing and, it seems, always to their disadvantage.
GF: see http://www.joseflebovicgallery.com/catalogue/Archive/Cat-115-2005/Large/0076.jpg for the original 1965 (I think) LT poster, long predating the “iconic” Munster tryptich.
Graham Feakins,
I have indeed looked at the Münster photos. It makes a very good point but misses another one. The cyclists are portrayed in a boxed group occupying the width of four cars. For a better comparison they should be portrayed in various different ways e.g. one long line, the width of traffic lane, in a line going around a tight corner. The point is that the bikes, as a group, are flexible, the cars take up a lot of space and the buses are rigid and inflexible (they weren’t entirely so but lets not go into that). So buses do not necessarily take up a lot of space but their large nature means that they are often more difficult to accommodate than cyclists. Of course once a road is suitable for buses it made sense to utilise the space well by giving them some priority.
I sympathise with the Elephant & Castle issue. I don’t know enough about this but you have to ask the question as to why cycles have to be routed through Elephant & Castle at all. This may be down to the issue that TfL do not have control over local roads. Frustrating, especially when they seem to be able to manage the mix much better in many cities in Europe without the divisiveness that we seem to have here.
@PoP – Well, the only comment I have the strength to say is that traffic engineers should jolly well be trained to take into account far more than e.g. raw traffic data, regardless of any possible weak instruction from TfL. Advisors should be in a position (in any profession) to tell, sorry advise, the client of the best possible solution, taking into account all the circumstances, whether the client has thought of them or not or indeed instructed otherwise. Of course, the client is able to countermand the advice so given but at least the advisor will have a record in case it all goes wrong later. Advisors should have no bias during the course of their professional duties, assuming of course that they are professionals in the first place. Emphasis on the word “should”.
@Mike – That’s the one. Thanks.
@Pop – Our posts crossed but I accept your comments at 05:23. Is that the time? Gosh.
WW
point #4
Indeed, we have just been given a “Mini-holland” leaflet & questionnaire through our doors.
One Q is: “Is there anything else that would encourage you to walk or cycle more in the area?”
To which my answer is: “No, I already do the max possible & use my car very little”.
The point of this is that councils (NOT just LBWF) seem to imagine that restricting motorists & making bus-passengers lives uncomfortable actually helps cycling in some way, which is plainly not the case.
Oh dear, to say the least.
PoP
You could double the size of a bus so it could carry 160 people but that wouldn’t make it an even more efficient user of road space unless it actually carried more than twice as many people.
THAT is called a (Cross-River) TRAM, isn’t it?
Oh, the irony!
@Graham F
“I suppose what we need now is how long do you have to wait maximum at those traffic lights until they change ”
I was going to time them this morning but arrived at the lights when they were green – (today was not typical anyway because of the rain). Will try again later this week.
“An example here, which may be long-term, is where northbound buses at the Elephant & Castle can no longer use London Road ”
The TfL website shows the bus lane closure as being for one month only.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/cycle-superhighway-north-south?intcmp=25666
To me a fundamental problem seems to be the dual nature of cycling routes as outlined above. Are they intended for commuting and getting from A to B quickly and relatively safely or are they meant to be “a destination in themselves” and be a pleasurable route with less emphasis on directness and more on family cycling appeal?
Given high enough quality routes, families can use bikes to get from A to B safely, and at least as quickly as any other mode, over middling 1-4 mile distances. That’s day-to-day experience in the Netherlands, but we’re a long way from that point in London. The Dutch do not regard “quick and direct” and “usable by families” as contrary objectives.
Certainly that’s what commuters do on that route: from the City we ride through Borough, round Elephant & Castle, to Camberwell (A23 or Walworth Rd), up Denmark Hill, cut left to Dulwich Village and then past Dulwich College and up Fountain Drive. Not a cycle route in sight
Not all commuters! My route (and quite a few, to judge the Strava traces) is Borough, Rockingham Street, Rodney Road, Portland Street, Burgess Park, Benhill Road, Camberwell Grove, Green Dale & joining yours at Dulwich Village. Have ridden your route but find Camberwell town centre & Walworth Road a bit of a nightmare – especially northbound. I’ve ridden Elephant roundabout a couple of times, but it’s pretty awful, the back route is far more relaxing & barely any slower.
I wonder if TfL or the boroughs pay any attention at all to Strava data when it comes to planning routes, whether they are cycle superhighways, quiet ways, central London grid or whatever.
I know care needs to be taken with Strava data given the contributors won’t be a representative sample of the population, but even so, I think it would be a pretty good view of real world “desire lines” that people choose when cycling from A to B.
Strava do make detailed information available through Application Programming Interfaces and I have toyed with the idea of comparing this data with TfL or borough plans for routes (my suspicion being that many routes aren’t actually where people are cycling at the moment…) but I haven’t had the time to invest in understanding how to work with the Strava data set.
Having just looked it up, Strava seems to have two (or three) principal disadvantages, especially for proper town/transport planning purposes …
First, it actrually advertises itself as for “athletic” (or equivalent purposes.
So utterly useless for you family or commuter rider, then
Secondly, it requires, or appears to require registration via “Facebook” which is a complete no-no as regards a lot of people.
And, lastly, it’s very self-selecting, so the sample is useless from a proper data anaylisis p.o.v.
Um.
One great thing I love about this site is the breadth of knowledge and information the readership and commentariat share…
Today I learnt by Googling that Strava is a very popular website and app that uses smartphone or bike computer GPS data that lets cyclists to track their rides & times, and to compete against other cyclists for virtual trophies. Gamefication in practice.
Gamification applies game design techniques to engage and motivate people to achieve their goals by tapping into the basic desires and needs of the user impulses of achievement & status.
Re Greg,
indeed strava (and other similar tracking products) do have many limitations no one is claiming they are ideal but some some data is better than no data especially if it opens planners minds at the start of the process before it is too late. We already have far to many standed cycling assets…
As Tesco found with Clubcard (Dunnhumby) a very small amount of accurate data for a small number of users can be all you need to help understand behavioral patterns. (They would select user groups of circa 1000 for analysis)
(Especially as many council road planners appear never to have been on bicycle! or visited locations outside 9-5 M-F.)
@Greg
To be fair to Reynolds953, he seems to acknowledge in his message all the snags which you mention. He seems to be suggesting that in spite of all that, the data might be better than nothing. If so, I would agree. Obviously for proper planning, proper surveys would also be needed, but they cost money, whereas the Strava data is just sitting there. I found it interesting to look at cycling densities on particular roads and paths near where I live; the findings were sufficiently close to what I might have guessed to give me faith in them, but sufficiently different from what I might have guessed to fascinate me.
Ideally, of course, we would equip a worthwhile sample of all types of cyclist with the relevant gizmos. But that won’t happen any time soon, for many reasons, cost and privacy among them.
@ Greg – to chime in with others’ remarks no one claimed Strava was statistically robust or wholly representative of reality. All it is a source of data and TfL have plenty of very clever people who understand the issues with data, statistics and their analysis. I had many a long debate with such people on a range of issues in my time with LU. I may not always have agreed with them (!) but they’re very intelligent people indeed and would be able to apply appropriate techniques to Strava data. Any reasonable source of data, feedback and comment should be used in a positive way by organisations like TfL. We should be long past the concept of only one body knowing what’s going on or what is right. Life’s more complex than that.
A Strava cycling “heat map” of central London can be seen here:
http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#12/-0.15714/51.52123/blue/bike
As I mentioned previously, this data isn’t from a representative sample of the population but given access to the data set, it would be easy to filter training runs from commuting journeys from based upon date and time.
Would the “desire line” of a fit, young Strava-using male commuting into central London be different from someone who isn’t fit, young or male? If both are doing the same “A to B”, then I don’t see why it should be.
Being cynical about the “Quietways” concept, it seems to be a case of, well, it is too difficult to provide proper infrastructure on the “desire line”, so if you are too scared to use this, we’ll send you round the houses on a longer route. I suspect there is no real idea of how much time people are prepared to lose taking a route perceived to be safer, particularly if the Quietways don’t turn out to be that quiet.
As an aside, I use Strava to track my commuting times purely for interest, not for any athletic reasons. It is interesting how consistent the journey times are.
Re Reynolds 953,
It even looks like a few cyclists are using the Rotherhithe Tunnel! (May be only once…)
I found the “yellow” option a bit more useful for having a look at the data as it has the heat as Red/ Yellow/ Green + line width so you can see more interesting things at bigger junctions.
@Reynolds 953
“Would the “desire line” of a fit, young Strava-using male commuting into central London be different from someone who isn’t fit, young or male? If both are doing the same “A to B”, then I don’t see why it should be.”
The street plan alone might not highlight a difference, but contour lines might. (Your fit rider will want to go over the hill, the old codger like me will probably prefer to go round). There may also be areas that a more vulnerable member of the public might think twice about cycling through, for reasons other than traffic density. (Time of day may also be a factor)
Type of bike (and in particular tyre) may also influence choice of road – there is a reason cyclists on skinny road tyres eschew the loose-surfaced Tamsin Trail in Richmond Park but stick to the Tarmac.
If you can maintain a high speed, a detour over an uncongested road may save time compared with a shorter but slower route. If your pace is more pedestrian, you will save more time by taking the more direct but slower route.
Fascinating indeed to see the Strava data in a simple map, in the link above. May I suggest that readers click onto it and then scroll out to get (1) a Greater London scale, then (2) to get a London & Home Counties scale. A picture says a thousand words, etc.
Yes it is probably atypical of usage, but above all I am struck by the popularity of the old tram routes in the urban area where they are available (roads wider than typical? or are they just more direct?), and by the brown blankness predominating in much of middle and outer London.
So, not many classic Mum and children groups are visible, are there – or they just not using Strava? I conclude that I’d be more excited by evidence of much more suburban usage (if an across-the-board London cycling philosophy was directed towards that, I’m not convinced that the current policies are). The Stava evidence is that there appears to be a ‘Crossrail on Bike’ risorgimento taking place.
@ Milton C – not shocked to see a consistent use of the E17 – Woodford – Epping Forest – Epping corridor on the map given how many people on racing bikes go that way of a weekend for their leisure / training rides into Essex.
@WW. Indeed. But equally that isn’t a Mum+kids trip (at least not on those roads!).
@Milton Clevedon – I think that time filtered Strava data could provide useful information about the weekday commute, but I can’t think of any reason why someone would use it for a trip to the shops at the weekend so there will be certain types of journey simply not captured.
Having said that, if a commuting route goes along a high street, then improving the commuting route should also be beneficial for shoppers.
The Strava data is almost certainly unrepresentative of many groups. How many casual users of Boris Bikes have it? Children going to school? John Major’s “old maids cycling to evensong”?
I was amused to note that some of the traces follow routes which I know to be against local bylaws!
@hilltopper, I tried that route this evening. It’s not awful though did add about 1km to that part of the route (so maybe 25% longer?). I also wouldn’t consider it for the half of the year in which I cycle at dark – navigating quiet backstreets through a very large council estate and an adjoining park isn’t something I would feel safe doing in the dark. There were also significant portions where I felt the potential conflicts and negotiations with motorized traffic on the main road were exchanged for potential conflicts and negotiations with pedestrians.
In general, and this is echoed by others above, I feel taking these longer, wiggly routes somewhat gets away from the point of being on a bike. Maybe it’s ideological but I don’t like leaving simple, direct routes to motorized traffic, where movement only requires a tweak of the toe. It’s about priorities isn’t it? We have this big collective action problem where our social spaces have been accidentally colonized in ways that cause major negative externalities, forcing (for example) many school children into cars to get to school, and why are such a large number of small tradesmen driving into zone 1 during peak hours (the A21 and then Jamaica Road is sometimes nose-to-tail white van man)?
Regarding Strava, maybe it’s a starting point. They have a unit of the company specializing in these kinds of “big data”. Maybe when and if you commission them to analyse usage they get a wide range of users to log their information. That would be sensible. (And you don’t need to log in using Facebook, Greg.)
I commend to the House TfL’s Cyclists’ Route Choice report, which was carried out in 2012. I copy below some of the key findings:
8. Across all cyclists, the key considerations around route choice centred on choosing the safest routes, and avoiding traffic (either by cycling in a cycle lane separate to the traffic, or on roads where traffic volume is lower). In particular the highest score across all groups was for the statement “I would prefer cycling in a cycle lane even if it meant a longer journey”.
9. It is certainly not the case that cyclists will always choose the most direct route when making a journey – even among the most frequent cyclists.
10. Female respondents were much more likely to prefer safer routes, away from other traffic, and away from difficult junctions.
11. Those with a lower amount of cycling experience in London (i.e. less than 2 years) are also more safety conscious when cycling, preferring to travel on routes with less traffic and a cycle lane, whilst avoiding the more difficult junctions.
It continues in the same vein. Essentially the report says that (as we all know) the cycling community is a broad church with varied appetites, attitudes and behaviours.
Rachel Aldred has an interesting response to the report here.
The problem with the quietways is that by their very nature they are going to use the back streets, which means navigation will be harder and less obvious to the casual users who would be least likely to want to mix it with the heavy traffic on the main roads. They therefore depend heavily on a chain of signposts, and any chain is only as good as its weakest link. A single missing, bent, faded or simply overlooked sign can leave the cyclist completely lost.
Chris H
Your note re-inforces what I’ve been trying to say for a couple of posts now (that ran foul of the moderators for entirely separate reasons):
Cycling is all too clearly a “hot topic” at the moment, & we have at least two boroughs (LBWF & (?) Richmond ?) implementing in so-called “mini-holland” schemes, which may or may not be of any practical use.
Improving cycling facilities & making it safer ( your reference point #8 from the TfL report) – but these do not necessarily involve making motorists’ lives & convenince worse – they are separate issues (mostly)
But I’m going to repeat ngh’s comment here, which appears to be ‘orribly true: Especially as many council road planners appear never to have been on bicycle! or visited locations outside 9-5 M-F.
My personal preferenc is for a quieter route, not neceesarily cycle lanes, but that’s just me – & avoiding hills, if possible (!)
A number of commentators have raised the issue that different types of cyclists prefer different types of routes – fast main roads or circuitous back streets. But what has been overlooked is that these different types of cyclists are also typically making very different types of journeys. The young fit male cyclist may well be happy to commute 10 or 15km into central London using the fastest and most direct routes. It’s what I used to do commuting first from Hackney and then from Clapham into central London. However older and younger people are likely to be doing much shorter and more diverse journeys, perhaps only 2 or 3 km. Their choice of route will be very different and they wouldn’t dream of cycling 15km into central London.
The problem in the past has been that planners and engineers have tried to find one solution to both of these very different approaches, and it can’t be done. We do now, at least , seem to have an understanding that different solutions are needed in different places for different types of cyclists.
Putting these onto a road is a different issue and depends, in part, as to just how far you are prepared to compromise the needs of other road users. Certainly some are quite happy for the needs of general traffic (once you have catered for cyclists, pedestrians, and buses) to be squeezed almost out of existence. In practical terms, though, this isn’t viable so you are left with some pretty messy compromises at times.
@Greg Tingey – Waltham Forest, Enfield and Kingston got money for the so-called “mini-Hollands”. A number of other boroughs got smaller amounts of money to address specific schemes within their original submissions for mini-Holland funding.
Last year I attended a presentation made by representatives of the 3 boroughs and they each had different approaches. WF seemed to want to reduce rat running and through traffic to make local areas friendlier for pedestrians and cyclists, Enfield were looking to address major routes in their area, Kingston….. well I don’t know what they wanted to achieve other than splash some paint on the roads. Unsurprisingly when Kingston published their plans there was a lot of criticism and calls for their funding to be withdrawn so it remains to be seen if they will change some very uninspiring plans.
I know we are talking about public money here, but the mini-Holland exercise does seem to be a big experiment and we can expect mixed results – some positive, some indifferent and some a downright waste of money. Possibly this is a learning curve that the London boroughs need to go through in order to understand best practise. I know that many people will say that there are plenty examples of best practise 500km to the east (the Kingston mini-Holland project manager admitted he’d never actually been to the Netherlands…) but I’m sure there are plenty of things that will be unique to London so may be it is a case of doing the right thing after exhausting all the alternatives, to paraphrase Churchill.
@Greg
“we have at least two boroughs (LBWF & (?) Richmond ?) implementing in so-called “mini-holland” schemes, which may or may not be of any practical use.”
Kingston actually, not Richmond – and look what’s just been announced today.
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/11860228.Pedal_Power__Pressure_pays_off_as_Kingston_Council_unveils_drastically_revised_mini_Holland_plans/
As mentioned by others, the stuff that people on this site dig up is remarkable. I’d never heard of Strava but it is a remarkable resource. (Fully accepting the limitations about self selecting user base).
To the point raised earlier. “Would the “desire line” of a fit, young Strava-using male commuting into central London be different from someone who isn’t fit, young or male? If both are doing the same “A to B”, then I don’t see why it should be.”
Fascinating question and we have some real data to look at. Between Canary Wharf and the City, the cycle route CS3 along Cable Street is (so far) the only cycle superhighway that is close to the “new standard”. It is fully kerb separated (not just a splash of paint). There is cycle priority over other road users at minor street intersections. At the traffic lights on the “major” junctions, cyclists get a dedicated cycle-only sequence.
So I’d have expected that all the cycle traffic between Canary Wharf and the City would use CS3. According to the Strava data – that is not the case. There is a large volume of cycle traffic along the A1203 (The Highway) which runs exactly parallel to CS3.
Why is this? The distance is equivalent. The contours are equivalent. I am utterly astonished that so many Strava cyclists are cycling on The Highway (a hideous road with narrow lanes and thundering traffic).
Be fascinating to know whether this is true choice to choose The Highway over CS3 or whether there are still cyclists who are unaware of the safer (and equally direct) CS3 route.
I know that (unreliable sample size of one) I’m not young and not as fit as I’d like to be. I do cycle along CS3 (Cable Street) but wouldn’t dream of cycling along the Highway.
The Strava data also highlights the importance of a river crossing that we rarely mention here – the Greenwich foot tunnel. On a trivial note, it seems no cyclists use the Woolwich foot tunnel, and prefer the ferry instead.
I’d take that heat map with a large pinch of salt – look how many of those cyclists on The Highway appear to continue into the Limehouse Link tunnel, where cycling is not only illegal but suicidal!
There will of course be some cyclists using The Highway because they are travelling to and from premises fronting that thoroughfare. Something that seems to be forgotten in too many plans – apart from a few floating restaurants there are very few destinations having frontages on the Embankment. it is no use just making cycling along the Victoria Embankment safe if you are liable to get squashed by a lorry as soon as you turn off it to reach your actual destination.
@timbeau. Yes, I was just having another look at the map and noticed the apparent flow into the Limehouse link tunnel. There is also apparently a huge cycle flow over the Lower Lee crossing, which does not fit with my experience (especially as the Crossrail construction workers have blocked the dedicated cycle lane here….).
I think there may be another explanation here. A couple of times per year the Highway / Limehouse Link tunnel and Lower Lee Crossing are closed to normal traffic and given over to cycle road races. I’m guessing that Strava users have a higher than average propensity to take part in cycle races? It would be great if someone had the wherewithal to parse the data again, but exclude journeys taken on the days of cycle road races. Way beyond my ability I hasten to add!
timbeau
Thanks for that correction – must remember “Richmond” …
That link is interesting, though, as it would seem that Richmond are actually providing facilities for cyclists, as shown, wheres, in the scheme right next to me, all LBWF are seeming tp do, is blocking off a lot of roads, by putting “planters” in the middle & calling it a “mini-holland”.
Um. ( Compare & Contrast, as they say. )
@IslandDweller – regarding CS3 vs. The Highway, I’d speculate that CS3 “gives up” at Royal Mint Street and if someone was continuing on along Upper Thames Street, they may prefer the straightforward route from The Highway rather than what I recall is a somewhat convoluted route from the end of CS3.
I used to commute eastbound along there in the morning and I found it too much hassle to get onto CS3, then turn right into Wapping so I stayed on The Highway. It is a horrible road and I admit to going through red lights so I could get ahead of traffic and into the right hand lane to turn, or sometimes bailing out and waiting at the side until traffic had stopped. It is the location where The Times journalist Mary Bowers was seriously injured when cycling but for my own personal risk/reward that I can’t quite rationalise, I preferred taking the more dangerous direct route rather than adding 5 minutes and taking a safer but more convoluted route.
@ IslandDweller – I think you may be correct about the Limehouse Link. It is closed for motor traffic during events like the Prudential Ride London so if the Strava snapshot on their website includes this time, there will be a lot of traces from this.
@Greg
Note Kingston’s original proposal in the link I posted, which amounted to a pot of white paint.
Richmond didn’t get any mini-Holland funding. It is responsible for this abomination
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.407122,-0.327324,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s7-m5zJGWgf2eueLXGB_pcQ!2e0
Although this one is Kingston’s
https://goo.gl/maps/OGuuY
@Greg – I really don’t know the criteria used by TfL to select the mini-Holland boroughs, but if you look at the Dutch approach, there are a number of aspects to this. One is “filtered permeability” where they restrict through traffic in residential areas, another is classification of road types and provision of particular types of infrastructure for a particular type of road.
It is purely speculation on my part, but it could be that TfL selected the boroughs to try out particular aspects of the overall Dutch approach, so perhaps in WF, the emphasis is on filtered permeability, Enfield is to test certain road types (and tongue in cheek, Kingston is the control where they spend money doing nothing to see if that makes any difference 😉 )
@Reynolds953
I suspect there is no real idea of how much time people are prepared to lose taking a route perceived to be safer, particularly if the Quietways don’t turn out to be that quiet.
Agreed. If they’re not really quiet, they won’t amount to very much at all. Especially as the slower, less confident cyclist has less marginal time advantage over public transport (and buses in particular) in the first place. Distance penalties matter more at 8mph than at 20mph – the Quietways will have to be extraordinarily hassle-free to be a more attractive option for family travel than driving or taking the bus. If I’m traveling solo, cycling is 2-3x quicker than taking the bus – easy decision. With a child in tow? Far less time advantage, and I refuse to expose them to hazardous road conditions to save ten minutes.
@Tom
navigating quiet backstreets through a very large council estate and an adjoining park isn’t something I would feel safe doing in the dark. There were also significant portions where I felt the potential conflicts and negotiations with motorized traffic on the main road were exchanged for potential conflicts and negotiations with pedestrians.
I’ve been using that route at all times of day and night for a decade & in all that time only encountered hassle once – during daylight, during the school holidays (bored youths on the Champion Hill estate deciding to lob a plastic Coke bottle at my wheels). That’s not to deny your experience – social safety certainly matters – but has genuinely never been a problem. (Murphy’s Law says I’ll get mugged in Burgess Park tonight). That said – there have occasionally been attempted robberies of cyclists on Fountain Drive.
@ngh
It even looks like a few cyclists are using the Rotherhithe Tunnel! (May be only once…)
Can be done. Wouldn’t particularly recommend it, the air in there is disgusting, but if you can keep pace with the 20 (I think) limit in there, it’s not that bad. In some ways it’s less of a pain in the rear than the Greenwich tunnel – especially while they were refurbing the lifts; you’re not allowed to cycle the Greenwich tunnel (though many do at quieter times), and walking that distance in the cleated shoes used by many road cyclists isn’t particularly fun.
@reynolds953
“It is purely speculation on my part, but it could be that TfL selected the boroughs to try out particular aspects of the overall Dutch approach, so perhaps in WF, the emphasis is on filtered permeability, Enfield is to test certain road types (and tongue in cheek, Kingston is the control where they spend money doing nothing to see if that makes any difference ”
The boroughs had to bid for the funds, and the winners are supposed to implement what they bid for.
https://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2014/03/suburbs-transformed-for-cyclists-in-100m-mini-holland-revolution
Reynolds 953
IIRC some boroughs (not all of them) sumbitted bids to TfL for funding for their projected plans. LBWF & Kingston “won”. ALso, IIRC, the money does not come from local “rates” but either from GLA or DfT funding.
Ah – see also timbeau’s post, just above this one.
Looks like Wuppertal is leading the way in urban transit innovation once more.
[Self propelled rail ‘cycles’ on Wuppertal railway tracks (not the famous elevated suspension train). When posting links please add better descriptions. Thank you. LBM]
@LBM
“When posting links please add better descriptions”
But that spoils the surprise!
[I’m willing to go with the collective consensus on this. Personally I find it annoying when the link or video is not at all what I expect, and I suspect others may also be as well, especially mobile users if they have to use up data to view something they otherwise wouldn’t’ve chosen to view. LBM]
@LBM:
I’d have thought it was obvious from context (and my, er, track record) that this was unlikely to refer to the Schwebebahn. Note the “once more” at the end of the sentence.
I was also going to suggest this innovative, green transit technology was an ideal fit for the Waterloo & City. Or even as a use for the Aldwych branch, coupled with a short tunnelled link to the unused Fleet Line infrastructure to Charing Cross.
On reflection, I felt that would only lead to a fresh Crayolaonic War, so I decided to delete that bit. Now look what you’ve made me do. If another waxen battle kicks off, I’ve decided to lay the blame entirely on
my medicationsociety*.* For this post, I’m blaming the Royal Society of Marine Artists for no adequately explored reason.
@LBM -I suppose we should forgive much for the shots of the cakes…
I have to say personally Anomnibus’s link intrigued me and I enjoyed the surprise. Excellent find by the way even if a bit irrelevant – at least it involved cycles (of a sort). I see the point LBM is making though and perhaps this [surprise (LBM)] approach should be used sparingly on suitable occasions.
I could imagine a bike club enjoying a fun day out on one of those!
@Graham F
“@timbeau – “If 24% of vehicles [on Blackfriars Bridge] are cycles and 5% are buses, [given the published bus timetable] there are 134 cycles per hour or just over two a minute. That seems very low – there are usually a dozen or so of us in the cycle boxes when the lights change.”
I suppose what we need now is how long do you have to wait maximum at those traffic lights until they change and/or what do you reckon is the rate of cyclists crossing freely between traffic light phases without hindrance at those lights?
Arrived at the junction just as the lights turned red today, so was able to time the red phase as 45 seconds. The box had collected six of us by the time the lights changed. That suggests a steady state of at least three times the 2.25 per minute indicated by the quoted stats (this was about ten o’clock on a Friday, well outside the busiest time)
Thanks timbeau. So that in turn suggests, say, some 8-12 bikes per minute. Bearing in mind that a good proportion of those will tend to form an overtaking lane whenever possible, then I have to say that I still fail to see why such extravagant cycle lanes as envisaged (according to the impressions of ‘artists’) are required to occupy roadways that normally are carrying far more people by other means for a greater part of a day.
@ Graham F
“roadways that normally are carrying far more people by other means for a greater part of a day”
Taking the original quote “Cyclists made up 24 per cent of road-based vehicular traffic in the morning peak, with buses accounting for 5% in the peak ” that leaves 71% for all other vehicles, so in the peak, when the demand for road space is at its greatest for all modes, for every cyclist there are about three motor vehicles other than buses.
More people, yes. Far more? No.
We make separate provision for different types of road user, both for safety and to allow faster traffic not to be impeded by slower traffic. Pedestrians don’t have to walk in the carriageway. Buses are often allocated a share. Why not cycles?
@timbeau – yes, if the supply of road space was unlimited. The snag is that it isn’t in many places and the issue faced by planners is how to get the maximum numbers of people through any particular pinchpoint.
@ Timbeau – for me one of the problems with the cycle superhighways is that we have simply not been given a full analysis of the total combined impact of the schemes being proposed. We do not know whether buses will get faster, slower or run at the same schedule as now. I confess I have not read every consultation document for the CSHs but I have looked at a few. The details about the impact on buses and other traffic are partial and certainly don’t cover all routes. I’m sure Graham F will speak for himself but the sense I’m getting is that he is concerned an efficient mode like buses is being “sacrificed” to fulfill a political initiative. Some of the proposals have bland statements about trying to accommodate bus priority lanes elsewhere on a route to mitigate the impact of slower speeds where there is a CSH. That’s fine if you travel across both sections but useless if your journey is on a section which is slowed down. I think we can take it as read that n/b buses on Blackfriars Bridge in the AM peak are likely to be very well loaded. The 63 has had several frequency changes in recent years because demand was outstripping supply – there is the infamous You Tube video from North Peckham showing people being completely unable to board bus after bus after bus. We also need to understand how much of the much vaunted extra funding for buses is going to leak into higher PVRs for routes near CSHs because journey times are longer but frequencies remain the same. We are already seeing a large number of PVR adjustments across London suggesting something is going badly wrong with road works and traffic congestion. This is supported by comments in TfL reports that say that the bus network will not meet its EWT (excess wait time) target for 2014/15 because of worsening traffic. Note this is before we get into the massive scale of works for the CSHs themselves.
As I have said too many times I do not have an issue with cycle priority per se. I do have an issue with being possibly misled about what state the bus network will be in after we’ve spent £800m on cycle priority in and around Zones 1 and 2. If we had the info then some of the debate would go away and we would be dealing with facts rather than speculation. I expect we would still be discussing the fundamental point about the policy is the right thing or not.
@Walthamstow Writer – the modelling data of the superhighway schemes is on the TfL website. However if you looking for certainty about what will happen to traffic after the superhighways are introduced, then you aren’t going to get this from computer models. TfL freely admit that the models don’t factor in many things that may happen in the real world (peak spreading, mode shift…) and assumptions in the model are deliberately pessimistic.
Also, the modelling isn’t just for the cycle lanes but includes changes for pedestrians such as new crossings and conversion of 2 stage crossings to 1 stage.
Modelling just provides an indication of possible impact and just like congestion charging or the Olympic Route Network, the only way we’ll know for sure is when the scheme is implemented.
@WW
“there is the infamous You Tube video from North Peckham showing people being completely unable to board bus after bus after bus. ”
If only someone could think of a way of building some sort of guided rapid transit system parallel to the No 63…………………
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/haykerloo-bakerlewisham/
Excellent article!
I can’t believe it held my attention to the end.
Cycling has undoubtedly changed immensely and even in the period from 1997, when I stopped actively commuting to 2012 and again til today, the growth in bike ‘porn’ and exotica which has enabled the purchase of a bike for £2000-3000 to be seen as quite average or normal…Whilst also clearly evidencing the economic demographic, may also help indicate why cycling has a much more effective and listened to voice.
Whichever way, the whole London travel experience (apart from driving) seems to be drastically improving and I look forward to the day when hoards of schoolchildren can quite comfortably ride themselves to school safely and without adult bodyguards having to ride shotgun…which surely defeats the objective to some extent.
Indeed I look forward to the days when children are able to roam freely, safely and unchaperoned and Play in the streets as we did in our childhood/youth without fear of being mown down or otherwise hurt.
Interesting article in the Guardian today on increasing cycling in the Netherlands from its low point in the 1960s and 70s. Several interesting bits toward the end of the article about renewal of the network including capacity issues (parking space and widening cycle lanes).
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord
I recently made some research regarding the cycle hire docking station available in south east London and realized that there is actually a “no cycle hire zone” east for Elephant & Castle.
http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/images/bikes%20south%20east%20london.jpg
Anyone knows about plans to correct that ? I couldn’t find any clear plan or schedule for docking station to be built there.
@Kalum
Welcome to the world of TfL, where south London doesn’t extend beyond Zone 1.
(See taxis, Tube services etc)
Well I have been following the debate (here on London Reconnections) about the extension of the Bakerloo for a while now.
If I may, I suggest to keep the debate here about cycling.
@ Timbeau – the cycle hire scheme has only expanded when local boroughs or developers have put their hands in their pockets. That applies London wide not just to SE London. There is a legitimate question to be asked about why the cycle hire scheme should be expanded given its parlous economics and its poor take up rate by many socio economic groups. The scale of subsidy is completely disproportionate relative to other TfL modes. The other aspect is why encourage people to cycle when main roads remain so dangerous. It might make more sense when the CSH schemes currently “in build” have been completed. I accept I’m being a tad controversial but we need a mature debate about where scarce funds get spent.
Mr Emmanuel
“Whichever way, the whole London travel experience (apart from driving) seems to be drastically improving”
Did you notice my comment (somewhere) about… [Repeated complaint about cycling and road improvements snipped. LBM]
timbeau
So, Morden is a figment is it, along with Tramlink?
WW
The other problem with the
Barclay’sSantander cycle-hire … is the bikes themselves, uncomfortable, heavy & ludicrously under-geared.Re WW,
I’ve always viewed one of the main purposes of the cycle hire scheme as a way of getting more people into cycling in London (including appearing to be more cycle friendly) so this benefit might be harder to quantify.
I haven’t had a looked at the economics of the scheme lately but I suspect if the new docking stations are funded by local councils and they need fewer visits from the redistribution vans it might stack up better than some of the heavily used central area?
I would start looking at the cable car first…
As someone about to move to the South Bermondsey area, I feel my options would be much more opened to reach nearby, but not so near, stations or places of interest in the area (Bermondsey, London Bridge, Elephant & Castle, Canada Water…).
The area where I live (directly north of Old Kent Road) seems appropriate for cycling as it is mostly residential.
Actually, I have a hobby for which I meet with a few friends weekly.
I was hoping my new home would would allow to meet there instead of the noisy RFH, Elizabeth Hall and local pub we are used to.
However I already have friends who ‘complained’ that the place was difficult for them in part due to the lack of cycle hiring docking stations.
I don’t expect everywhere to be super connected and taxes to pay just to suit my needs.
However, you will admit that the map I already shared above shows a rather weirdly shape extent.
I just hope some local developments will pay for more docking stations here. BTW thanks for your clarification @Walthamstow Writer
http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/images/bikes%20south%20east%20london.jpg
@Kalum
I agree – although the “weird shape” does follow the course of the river fairly closely. Whether this is because of some “not going sarf of the river” prejudice or because LBs Southwark and Lambeth have less money to spend on such things than Kensington, Fulham and Westminster I don’t know.
@WW/ngh – Agree entirely that the cycle hire scheme was supposed to be cost-neutral and wasn’t – like the cable car, and also certainly the Garden Bridge. However, it has contributed significantly to the “critical mass” beyond which cyclists have begun to be an expected part of the motorists’ environment, which has itself contributed to the safety of cycling.
And, as a regular user, may I thank everyone else for subsidising it!
@ Kalum – that map image probably aligns quite closely to Borough boundaries. Looks to me that much of Southwark is not equipped for the cycle hire scheme. Conversely you can see that Tower Hamlets certainly is in scope of the scheme. I was not making any personally directed comments – my questions were on a London wide basis.
I am not sure Cycle Hiring has been cost neutral anywhere in the world.
The paradox is between the two path you could take in managing such service:
– You make it rather expensive to use, often to the risk of no one using it, and try to make it ‘cost neutral’. However this will result in a limited number of user, no ‘critical mass’ of cyclists and very limited non quantifiable benefits
– You make it cheap. You accountant tells you it is not ‘cost neutral’ bu you make ‘non quantifiable’ benefits which I believe cannot be understated.
At a lesser scale it is probably similar to making the case for public run rail services. It is not about having the line paying for itself but about allowing interconnected cities and economies to thrive, save on road maintenance, etc.
PS: Not currently using Cycle Hire but glad to pay taxes for it.
Re WW,
It looks like the Southwark outer boundary is effectively Tower Bridge Road (A100), New Kent Road (A201), Kennington Park Road (A3) which mirrors the Zone 1 Boundary fairly closely?
@ngh
It looks like the Southwark outer boundary…………..mirrors the Zone 1 Boundary fairly closely?
It is also the boundary of the Congestion Charge Zone
The original Cycle Hire zone boundary approximates to Zone 1.
Extensions to the east (in 2012) and to the southwest (in 2014) have been largely funded by boroughs or magic Olympic money.
Interestingly, back in 2009 during the planning of the scheme, most landowners and developers saw potential Cycle Hire as a nuisance and wouldn’t give TfL space on private land for docking stations. Nowadays, they are more willing to stump up themselves not just the land but also the cost of the docking station!
The economics have always been a bit murky but the “wider economic benefits” and the political benefits have probably driven the expansion of the scheme.
Incidentally Abellio have a similar scheme ( With apparently more practical bikes …)
The nearest station that I know of on their scheme is at Enfield Town …
http://www.bikeandgo.co.uk/locations/south-east/
Is a good start-point.
Actually the only thing worse than not having no Cycle Hire Docking station in my area, would be to be at the edge of a zone run by a competitor to TfL Cycle Hire.
That would prevent me to ride anything towards Elephant & Castle or beyond and/or would require me to pay for two different subscriptions and have switch bikes when entering Zone 1.
The later, anyway, would only be possible if docking stations would be provided for BOTH TfL and Abellio at E&C.
@greg/kalum
Interesting – but B&G is not as versatile as the Boris Bikes. Crucially, you have to return the B&G bike to the same place you got it from, more like a conventional cycle hire shop. With a Boris Bike, like a taxi or a bus, you can take it from A to B and leave it there.
So you can get the train to A to go to work, cycle to B to meet people after work, and get the train home from B.
Or you can cycle from C to D, and get a bus back to C if it comes on to rain or you have lots of heavy shopping.
“Crucially, you have to return the B&G bike to the same place you got it from…”
It is a much simpler and cheaper service to run but that pretty much defeats the interest of a Cycle Hire system.
@Kalum 1404
Surely the B&G offering is as part of a through journey. You take an Abellio train to somewhere and then complete your journey on an Abellio bike. That is why it is runs from railway stations, just like its parent in the Netherlands. It is not trying to compete with the Santander bike in this respect.
Perhaps in the course of time they might offer something more flexible, but flexibility costs, and disproportionately so for small networks.
@James B
“Surely the B&G offering is as part of a through journey. ”
Indeed, and it obviously has its uses. But it’s not as versatile as the London scheme, which can also be used as part of a through journey – but it doesn’t have to be a return journey. It can also be what the airlines call an “open jaw” itinerary.
@timbeau: But it’s not as versatile as the London scheme, which can also be used as part of a through journey – but it doesn’t have to be a return journey
And even if you do a return journey (to work, for example), your bike is available for other people to use for the period while you are at your destination (and the pricing strongly encourages you to return the bike to a docking station while you aren’t actually riding it). This makes the scheme much more scalable – the Abellio scheme has only about 30 bikes available in Greater London, and I would be surprised if it ever got more than 30 users a day in London. It feels more like the kind of thing that looks good on a franchise press release than a scheme that could make a significant difference to how people get around in London.
The debateabout the relative advantages and differences between B&G (round trip) cycle hire and Boris bikes (one way) is, interestingly, mirrored in the world of car clubs, but the other way round. Conventional car clubs (such as Zipcar) are round trip in that you must bring the car back to the same point where you picked it up, and are seen as very successful, with each new car club car displacing between 12 and 15 personally owned cars (either by sale or deferred purchase). Walking, cycling and public transport trips also increase. On the other hand there are serious fears that the one way car clubs (such as Drive Now, being trialled in North London) will merely encourage car commuting. The similar Auto’Lib scheme in Paris is very popular but almost all its users are converts from public transport and the regional council somewhat regrets it ever introduced the scheme.
The outcome does appear the same, though, in that a flexible scheme will encourage the use of that mode (whether bikes or cars) and will be popular, while a more restricted scheme will not. The difference, of course, is that in London we want to encourage bike use but not car use.
Quinlet – won’t parking be an issue with one way car clubs? (certainly in central areas with blanket coverage of Controlled Parking Zones almost everywhere)
With the one way BorisBikes there are still flows and imbalances between one area and another at certain times so vans pick bikes up and redistribute them during the day. So they may be one way from a user point of view, but not from the service provider perspective.
@Reynolds953
Yes, indeed, parking is an issue. Drive Now/Car2Go have a business model which relies on hirers being able to just leave their car wherever their journey finishes and this, in its own right, is not acceptable to most local councils, not least because it could block short stay parking spaces, needed for shoppers or deliveries, for long periods of time.
Auto’Lib in Paris has dedicated parking spaces (which they also need for charging as these are all electric cars) but even so they need a team of 300 people just to shuffle the cars around in precisely the same way that the Boris bikes are shuffled around to counter tidal flows.
@Quinlet
Shuffling Boris bikes is a lot easier than AutoLib cars – one driver can shift a couple of dozen bikes, and can drive to the site to collect them!
Self driving cars would of course open a world of possibilities for car sharing.
I am not sure such service encourages the use of cars. It certainly does not encourage the ownership of a car.
However it does provide with a much needed flexibility: need to make journeys at time when or where no public transport is available, allow to transport things you wouldn’t carry around by hand (that flat screen TV or Ikea furniture), or make occasional small family trips (family which could include elderly people)…
For interest, some comments from Andrew Gilligan about the battles involved with the superhighways, with the usual caveats that this is just one side of story.
http://road.cc/content/news/153735-london-cycling-commissioner-cycle-superhighways-came-close-not-happening
I assume that the unnamed borough threatened with loss of control of some roads was Westminster.
I thought it was TfL board member Michael Liebreich who coined the phrase “old men in limos” rather than Chris Boardman but I could be wrong.
I confess to more than a touch of schadenfreude that the highly paid lobbyists employed by Canary Wharf Group (the primary old men in limos, I believe..) were outwitted by a couple of people working in their spare time, who were far more adept with social media.
@Reynolds 953
It might have been the City. In any case, there would have to be a very strong case for the Secretary of State to agree a Mayoral takeover of borough roads. A disagreement over policy would not be sufficient, the Mayor would have to show that the borough’s approach was wholly unreasonable. Without that limitation there would be constant flip-flopping of control over roads which would be wholly unproductive.
Just picking up the point discussed previously about GPS app based capture of cycle journeys, Strava, one of the most popular of these apps, has released more data on commutes.
http://www.citymetric.com/transport/what-we-learned-map-londons-cycle-commutes-1466
I assume Strava got this by filtering their data by time and day to separate what they believe are commuting journeys from recreational journeys. I’m sure Strava are doing this to promote use of their data set by transport authorities (with full access coming at a price…)
TfL actually released their own app for cyclists to record journeys but this was only to gather information during a particular time period and the app is no longer available in app stores.
What is interesting about Strava’s map is where the thinner orange lines go – many of these are non-through routes for road traffic – “quietways”. Better signposting might encourage more cyclists to use them – safer for the cyclists and not taking up space for which they have to compete with buses, taxis etc.
For example, one of those routes is one I use every day – but only in the morning. The junction layout at the end makes it unusable in the other direction so I have to stick to the main road
Last Friday, the day he ceased to be Mayor, Boris formally opened the East-West route. The fully segregated lane is now finished and open from Parliament Square right through to Tower Hill, and there now is a seamless (and safe) continuation onto CS3 towards Canary Wharf.
I cycled the whole route yesterday and the difference in safety for cyclists (more accurately, my perceived difference in how safe I feel) is night and day.
There were comments earlier in the thread about how the reallocation of road space will/is adversely impacting some bus journeys. My (wholly unscientific) observation is that route 15 eastbound is badly affected, with barely moving traffic queuing down Eastcheap for most of the day. No doubt tfl have data on this from their online GPS monitoring of bus locations – so can calculate the increased journey time (or disprove if my anecdotal observation is wrong). Is this bus data published anywhere?
@ IslandDweller – Bus performance data is available here:
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/buses-performance-data
Looking at the 15 and comparing the period commending 01/04/15 to the period commending 05/03/16, there doesn’t seem to be much change in eastbound speeds but the westbound speeds have slowed.
However I don’t think conclusions can be drawn this early given the impact of construction work around Tower Hill and works on Whitechapel High St may also have affected timings.
@ IslandDweller – just to add to my previous post, I didn’t notice that data was available for 01/04/16 (it was on another tab of the spreadsheet…) and westbound speeds have shot up so are actually faster than the same period in 2015.
As I said, I think this needs some more data for a period of time without the impact of construction before drawing conclusions.
Yet according to “Diamond Geezer” the E-W “superhighway” is not yet fully open .
[ Especially near “Bus stop M”, cough ]
Or was this just a “Bit of Show” for the central section?
@Greg Tingey – I think Diamond Geezer is referring to CS2 (Aldgate to Bow), one of Boris’s original magic blue paint designs, currently being upgraded.
The EW and NS routes are the ones that have just been opened (the NS official name may be CS6 but I’m not sure about that)
It is highly unlikely that the opening of any superhighway (or any other scheme that involves taking capacity away from general traffic) would result in identifiable speed reductions on any other route except in the short term. This is because journey patterns are so diverse and so changeable – London’s traffic flows are not made up of the same people mainly doing the same journeys every day – that there is a continuous knock on impact of any degree of extra congestion or reduced speeds on any road. Some trips are diverted to the next adjacent road, thus slowing that road down, which, in turn, leads to other trips diverting to roads further away. This does take some time to work through – probably about 6 months – but the end product will be that the network average speeds remain broadly constant, because, over the network as a whole (rather than the simple road affected) the reduction in capacity is barely noticeable.
As an illustration of this effect, the capacity of the central London road network for general traffic has been reduced by about 15% over the last 15 years, by a combination of many individual schemes – extra pedestrian crossings, bus and cycle lanes, small road closures – and yes, there is some reduction in speeds but nothing like what you would expect from a reduction in capacity of that magnitude.
@ Reynolds 953 – while the speed data is interesting in its own right it’s far too aggregated to draw any meaningful conclusions about any location on any given route. There is also the time factor you highlight in terms of assessing the impact of more major changes. A key problem on a route like the 15, though, is that it will have been affected by multiple road schemes taking place at the same time. It is also affected by whatever happens at the Blackwall Tunnel which can wreck the east end of the route. Doesn’t take much to bring East London to a grinding halt. I’m making assumptions about how TfL do the measurement and compile the data. Unfortunately TfL only give scant details about the data and nothing about the methodology they use nor the level of accuracy from I-Bus (I’m assuming that’s their main data source).
On another thread, there has been much discussion of the recent alleged offence by the Transport Secretary, Mr Grayling, who is said to have knocked down a cyclist by opening a car door in his path. The relevant legislation is CUR 105 which says that no person may cause or permit the opening of a vehicle door so as to injure or endanger another person.
As buses are vehicles subject to the regulations, it is clear that this applies to bus drivers’ operation of the doors.
It therefore seems that the driver has to be certain that no cyclist is about to closely pass the bus on the nearside at a stop before opening the doors and allowing passengers to alight. If he does so he could well be endangering both passengers and cyclists. This is because there is such a restricted field of view from the area just inside the exit doors.
I am aware that cyclists passing buses on the nearside when at stops are not complying with the Highway Code but many do.
This becomes more problematic at the new Copenhagen style bus stops where the boarder area is supposed to be shared by cyclists and pedestrians. As yet the Highway Code has no advice as to best practice at these stops.
Therefore, any collision between cyclists and alighting passengers at such stops could result in prosecution of the bus driver.
@nameless: But there is no possibility of the bus door injuring a cyclist (because bus doors are folding and do not protrude far enough beyond the edge of the vehicle, unlike car doors). So the issue does not apply, in theory or (as importantly) in practice.
@Ian J
It doesn’t specify that the danger is that of hitting the door. The danger arises as an immediate consequence of the opening of the door. I.e. releasing a passenger into the path of a cyclist.
Are wheelchair ramps part of the door for this purpose?
@Nameless: But drivers don’t “release”passengers like snooker balls into the road. Drivers open the doors and passsengers then alight of their own volition.
Perhaps you can cite some case law where a bus* driver (or conductor) has been held legally responsible for the actions of one of their passengers?
* or tram – all trams used to stop in the middle of the road and their passengers usually alighted into a traffic lane, so this is in no way a new situation.
I know that cyclists are a law unto themselves, but it is true Darwin behaviour to pass on the nearside of a bus anywhere near a bus stop. In London at least, bus stops are rather conspicuous
Ian J,
* or tram – all trams used to stop in the middle of the road and their passengers usually alighted into a traffic lane, so this is in no way a new situation.
Well it is different. For starters the “duty of care” obligation is much more all-pervading these days. If you could have done something to make a situation less dangerous you are probably under an obligation to do so – even if not “your fault”.
More pertinent, it is a new situation compared to trams of old because trams of old tended not to have doors. If you choose of your own volition to get off a tram without a door then there is almost certainly an obligation on you to take care – primarily because you are the only person in a position to consider the dangers. Modern buses and trams have doors. If someone opens a door for you then there is a strong implication that it is safe to wal through the gap made.
If a lift door opened and someone stepped into where they thought the lift would be and fell down the lift shaft would you seriously put the onus on the person taking the fatal step? Why should it be any different for a bus, train or tram? This is not to say you have no duty to take care but that the onus is not entirely on you.
Re 130,
I suspect the interesting situation of some of the new (potential) segregated cycle route road designs where buses effectively dump passengers* into the cycle lane is being discussed rather than the more general one.
*especially those in wheelchairs given bus ramp designs.
The new cycle path on the Portsmouth Road in Kingston does have very large warning signs painted in the cycle path, and speed ramps, alerting cyclists to the potential presence of pedestrians at the floating bus stops. This is particularly important as buses are a rare phenomenon on that road, and passengers actually using the stops even rarer (despite being in Greater London, the only bus services are the infrequent Surrey County Council-sponsored ones whisking the few Esherites who don’t have a car to the shops in Kingston).
Surely in the case of first generation trams the highway code required other road users to give way to passengers boarding or alighting from trams. I recall a photograph showing a tram conductor holding out his arm to stop traffic.
Regarding the collision between a cyclist and the car door, I suffered such an event back in the 50’s after which I never overtook on the near side. It is perfectly feasible to overtake on the proper side.
@JimJordan – yes, there was an absolute prohibition on “undertaking” a tram stopped to take up/ set down passengers.
@Graham H: I would expect that to still be the case… It certainly is on the continent, where this does still happen…
The driving advice for Melbourne, Australia has copious information about vehicle driver behaviour in the vicinity of trams including stopping and not undertaking where passengers need to enter / alight from a tram in the centre of the carriageway.
In terms of London buses then generally the driver is tasked with ensuring doors are not opened other than at official bus stops. This can, of course, be immensely frustrating if buses are stuck in non / v slow moving traffic. I have been allowed off away from a stop but a stern warning from the driver to look before stepping out to avoid a collision with whatever may decide to sneak up the inside.
I note that TfL is now trialling zebra crossings on the new cycle lanes in the vicinity of certain “floating” bus stops. This is to ensure cyclists stop at the crossing if pedestrians are going to / from the stop. Of course this does not wholly resolve the situation where space at the stop is limited and it is all too easy to alight from a bus straight into the cycle path.
Is the cycling revolution peddling towards hubris though: because whilst there may be a general consensus that cycling rather than driving is good idea, the growing tensions at a policy level are that improving cycling and segregated lanes are at the expense of bus users and capacity for buses.
At a tonal level the cycling lobby groups are perhaps alienating the pedestrians and bus passengers and that in turn this is feeding into a sense that a ‘pro-cycling’ policy can mean a worse deal for other non-motorists. What may work in Copenhagen does not automatically make for a neat policy transplant to London where the mentality is different. Too often I have found cycling groups dismissive of pedestrian concerns by citing the low number of pedestrian casualties caused by dangerous cycling compared to cars – but that this itself is used to trivialize and deny the very concept of ‘dangerous’ cycling.
At a transport level is there not an element of anti-bus sentiment developing in the more ideological elements of the cycling lobby – whereby the selfish car user and the ‘selfish’ bus user are the same – ie someone who uses a bus is denying road space which could be used by a cyclist and that people ‘ought’ to go by bike rather than bus? The other element is the assumption that each bus user is deep down yearning to cycle, and that all you need to do is build the segregated lanes and hey presto you have Velo City Utopia as in Amsterdam or Copenhagen.
Many disabled groups are very concerned about so-called ‘floating bus stops’ because in London cyclists can and do go at speed. There is also a feeling that bus services are being devalued at a political level: cycling is ‘cool’ but there is a snobbery against buses in certain media and political quarters – paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher’s statement that someone is a failure if they are on a bus and not cycling.
Cycling creates images of fitness but also being ‘green’ both worthy yet very modish – and this goes down well in the media. By contrast buses are not ‘cool’: they are ordinary – it is not Laura Trott or Victoria Pendleton in lycra etc but the proverbial Mrs Jones going to shopping or to work. Yet it is this very ordinariness and popularity that gives the bus its social and economic value. One double decker bus may occupy the same space on the ground as say 12 bicycles yet carry 80 or more people. This is the argument for why the bus should be a higher priority than cycling.
For when the bus services get worse what seems to happen is not mass modal shift to cycles but more Tube overcrowding.
So the difficult choice is that you can have an efficient bus service taking people off the Tube and Rail or you can try and pursue cycling utopia. But Utopia doesn’t exist. It is time for a more nuanced approach that will promote cycling but also walking and encouraging people to take public transport. Sure there will be compromise and trade offs but good policy is based on priority and pragmatism: what can shift the most amount of people efficiently?
While I agree that some cyclists can be selfish and adopt a ‘holier than thou’ attitude, this is no less acceptable than similar attitudes from drivers – both need to be addressed through a variety of ways of culture and behaviour change. At the same time selfish behaviour by a minority of cyclists no more justifies ignoring the genuine needs of a majority of cyclists, than selfish or dangerous behaviour by a minority of drivers would justify ignoring the genuine needs of drivers.
Nick Bikinis may be right in saying that the best approach is:
“what can shift the most amount of people efficiently”
but the logic of this is that we should be doing more, especially outside central London, to get people out of their cars and onto more space efficient modes, whether cycling, walking or buses. This means that the suggestion that the choice is
“that you can have an efficient bus service taking people off the Tube and Rail or you can try and pursue cycling utopia”
is a false dichotomy. The more you are prepared to take away space from general traffic the more you can have an efficient bus service (but not, I think, aimed at taking people of tube or rail, which would be quite irrational) and a cycling utopia.
On some streets in London, cyclists now make up more than 50% of the travellers so it would be quite absurd, in these cases, to ignore their needs.
@PoP: Modern buses and trams have doors
Some (relatively new) London buses have open platforms, with official Mayoral approval for being able to hop on and off between stops. But the platforms were supervised. Does the supervision imply the ‘conductor’ taking on a duty of care?
If a lift door opened and someone stepped into where they thought the lift would be and fell down the lift shaft would you seriously put the onus on the person taking the fatal step?
No, but neither would I blame the person who pushed the lift call button, even though it was a consequence of their pressing their button that the accident happened – this being the analogy for the suggestion that the bus driver be prosecuted.
If the presumption is on cyclists to stop for passengers and they do not do so, why is that the bus driver’s responsibility? Doesn’t this actually take responsibility away from the guilty party (the cyclist who failed to stop)? With the tram example, not passing a stopped tram is generally a strictly enforced rule in the cities where it is relevant, and I have never seen it suggested that the tram driver would have any fault in an accident – it would always be the driver (or rider) who would be blamed.
What I would expect would be that before adopting any bus stop design as a standard, a risk assessment would be carried out. See here for a description of a risk assessment (and post installation evaluation) of a design of tram stop that deposits passengers into a car lane. In this case the design met the requirements of reducing risk as much as reasonably practical, thanks to the inclusion of features (signage, road markings, a change in level) that increased the propensity of drivers to stop.
This kind of careful data-based evaluation seems like a more rational approach than a) coming up with elaborate legal scenarios or b) worrying too much about the “image” of different types of transport.
@Nick Biskinis: One double decker bus may occupy the same space on the ground as say 12 bicycles yet carry 80 or more people
But they would typically occupy a very different shape of road space – the bus a wide and unchangeable rectangle (plus swept path), the bikes a longer but much narrower stream – which suggests that there may be scope for both to literally get along together.
@Ian J
“Some (relatively new) London buses have open platforms, with official Mayoral approval for being able to hop on and off between stops. ”
Past tense. Only six routes operated with open platforms, and even they went OPO in September.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36764417
Thanks for the comments so far: quinlet – I am not sure it is false dichotomy between prioritising cycling or safeguarding bus capacity. It really does look as though buses are being deprioritized for cyclists who, according to Andrew Gilligan no less at a London Assembly meeting in January this year acknowledged make up only 2% of commuting. Walking and bus use are far more popular – so it is not time pedestrians and bus passengers were given more priority. The statistics used to calculate the ‘50%’ figures for cyclists on roads are potentially misleading – one bus on Vauxhall Bridge may be flanked by 5 cyclists at the same point (hence ‘80%’ of the bridge is used by cyclists) yet that bus will carry far more people.
What I do not see is the argument that cycling should take priority over buses or pedestrians or why this is morally or transport-wise sound.
My point was that you can make good provisions for cyclists *and* maintain bus priority provided you are prepared to take capacity away from general traffic. This is neither giving cyclists priority over bus passengers and pedestrians or vice versa. It does give all three groups priority over general traffic – which I think is the right outcome.
A lot of the impetus behind the provision for cyclists is not about priority – some of the junctions on the Superhighway require cyclists to wait at two or even three sets of lights to negotiate them, where motor vehicles, once they get a green, have a clear run. It is about segregation and therefore safety. And, apart from the human cost, accidents cause delay and congestion to everyone.
@quinlet – no doubt,you *can* do this,but it isn’t actually done in practice. Suggest a visit to, for example, the westbound lanes on Westminster Bridge, where the cycle lanes in Bridge Street take up space which forces all westbound traffic (and all right turning traffic from the Embankment) to try and get in a single lane, thus nullifying any benefits from the bus and cycle lanes on the bridge itself.
@ quinlet – living in a mini holland area as I do I can see the reduction in road capacity, I can see the cycle lanes and priority through closed suburban streets but I don’t see many cyclists. I see massive traffic jams on the main roads and I see a bus service that has been in chaos for nigh on three years now. I also see fancy cycle lanes that are used almost exclusively by pedestrians and I see bus lanes that have been removed for no obvious reason given the lack of usage of the cycle lanes.
I agree you *can* provide priority for cycles and buses *if* you want to. That is not what is happening I’m afraid. I don’t make all the “connections” Mr Biskinis does in his chain of argument. What I see from my own experience is a bus service that is so slow that it is faster to walk – even for an unfit lump like me. The patronage numbers indicate that road works and slower journeys and the attendant unreliability and “short turns” are the things that are stopping people using buses as they did before. When local journeys take an inordinate of time you have to wonder what on earth is going on.
Ironically TfL held a “community day” in E17 last weekend. I had a fairly lengthy chat with a senior TfL person. Let’s just say there was an acceptance that things are not as they really should be but TfL *has* to deliver the policy set by the Mayor. The nature of the system forces that. If Mayoral policy objectives are in conflict or are not sufficiently developed to avoid conflicts (e.g. Boris had no real policy on buses) then you end up with issues. In my view we will also have issues with Mayor Khan because he has no bus policy other than “greener” buses. He also seems to be hedging on cycling provision to the obvious upset of some campaigners. With a reduced spend on the tube as well there are some obvious risks about where we may be in 4 years time.
I actually don’t think any of this is about “buses not being cool”. It is about whether buses work for people who use or who may wish to use them. Very few politicians understand anything about buses which is why there are very few good policies. Part of TfL’s apparent solution for Waltham Forest is to retime all the buses – i.e. slow them down in the schedule to reflect reality. Quite what that will cost in terms of more buses to provide no more service or, worse, reduced frequencies for the same resource remains to be seen. That, of course, is not the answer because a worsening bus service just dumps people into cars. However we can’t add any bus priority because all the roads have been narrowed to be more “cycle friendly”. You couldn’t make it up. And just to sign off I used to cycle a great deal before it became “trendy” and was probably as radical then as some campaigners are now. Perhaps old(er) age and a dislike for the intolerant views of some campaigners has changed my views?
Well stated, WW!
I can replicate your examples south of the River in inner South London. Step no further than Blackfriars Road and proceed towards and into the Elephant complex, to start with. Recommended to carry a book of photos of just how wide the roads were to start with and then compare with what’s little available today for especially bus traffic.
WW
living in a mini holland area as I do I can see the reduction in road capacity, I can see the cycle lanes and priority through closed suburban streets but I don’t see many cyclists. I see massive traffic jams on the main roads and I see a bus service that has been in chaos for nigh on three years now. I also see fancy cycle lanes that are used almost exclusively by pedestrians and I see bus lanes that have been removed for no obvious reason given the lack of usage of the cycle lanes.
Thank you & can I echo that in Spades, redoubled.
The scheme is still amazingly unpopular locally, but the council insist it be continued, on various IMHO spurious grounds, which I will not pursue here.
I’m 70, & I’m still cycling, but mini-holland has done nothing for me, except make my walk to the station (Crossing clogged, polluted roads) more dangerous.
Although older than WW, I’m probably fitter, but I have given up on using buses, anywhere in London, at all, unless there is no alternative, as they are so slow, unreliable & also uncomfortable ( “humps” )
If “the authorities” want fewer cars & more people in buses on the roads, then they need to address these problems.
And they do not appear to be doing so, at all.
Now what?
@Nick Biskinis
“The statistics used to calculate the ‘50%’ figures for cyclists on roads are potentially misleading – one bus on Vauxhall Bridge may be flanked by 5 cyclists at the same point (hence ‘80%’ of the bridge is used by cyclists) yet that bus will carry far more people. ”
I don’t know about Vauxhall Bridge, but observing the platoons of cyclists using Blackfriars Bridge in the morning peak and the comparative rarity of buses there, I would estimate that the cyclists probably outnumber the bus passengers, despite the crush-loadings on the latter.
As I said above, it is not so much about prioritisation as segregation. For good reason, cyclists are not normally allowed on footways, but they are particularly vulnerable on carriageways. Dividing the road space into three instead of two inevitably means something has to give. But at least giving slow vehicles (cycles) their own lane means that other traffic is not held up by it.
Cyclists are by no means prioritised over other traffic in most schemes I have seen – on the contrary, some junctions I frequently negotiate require stopping at three separate sets of lights because each one turns to red just as the previous one turns green – which is why some experienced cyclists choose to stay in the main traffic lane even when a cycle path is provided. That is their choice, and of course their risk.
All-purpose roads are available to all, and cyclists are no more compelled to use cycle lanes than motorists are compelled to use motorways.
Addendum
I don’t know about other areas & authorities, but in LBWF we are also plagued by “Personalities”.
For obvious reasons, no names here, but one local member of the professional cycle lobby has made himself very unwelcome at times, & there is also one prominent councillor who seems to be a “local/labour” version of Mr Grayling.
This does not help, especially if calm rational discussions are needed.
Cyclists are not compelled to use cycle lanes, and while things like the 3 red lights mentioned still persist, that is understandable. It would also probably be a legal nightmare to exclude them from “general purpose” roads. Making cycle lanes so attractive that cyclists hardly ever wish to do otherwise is a nice aspiration – and it seems to me to be rather like that in Copenhagen, for instance. But as several people are saying, road space is a limited resource, and one category of users can only get more of it if some other category gets less. Places where road alterations can be made and “everyone gains” are nowadays rare, if not non-existent.
@Malcolm
“road space is a limited resource, and one category of users can only get more of it if some other category gets less”
Quite. But, assuming the total space is the same, the most efficient (but least safe) use of space is to make the whole width available to all-comers, from pedestrians to 38-tonne lorries. The other extreme is to carve it up into separate sections for pedestrians, cyclists, buses, cars, parking, lorries, vehicles turning right, VIPs etc (with separate sections for each direction of course). Less efficient, because users of one category cannot use spare capacity in the other sections, but undoubtedly safer and with fewer conflicts.
I was reminded of this today when in a car following a bicycle on a narrow road. If the cyclist had used the parallel cycle track he would not have held up all the motor traffic, illustrating that a cycle path can actually make motor traffic move more freely. (As I had to gently remind the person driving the car, I have myself tried to use that particular cycle track on a bike fitted with road tyres, and can quite understand why the cyclist preferred the tarmac)
@timbeau – I think another point is that provision of separate cycle lanes in places like the Embankment has meant that the total number of people carried by the road has actually increased.
The increased number of people on bikes could have been accommodated by the previous road design but there wouldn’t have been such an increase without separated lanes as cycling in heavy traffic only tends to appeal to fit and the brave, generally younger males.
Complaints that bike lanes slow down buses need to be compared to the situation with bikes and buses all in the same lane. You get a game of leap frog going on with bikes trying to overtake buses at stops and buses trying to overtake bikes between stops. That hardly speeds bus traffic, not to mention the safety aspect, which is bad enough for buses anyway, with a death occurring every 3 weeks on average.
Are people seriously complaining that rat runners have moved to main roads? Boggle.
Presumably there are reasonably accurate transport figures for key points. Google throws up Central London Cycle Census (Technical Note) from October 2013. Blackfriars Bridge 7-10 am Northbound: Bus / Coach: 100, Pedal Cyclist: 2650. I’m sure it’s better now with all the changes. I guess lag to a non-passive mode will be more exaggerated than between, say, rail services. Those that know there way around the data could come up with something more recent.
@timbeau
The suggestion that “the most efficient (but least safe) use of space is to make the whole width available to all-comers” is only true if you assume that the modal share is fixed. However road design can affect modal shares by giving relative priority to different modes. Hence the importance of bus priority, cycle priority and pedestrian facilities in encouraging an increase in these modes’ share as a way of increasing the efficiency of the road in terms of people moved.
Is part of the issue traffic engineers and local authority obsession with on street parking? There are loads of places where bus lanes could be introduced, but would require removal of parking. A good example is Eastcheap towards Tower. Route 15 timekeeping is shot to pieces, because traffic is avoiding the (now single lane) Upper Thames Street and grid locking Eastcheap. A bus lane could be created (restoring time keeping on route 15) if only councils were willing to remove on street parking in streets like Eastcheap. Loads of similar examples across London.
I’m very much in favour of pedestrian priority, cycle priority and bus priority. We need someone willing to reduce the number of other vehicles – cars and vans. To those yelling that we need delivery vans – use edge of city consolidators to fill a smaller number of vans – too many are criss crossing the city on light loads. Then stop Uber playing fast and loose with tax laws – would cut their numbers too. Of course, I realise this government won’t even contemplate such ideas….
timbeau says “the most efficient … use of space is to make the whole width available to all-comers”
Dubious. Such a scheme would avoid the wastage caused by a dedicated part being unavailable to other categories while temporarily unsaturated, yes. But it would bring in a different kind of wastage (familiar on railways) by increasing the wastage caused by mixing traffic travelling at different speeds.
But irrelevant, as you say, because segregation is also desirable for other reasons.
In theory we can have the best of both worlds by having recommendations rather than rules. Much like the dotted-line cycle tracks (mysteriously called “optional” cycle tracks), which can also be used by other traffic when not required for cycles. But the theory does not work, evidently, partly because it is impossible for a driver to predict whether a cyclist might materialise and require the track while the motorist is trapped in it by other motorists.
@IslandDweller – I heard Gilligan describe parking as the “third rail” of local politics in London…. touch it and you die…
ID
You touched on a sore point there – pedestrians.
They suffer the greatest number of casualties, fatal & non-fatal, but the cycling lobby are the ones making the noise ….
TH
“Rat Runners” are usually local people filtering “the last mile” (or more likely the last half-mile) through the local streets to their home or destination.
In the horrendous 18 months when I was forced (thank you Bromley council) to use a car to commute in London, I “rat-ran” for the last approx 3/4 mile home.
Also ask WW about the amount of purely local traffic now forced to make roundabout purely local journeys to go a very short straight-line distance, because of road closures – yes I know – cycle or walk … but – if you are carrying a large load, or are disabled?
I don’t think there is a solution to all of these problems, but it is clear that using only a stick to beat the motorists, without any carrotts, is counter-productive.
In the context of the politics of cycling: you have ideological authorities like Lambeth who have driven through a number of anti-bus plans on the basis of ‘improving cycling’ (eg scaling down Vauxhall Bus Station to remove the gyratory, the botched Clapham Old Town scheme which Lambeth used to oppose plans to redevelope the dead bus stand into a small well-apppointed bus station). Lambeth Council is lethargic about bus services and their critical role taking people off the Tube. Yet the Council will come to areas like Clapham and run petitions to urge the Mayor to ‘bring the Cycle Hire Scheme’ to Clapham as if this scheme is equivalent to a new tube line or bus route. Cycle Hire Schemes outside Zone 1 are underused and even if in the highly likely scenario that an entire docking station was used up – this is at most 30 people for the entire peak period – 1 Tube carriage’s worth. Hardly worth the investment – indeed the Scheme loses money.
As with other commentators here, I have also noted that TfL officials off the record were very unhappy with the Andrew Gilligan-policy of prioritising cycling over buses and the taking away of bus road capacity.
I attended a public event in Vauxhall where a cycling campaigner talked in emotive terms about how, with segregated cycle lanes, he could now visit his daughter. Very moving – but utterly irrational. A cyclist who faces a dangerous road does not have to cycle. The point is that he or she can and should use other public transport modes available: the cyclist who chooses to cycle down a dangerous road simply because he/she doesn’t want to take a bus or Tube or rail is choosing to do so: the ‘danger’ exists only because that cyclist ideologically will not opt for any journey other than by bike. Now that does not in any way remove or excuse dangerous and unacceptable behaviour by drivers which must be punished severely. But it does at least show that the reasoning behind some of the measures – narrowing pedestrian space, floating bus stops and deprioritising buses is based on false premise.
Within the cycling lobby groups and its allies in the media, cycling is effectively a politically acceptable way of being anti-bus without looking like a petrolhead – granted that is not true of all cyclists and so on – but there is enough anti-bus invective amongst these groups for it to be a feature of the cycling political culture.
The argument over safety is in part derived from a dogmatic rejection of using public transport. It crosses into other areas: cycling groups tend to oppose promoting the wearing of helmets for example, because such a move implies pro-active responsibility and mitigating risk.
In respect of London recent cycling policy has been at the expense of buses: not all congestion affecting the capital’s services are down to segregated lanes: construction of building also play a part. But there has been a culture amongst the cycling politics and media circles that insidiously implies ‘cycling is healthy – buses are for lazy plebs’. Beeching has been reincarnated in lycra rather than in a car but the same ideology applies: in the 1960s the view was that rail was past it and the car the future; today it is that buses are sort of unnecessary because everyone can go by bike.
If we consider also why the cycling lobby is viscerally indifferent to concerns raised by pedestrians about dangerous cycling it is because walking is a reminder that cycling is not the only environmentally friendly mode of transport and also that walking is more popular than cycling. Much of the component of the morality by cycling advocacy is based upon a false exclusivity – that cycling is somehow ‘uniquely’ good for the planet and ‘necessary’ for public health: the reality is that the transport and health benefits of cycling are also available through walking and bus/tube/rail usage. When the Metropolitan Police in 2015 announced a crack-down on law breaking on Vauxhall Bridge, initially cycling groups welcomed this until – you guessed it – a number of cyclists were stopped and then started objecting. This kind of behaviour does cycling a disservice because it projects the image of cycling lobbyists as being hypocritical and self-indulgent. Granted most cyclists are well behaved. But so are most motorists and nobody suggests that cracking down on errant driving is wrong or should not be punished by the law: the same applies to cycling.
The cycling lobby has achieved huge amounts and one can understand why, at the peak of their political power, they want to drive their advantage. But that is being done at the expense of other non-car users who were hitherto allies. London is not Delft or Rotterdam and it is no use trying to pretend that the demand for buses and Tubes was some accident or that the bicycle is the real object of demand. By continuing the mistakes the real risk is that the cycling lobby will lose support and that ‘improving cycling’ is no longer the political fashion accessory; when that happens nor will there be the support from pedestrians and public transport users who once would have been sympathetic.
Perhaps the best argument I have heard is that segregated lanes should only happen once bus prioritization has been secured. That is another discussion – but perhaps that is where new cycling policy should look to.
@ Nick B – Not sure I agree with all that you have said. Two main comments.
Firstly I’m not sure that the general mass of people who use public transport have strong feelings for or against cycle lane provision. It just won’t register with them. If there is a change of emphasis in cycling policy it’s unlikely to have much impact on the level of support for cycling from those who walk / use public transport. It’s clear the Mayor is taking a different view but I’ve not seen any great reaction from anyone other than some parts of the cycling lobby. I suspect the only opinion where there would be some level of unanimity is that the scale of cycling deaths in London in recent years is not acceptable.
Secondly I can’t see where the policy driver is to ensure bus prioritisation before segregated cycle lanes are provided. It’s not in the Mayor’s manifesto for certain. The TfL business plan is no longer referencing £200m being allocated for bus priority. There is one figure (£23m) quoted for the next year’s spend and no projection / quantum beyond that. That rather makes me feel that the overall spend has been reduced or reallocated from what was a “dedicated” bus priority fund. I also understand that TfL had originally planned to reduce the total bus kilometrage operated instead of the “steady state” of 497m KMs per annum throughout the business plan. This makes me wonder how solidly based the kilometrage number actually is. The words on bus patronage growth in the Business Plan have a rather breathless “it’ll all be alright on the night” feel about them. There is no obvious coherent plan that underpins the projected patronage increases when you consider the huge cuts due to be made in Central London over the next couple of years that will almost certainly see another plunge in patronage. Even with a reduced level of road works and several large schemes complete bus patronage is so far 59m pass jnys below last year’s dreadful performance. The most recent published info for Period 8 shows a greater reduction over Period 7 than has been seen for the last 6 years [1]. It is worth bearing in mind that we might have expected to see some small upside from the Hopper Ticket starting to show in the numbers and there’s nothing evident [2] yet.
[1] patronage always drops from P7 to P8.
[2] I accept this is based on a grand total number and there may be something happening in the more detailed data TfL possess.
WW
But, we all know ( or think we do ) what is needed to get Bus patronage up again, don’t we?
Bus journeys, now, as compared to as recently as 4 years ago are:
Slow & uncomfortable.
Fix that & patronage will rise again.
What’s being done about it?
As far as I can see … not a lot.
There is a strong perception that “cycle lane provision” has made bus journeys slower, though – whether that is correct or not, I will leave to others.
Greg. Where’s the proof that “rat runners” are locals on the last mile? I don’t believe that is the case. But rather than you and I arguing, does anyone know if there is published data on this?
Sticks and carrots. Harsh as it sounds, sticks should be enough. Make car journeys more difficult and (over a few months) the traffic mostly evaporates.
@timbeau:”But at least giving slow vehicles (cycles) their own lane means that other traffic is not held up by it“.
By slow, I would categorise cars, vans and trucks, not bicycles!
@IslandDweller – I’d suggest that any data on rat running will be highly specific to a particular area. The local council did a survey of the area where I live in West London and this involved traffic survey cameras placed at each exit and entry point around a notional boundary. This found that over 75% of traffic was through traffic (rat running) with drivers using residential roads rather than adjacent arterial roads.
DfT traffic figures actually show a decline of traffic in the area, in line with overall trends in London, but resident perception is that rat running is getting worse. Perhaps GPS apps are a reason why? I played around with Google Waze and it often produced routes using residential streets rather than arterial roads.
The proposed solution is road closures which will mean detours for some journeys within the affected area. Needless to say there is a difference in opinion between people who live on roads affected and not affected by through traffic.
@ Island Dweller – It would appear that E17 is an “evaporation” proof zone. Peak time and some weekend traffic flows are certainly not evaporating. More like condensing and becoming thicker and more slow moving.
@WW
How interesting that you think the basic laws of supply and demand do not work in E17, for this is what you appear to be saying. If generalised costs are increasing – through congestion – the normal operation of economics would suggest that demand is reduced. And in most of London traffic does follow these general principles. There may be some arguments about precisely what the elasticity of demand is, but rarely any suggestion that it is zero. Indeed, were zero price elasticity of demanded to be proved this would lead to some interestingly new approaches to pricing. However, personally, I suggest that survey information would be more useful than perceptions before we can reach any conclusions on this point.
quinlet: I think you and WW are both right. Consumption of bus travel, measured say in passenger-km, will be unavoidably dropping, for the reasons that you give. But the total number of buses in a given area at a given moment could still be increasing, they are just failing to do what they are meant to do (moving) so effectively. Hence the congealing.
@ Quinlet – I am merely remarking on the levels of traffic congestion I see at peak times. For many years we have had falling levels of congestion on the main road nearest to Chateau WW – I assume because people were able to find other effective routes. Now it may be that the A406 is now so busy that people are diverting back to their old routes or the economy is booming massively which is what is causing the congestion. Alternatively perhaps someone has done something to the road network locally to make it less efficient? I was not referring specifically to buses in these very recent comments but, as you might expect, they are caught up in the mess. I accept that demand and supply obviously have an interplay with respect to roads / traffic. I just don’t see the adjustment you cite happening yet. Bear in mind we still have about 18 months of more road works and road capacity reduction to get through. You will just have to accept that I have yet to have my personal traffic revelation on the “road to Leyton Station”. 😉
As much as anything you can sense that there is no championing of bus services or their users by City Hall or TfL for that matter.
No adverts for example encouraging people to take the bus as used to happen. By contrast there seems no limit to the amount of cycling propaganda being promoted by TfL supplemented by the over-willingness to close roads for cycling events most people couldn’t care less about. This is supplemented by ‘demands’ by the cycling lobby for the Mayor to commit millions of pounds for a mode of transport that is a) individual, b) relatively unpopular and c) inaccessible. All this abstracts from funding bus services and facilities which benefit the majority of Londoners.
Somewhere along the way a campaign to improve cycling safety and so encourage cycling morphed into an almost cult-like obsession with cycling where everyone ‘must’ cycle and anything which is to the detriment of this goal or which does not prioritize this is wrong.
This obsessive orthodoxy which took hold of the cycling lobby can be seen in the tone and behaviours of provocatively named groups like ‘Stop Killing Cyclists’. When TfL expanded its cycling department it unfortunately recruited straight from the cycling lobby the same attitudes without the moderating influences. Hence when segregated lanes were introduced this was done against the warning of others in TfL about traffic congestion and effect on buses.
Effectively what happened was that, under Boris Johnson, TfL had two elements: the ‘City Hall’ wing and the traditional public transport division. Johnson appointed Andrew Gilligan as his Cycling Commissioner (for political reasons rather than because Johnson was necessarily a cycling enthusiast) and alongside Isabel Dedring as Deputy Mayor cycling was prioritized above everything else. Neither Gilligan nor Dedring were held to account or challenged properly: bus users and their representatives were sidelined compared to cycling groups.
The result is that Johnson as London Mayor presided over a deterioration in bus services and traffic congestion now worse than before the Congestion Charge was introduced in 2003 in a city more polluted also.
Whilst Sadiq Khan might claim that he has inherited a difficult situation on cycling and seeks a more broader consensual approach if he is to succeed as Mayor he is going to have readdress the critical problems of the bus network caused by Central London bottlenecks and not simply be influenced by the shrill cries of the cycling lobby. Conversely the cycling lobby has to build bridges with public transport users.
It is time for the segregated lanes to return to mixed mode for buses and emergency vehicles if there is no other way to improve road space capacity for buses entering Zone 1.
NB
Somewhere along the way a campaign to improve cycling safety and so encourage cycling morphed into an almost cult-like obsession with cycling where everyone ‘must’ cycle and anything which is to the detriment of this goal or which does not prioritize this is wrong.
Oh, you’ve noticed as well (!)
The question is, how long before “City Hall” & more relevantly the local Authorities notice that this particular Emperor is naked, I wonder?
@Nick Biskinis – I see that bus services in Ladbroke Grove, Shepherds Bush and White City were delayed by over an hour on Boxing Day.
Must have been all those segregated cycle lanes in West London then?
Such is the list of anti-bus conspiracies that you accuse the all-powerful hive mind of the nameless “cycling lobby” being responsible for, I’m surprised that you haven’t implicated them of being behind the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street, the rise of Uber and internet shopping deliveries as well…
Nick. In what way is cycling inaccessible? People with various disabilities can and do cycle, especially where appropriate provision is made so that it is safe to do so.
London (and the rest of the UK) has an obesity problem, costing the NHS (ie, the taxpayer) a huge amount of money. Part of the answer is to get people walking and cycling more, especially on short journeys. I have not seen anyone saying “everyone must cycle” – do you have some link for that claim? Note that Mayor Khan’s new appointee is a “walking and cycling” commissioner rather than a purely cycling appointment.
ID
The “obesity problem” is largely fake, much like the “alcohol problem” – except that the latter is entirely fake (!)
The obesity/BMI figures are taken from a huge long-term survey done back in the mid-1930’s … nothing wrong with that except …..
I was done on people in the USA in the central-western states… when they had the “Dust Bowl” years.
So the average is skewed towards the thin & malnourished ….
Also a large number of disabled people cannot cycle, at all.
False assumption, I’m afraid.
Greg: There are many studies linking obesity to ill health – however valid your criticism of one particular study (even a “huge” one) may be, experts are in no doubt that obesity kills, and that obesity costs the NHS money. (The same obviously applies to alcohol, however much those of us who enjoy drinking it may dislike the conclusion).
Saying that a large number of disabled people cannot cycle (obviously true) does not alter the fact that another large number of them can. Activities which cannot be enjoyed by everyone (like cycling, drinking, morris dancing or opera) are nonetheless worthy of appropriate support for the sake of those who can.
It would be beneficial if the pro-cyclists and the anti-cyclists here could all respect each other’s viewpoints and avoid over-generalisations. The recent changes in London favouring cycling are obviously neither wholly snag-free and wonderful, nor wholly pointless and dreadful. If the only views presented here are the extreme ones, the discussion will get us nowhere, and will be disallowed.
Malcom
Not disputing that real obesity is a problem, but when I get labelled as “borderline obese” at 1.79m tall, 81kg mass, still wearing the same trouser-waistband size as when I was 35, 35 years ago, you know something is wrong.
Even more so, in Spades Redoubled re alcohol – their previous set of numbers had no actual scientific basis whatsoever, as was publicly admitted & then “they” halved the numbers, with less-than zero justification. [ Newspaper reports that, erm, “rabid” anti-alcohol campaigners had infiltrated/nobbled the relevant committee did surface & I can quote the reference. ]
As for “pro-cyclist” & “anti-cyclist” – as all here know, I’m still cycling but the “cycling lobby” regard me as if I was J Bonnington Jagworth …
Which says something about them, I think.
@Malcolm
The trick is to ensure that schemes to encourage cycling do not disadvantage, cause unnecessary pain or indeed endanger elderly, infirm and disabled people who have no choice but to use the pavement, get onto or off buses or be passengers in other vehicles. Unfortunately, some aspects of the new mini-Holland schemes fail in this respect, and the people who point these out are criticised, or worse.
@GT
BMI is a very coarse measure. For example, the standard interpretation of BMI indicates that many extremely lean and muscular athletes should be considered obese. on the other hand, I have calculated my own current BMI and concluded that I am some 9 inches underheight.
It is not extreme to suggest that cycling policy has become heavily imbalanced against the needs of bus users, nor that cycle segregated lanes are now causing a problem. London’s road space is limited and therefore policies which effectively penalize public transport are wrong because they disadvantage the largest number of people (who are not using cars). I have never said that cycling should not be supported, but not at the expense of bus users or pedestrians
Nick: the trouble is that any further support for cyclists will have to be at someone’s expense – whether in term of road space, money, or quite probably both. Similarly any attempt at “correcting” some of what may be perceived as excessive damage caused to the interests of pedestrians, bus users or even car/van users (by construction of cycling superhighways, mini-Hollands, or both) would very probably disadvantage cyclists. There is no more “spare” road or pavement space anywhere in London (if there ever was), so one group can only gain at another group’s expense.
(There may be the odd exception, in the form of a tiny bit of waste land here or there which could be turned to some sort of transport use, but such unconsidered trifles have probably been just about all snapped up by now).
@Malcolm
In many cases, it is not necessarily a matter of the overall allocation of space but the scheme details.
For example, a “buffer” space between the shared area and the bus boarder kerb of 500mm is not enough to avoid conflict between cycles and disembarking bus passengers. A metre would be much safer.
The same applies to the 500mm buffer between cycle lanes and on road parking spaces.
In both cases, it is a matter of moving the cycle lane or shared space without any restriction of its width.
Another example is that there are long stretches of cycle lane where vehicles will be prohibited from stopping. It does not seem reasonable for the exemptions from this rule not to include cabs picking up and setting down.
Unfortunately, it seems that anyone making such comments is deemed to be bikeophobic or a cycle lane denier.
Nameless @ 12.03 & 23.47 / 29.12.16
Spot on.
I have been accused of being a petrol-head & fake cyclist for exactly those “reasons”.
After all, I can’t be a “proper” cyclist since I own a car, can I?
Meanwhile my severely disabled neighbour is still paying more for her longer, slower taxi rides.
Do the Local Authority listen?
@Nameless
“It does not seem reasonable for the exemptions from this rule not to include cabs picking up and setting down.”
Perfectly reasonable.
Either a “no stopping” provision is needed to keep the traffic moving, or it isn’t. If it’s OK to stop to pick up or drop off a passenger, then everyone should be allowed to. If it isn’t ok, then the prohibition should apply to chauffeur-driven hire cars paid for by the mile just as it would apply to Mr Smith taking his elderly aunt to the doctor’s.
A single taxi stopping where it is not supposed to can cause a traffic jam. Look at what happens when a taxi stops to drop off a passenger at the bottom of the Waterloo steps instead of using the dedicated facilities on the Spur Road. By the time the fare has been paid, you can have a queue of two or three buses (full of maybe 150 passengers itching to catch their trains) tailing back, blocking York Road and the IMAX roundabout.
@Nick Biskinis – the trouble is, you haven’t provided any evidence for your statements about the impact of cycle lanes. If you could provide an analysis of the relative impact of cycle lanes along with other factors such as the large increase in Uber drivers and the large increase in internet delivery services, then I’d be interested to see it. Of course, you’d need to do the analysis for routes near cycle lanes and routes nowhere near cycle lanes. Bus services in West London have been massively delayed over the last few days. Was it cycle lanes? Nope, there aren’t any in the area, it was lots of people driving to the sales at Westfield White City.
Also, you have ignored that the cycle schemes have also made many improvements for pedestrians, such as conversion of two stage crossings into single stage or adding crossings where none existed before. This disadvantages vehicles but I assume you approve of these changes…?
I used to cycle a lot in the London area. Back in the 50s I lived in Harrow and cycled to work in Cricklewood and also to evening classes at Borough Poly. Later, in the 70/80/90s I would cycle to work in Kingston from Bookham. I tell this to establish that I am not historically anti-cyclist. However, I have become less sympathetic towards cyclists in recent years. Living away from London this is mainly due to high speed pavement cyclists who seem to think that they should be granted right of way even though they are cycling illegally. I have observed the development of the cycle way in Blackfriars Road over the past few years on my occasional visits to London and I cannot say that I see any advantages for me coming from this development. What had been a pedestrian crossing for all traffic now does not control the cycles and, in the rush hour, this makes crossing the cycle lane a hazardous business. I have generally found over the past years the development of an aggressive class of cyclist who frankly scare me. Giving them their own space has not calmed them down. Observing the discussions on this site and in my local newspaper I get the impression that attitudes are very dogmatic. One is either trying to force everyone onto a bike or trying to ensure that the roads are clear for “my” car. The latter is less so in London but everywhere there is little or no lobbying for buses or pedestrians. I really would like to see some rational attitudes developing but am not holding my breath. To those who are pressing the case for cyclists I would say get off your bike and walk around, use buses and consider what it is like for elderly and not so mobile people who cannot jump out of the way easily.
@Jim Jordan
“What had been a pedestrian crossing for all traffic now does not control the cycles and, in the rush hour, this makes crossing the cycle lane a hazardous business.”
Which crossing is this? I frequently travel by bike or foot, and occasionally bus, along Blackfriars Road and over the bridge. The crossings I see all have distinct traffic light phases for pedestrians, motor vehicles and cyclists, although some moves require cyclists to stop two or even three times to negotiate one junction. There is also the confusing arrangement at the Upper Ground junction – where the new Cycle Superhighway meets National Cycle Route 4 – where cyclists coming from Upper Ground (NCN4) have no green phase at all.
R953
… such as the large increase in Uber drivers and the large increase in internet delivery services
There, you will find me in total agreement …..
As for the latter part of your statement – maybe, until, as a pedestrian you are still struck by, or have to very-quickly-dodge “cyclists” ignoring the ped-crossing rules & seemingly determined to carry on regardless, even to the extent of ignoring a light-controlled ped-crossing.
Um.
Greg is quite right that some cyclists ride through red lights, and in doing so are generally a threat to pedestrians.
What is less definite is just how widespread this behaviour is, and therefore what level of threat it represents.
What is also difficult to ascertain is whether this bad behaviour is affected (in either direction) by road alterations intended to facilitate cycling. It would be quite possible for the alterations to make things worse, by giving cyclists more general priority which a speeding minority might abuse. Or for them to make things better, by making hold-ups for cyclists less frequent resulting in less frustration. Or the two effects could cancel each other out.
It is plausible to argue against cycling improvements because of the space (or priority) they remove from other categories of road user. It is much less plausible to argue against them on account of minority bad behaviour by cyclists, which has, sadly, been around for quite a long time.
It’s hardly realistic to say that we shouldn’t be encouraging or catering for cycling because some cyclist go through red lights. If this attitude had been taken towards drivers there would have been no investment in roads for the last 50 years or more as drivers go through red lights, speed and break other traffic laws. Some bus passengers also break laws by, for example, not paying for tickets as do some pedestrians by, for example, jay walking. We have to look at what is most effective to manage the capital’s road network and, separately, to find ways of encouraging transport users to comply with the relevant laws or enforce them effectively. At least part of the problem with the latter point is that the police have never been interested in effectively enforcing traffic laws which has turned them into, in effect, advice. Any attempts now to enforce more rigorously present political problems in that enforcement is seen as ‘unfair’. As an example, just look at speed cameras.
@ Quinlet – I think the fundamental issue is credibility. If cycling facilities are provided in response to lobbying / pressure / political policy then it is rather incumbent on cyclists to then use them and to do so safely and considerately. If the respective facilities for each group of users – cyclists, pedestrians, bus users, drivers – are designed properly then it should work harmoniously. We do not appear to have much harmony going on. We have some facilities which are incredibly well used – mostly in Zone 1 – and others which scarcely see a cyclist but where there is traffic chaos. To be that’s not very credible nor is a situation where cyclists ignore the facilities provided for them and still use the main highway. They have that choice, of course, but why spend the thousands of pounds to provide an alternative they won’t use? I see this regularly in Waltham Forest. I just don’t think we have a credible and balanced set of policies at present. I’ve been told as much in respect of the impact on buses from cycling works and other groups such as the taxi trade and logistics industry are not exactly “happy” either. Even accepting a need to shift behaviour and the inevitable “upset” that causes something’s not right.
And as for the lack of police enforcement well turkeys don’t vote for Christmas do they? I suspect many motorists are delighted to see the funding for Traffic Police reduced if it means there’s less likelihood of them being nicked for some transgression. That, of course, is an extremely short sighted view because police officers can exercise discretion and hand out “b*ll*kcings” where appropriate whereas technology like cameras is a bit more fundamental in its operation. We also seem to have money to stick policemen outside every secondary school and to have swarms of them “guarding” bus stations at school kicking out time. Since when did school kids being a tad boistrous [1] warrant such a scale of overkill?
[1] yes I know there is a minority of gang related knife crime and aggression but does it really warrant the scale of expenditure to herd school children?
@WW
“If cycling facilities are provided …………then it is rather incumbent on cyclists to then use them and to do so safely and considerately. If the respective facilities for each group of users are designed properly then it should work harmoniously. ”
If – but if the facilities are badly designed – like the Blackfriars example I mentioned upthread – they won’t work. If the cyclists are not using the cycle lane but staying on the carriageway (as they are allowed to do) it is not the cyclists but the designers who should be blamed. Likewise if pedestrians are not using the crossings but following the desire lines.
timbeau
30 December 2016 at 16:41
The crossing is close to the Prince William Henry, just south of the bus stop.
As a pedestrian who walks to work (Zone 1 at various locations) I have noticed pedestrian space being reduced: notably Vauxhall Bridge Road where walkers have to dodge past speeding cyclists to cross the road as the pavement area has been constricted. What benefits cyclists is the same thing as benefiting or indeed safeguarding pedestrians.
Yes most cyclists do abide by the law but so do most motorists and no-one suggests we don’t need law enforcement or traffic lights.
Ultimately we need a policy that works to reduce unnecessary car use – that means a range of transport modes – not policy based on a one cycle track mind.