• Updated Legible London mono- & mini-liths for the City (CityWayfinding)
• Crossrail Place at Canary Wharf Crossrail (BeautyOfTransport)
• New ideas for old Paris infrastructure (CityLab)
• Cyclists break far fewer road rules than motorists (Forbes)
• Connecticut’s new road tolls to fund transit (StreetsBlog)
• NYC could extend subway to New Jersey (Bloomberg)
• Importance of radial urban rail (PedObservations)
Whilst you wait for the next installment, check out our most popular articles:
- How Uber operates in London and why it is being banned
- On Our Line Podcast #8: Talking Uber, Lyft and Mobility disruption
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
And some of our other sections:
Feel we should read something or include in a future list? Email us at [email protected].
Reconnections is funded largely by its community. Like what we do? Buy us a cup of coffee or visit our shop.
I assume the Legible London Liths use the now ubiquitous convention of placing North in a random direction depending on the orientation of the Lith.
Am I alone in finding this very confusing, having a good mental map in my head with North at the (conventional top)?
It usually takes me a while to find the north arrow and orient myself.
What do others feel?
Roger B
I think you are, unfortunately correct … the “Liths” are (Ahem … ) “Oriented” with the viewers current direction at the top, IIRC.
[ Note: Of course “oriented” really means having EAST at the top, as apparently maps used to do, long ago … thnik Marco Polo ]
I struggle as well with the Legible London maps being orientated to their position rather than always having north at the top. I end up turning the map twice in my head to make sense of it when I’m somewhere I know where north is but still need to use a map. On balance though it makes sense for its target audience.
Having recently got completely lost in the City because I assumed there would be as many maps as elsewhere in central London – and didn’t want to do battle with the tiny map on my phone – I’ll be pleased to see a significant increase in the number of maps around. (Of course none of this was helped by Crossrail giving their office address as St Mary Axe but the building entrance being on a completely different road around the corner.)
Studies elsewhere in Europe have previously found that the image of the law-breaking “Lycra lout” is wrong. A Transport for London study investigated the “hypothesis that the majority of cyclists ride through red lights” and discovered that 84% of cyclists stopped on reds. The study concluded that the “majority of cyclists obey red traffic lights” and that “violation is not endemic.”
Sorry, am I meant to feel impressed and reassured (as a pedestrian) that only 16% of cyclists go through red lights?
@Mikey C
Conversely am I meant to be impressed and reassured that only 15% (direct comparison: 12% for cyclists) the people in two ton vehicles comply with traffic laws? The people who have a licence, not a right, to move in their mode of transport are fouling worse (though I’d say within the margin of error or a basic awareness campaign’s effect).
If overall, 16% of cyclists go through red lights, it seems reasonable to suppose that when in opposition to something larger and stronger, i.e. motor vehicles, the % will be much less. Thus the % when in opposition to something smaller and weaker, i.e pedestrians, will be rather larger. A subjective estimate is that one is as likely as not to be at risk from idiot cyclists breaking the law when one is on foot. I still have a twinge of pain long after being struck by a cyclist while crossing a road correctly at lights, with the only consolation that the rider fell off and the spokes of one wheel got mangled on a low bollard.
Moderator’s annonoucement
That’s enough anecdotes about cyclists and motorists. It is clearly established that some people in each category sometimes break the law, and this is often dangerous to other road users. Attempts have been made in various places to quantify these dangers, but there is plenty of controversy about the numbers and their interpretation. This is not the place to resolve such arguments.
What we will also not resolve here, nor even attempt to, is the extent to which cyclists as a group, or motorists as a group, can be blamed for the transgressions of some of their number. Opinions on this matter are too polarised, unfortunately.
Fair enough. So why did you link to an article with the emotive title “cyclists break far fewer road rules than motorists” in the first place?
@Garry Brown
There isn’t always space to provide a fully descriptive lede for the links.
Furthermore the reason for including this link wasn’t emotive but the opposite – this is the first article that we’ve come across that describes a study which provides data on the extent of cyclist road rule adherence. As a bonus the article provides the context of motorist road rule adherence, which is notably worse, with much more serious accident ramifications.
As Reconnections strives for fact and data based discussion, it was hoped that this linked article would provide a logical counterpoint to the anecdata about road rule breaking.