Cyclists-who-fail-to-use-dedicated-lanes-could-be-fined ....

[subaqua]

Yeah that's OK for car drivers (i.e. selfish feckers) but what about the people who live near ring roads, HGVs rattling their windows all night.

nobody thinks about S61 of the pollution act when bleating about taking lorries off roads. but that takes us waaay off topic.

the money being spent on lanes I will not be using as will be full in peak hours could have been better spent on enforcement of laws we already have. maybe , just maybe when poor driving is prosecuted properly and proper sentences are handed down we might get safe cycling routes .

and yes TfL could make TRO to stop cyclists riding on certain roads on certain routes. I hope they don't

 

[mjr]

You should never pass a Pedestrian at that speed on these narrow cycle/pedestrian lanes and it amounts to harassment.

Hang on, where did narrow come from? I sometimes pass people faster but probably not on the narrow ones (we've many 3-4m wide and even a 10m cycleway, as well as bog standard 2.2m and Highways England's 1.2m crap).

And I think a symphony of bells is quite musical, so I don't see many problems with everyone using them liberally, except late at night... although some Central/Eastern Europeans seem to misinterpret it as "I'm about to crash into you if you don't move"

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Amsterdam, a bell means "get out of the f'in way I'm doing 15mph on a rusty old tank and not about to do anything to avoid mowing you down. JUMP!", I hate them and would never use one. Slow down, match pace, if they don't realise I'm there say "excuse me". Yet to fail.

 

[mjr]

Amsterdam, a bell means "get out of the f'in way I'm doing 15mph on a rusty old tank and not about to do anything to avoid mowing you down. JUMP!", I hate them and would never use one.

Yeah, around here they seem to mean "bikes approaching - please don't be surprised when we pass". I've had far more abuse for not ringing than ringing since moving here.

Slow down, match pace, if they don't realise I'm there say "excuse me". Yet to fail.

Your cycleways must be MUCH quieter than ours, or it must take you flipping ages to use them to get anywhere! If it's really at capacity, then I'll slow down, not ring and wait in line, but otherwise I don't see why my journey should get screwed up by one probably-not-local nobber who's wandering 3m side-to-side while looking at their phone. If the likes of me don't gently bell them now and help them to learn they're walking on a live/busy cycleway, then one of the nutty fast riders who's taken their bell off to save 10grams (like the two who startled me earlier today - glad I shoulder-check before moving out) may well buzz them, or worse.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I only use the bit I have to, pass 2-3 pedestrians at most. All the rest are shite so I use the road. Have seen other bikes, but don't think I've ever heard a bell.

 

[mjr]

I only use the bit I have to, pass 2-3 pedestrians at most. All the rest are shite so I use the road.

Ah well. A lot of ours, it's a long way round if you're only going to use carriageways... Doubles the distance to avoid the one in the picture - and that's far from unusual.

 

[Profpointy]

Sure.

It's an objective approach to decision making.

In this case, the problem is not whether we should have cycle lanes or not. I would take it up to the most abstract goal first; we want to enable travel through our city. Then bring in context, travel in several different modes, what the stats on effectiveness, safety, whatever other elements.

What the problems are - this would take some analysis.

The specific elements and goals, say to encourage cycling. Desired safety levels, ie deaths per million miles or whatever.

Then analyse all the ways similar problems have been addressed elsewhere, and hownthey might be appropriate or inappropriate for London.

Now obviously this is a strawman, but by laying out this level of definition nixes all arguments about desiring speed - it's not the goal, safety is.

You progress like this logically and rationally until you have all the pros and cons, and their relative importance until it is clear what the preferred solutions are.

Then a cost benefit analysis should wittle it down to one. If two or more remain, then you can choose randomly because your analysis has already satisfied the need.

Thanks for that - I finally get what your saying. Whilst I do agree that some proper homework should indeed be done, but I don't agree that this type of problem can be reduced to a calculation or "objective" decision. The trouble is, even in your example, "desired safety level" is itself a value judgement. (I'm only using this as example - same would apply to most criteria) .
How building such a thing would affect future behaviour, eg cycle take-up, increased or reduced risk etc would inevitably be speculative, even without bias. Ultimately someone has to choose, rather than work-out, what to do.


Regarding your job - just curiosity, but what are these objective decisions you make? I'm guessing it's something more amenable to such treatment, rather than policy type decisions, but if the later, I'd be sceptical of real objectivity.

That's not to say a scientific approach to the investigation isn't very worthwhile (usually), but it won't usually give you the "answer to life the universe and everything". And on another Adamsian note, in his Dirk Gently book, nefarious agencies were providing the right questions to ask, in order to get the policy answer you wanted - which is a big danger for false objectivity

 

[Fab Foodie]

Can you imagine the noise in a shared space if everyone let everyone know if they were passing someone it would be continual bells and voices! Depends on the space and the number of people and if they are expecting passes etc. I never said I never say anything it varies depending on the conditions.

Anyway this is off topic if you wish to discuss how to cycle in a share space then start a fresh thread.

Having spent a few weeks overnighting in Central Bristol I'm deeply impressed with how well cyclists and pedestrians and joggers get on with each other in shared spaces. No conflicts, bells, shouting, just confident movement and a regard for other humans no matter how busy. There is much to be applauded about the travel habits of Bristolians that the rest if us would do well to learn from.

 

[mjr]

Yes I have noticed that one. I wonder if anyone has worked on a way to bottle it.

Or at least spread it up the cycle routes that lead into Bristol!

 

[Profpointy]

Yes I have noticed that one. I wonder if anyone has worked on a way to bottle it.

I live in Bristol and (prior to work away) was a daily cycle commuter on roads - and there was very little car-bike conflict on roads either . A civilised place with civilised people I guess

(a couple of exceptions of course)

 

[Pete Owens]

A24 - Dorking to Leatherhead cycle path
Built as a model example,

You are seriously endorsing this c**p as a "model example":
https://goo.gl/maps/DcIlg

It is all very well showing a photo of a stretch of cyclepath in open countryside with unlimited space and away from junctions (and even then the width is substandard for a 2-way path). But when they encounter the slightest difficulty - ie any side road junction - the path simply evaporates to the sort of nonsense that even the most ardent supporters of segregation would denounce.

 

[Pete Owens]

You would not be able to use a TRO to introduce these changes. Such changes are not within the scope of a TRO.

Of course not - the entire purpose of TROs is to give highway authorities the ability to restrict what vehicles or classes of vehicles may do on roads or parts of roads. These regulations can most certainly apply to cyclists - there are bus lanes that prohibit cycling, most one-way orders apply to cyclists, as do most pedestrianisation schemes. There are also examples of roads (mostly Highways Agency ones) where cyclists are indeed prohibited.

The reason TfL haven't already tried to mandate the use of cycle lanes through TROs is that they took specialist legal advice a couple of years ago and were advised that they would be stretching the interpretation of Section 6 too far. They were advised that they would open themselves to judicial review and almost certainly* lose.

Which rather demolishes the case of the apologists for BoJo that his comments were off the cuff remarks in response to an agressive interviewer and that he has indeed been pushing for this for a long time - to the extent of consulting lawers.

They were advised that the courts would takes the view that if Parliament wished to impose restrictions on cyclists of the magnitude of compelling them to use cycle lanes, then it would have made it clear through primary legislation.

Pushing for a general restriction anywhere there happened to be a cycle lane would indeed be beyond the scope of a TRO. They would have to identify and sign the specific stretches of highway from which cyclists were to be excluded - in the same way that they would if applying a speed limit. The simplest way would be to introduce the regulation as part of the order creating a new stretch of super-cycle-farcility.

Moreover, TfL would potentially have to prove, in relation to any roads covered by the TRO (and they would have to specify each and every road in the Order), that there was a significant risk for cyclists using the road and that the restriction was proportionate and would be in the best interests of cyclists.

Since virtually the entire non-cycling population believes that cycle facilities are meant for our benefit then proving this to the satisfaction of a non-cycling judge would be trivial. Also the TRO need not be about safety - it could be about the efficient movement of motorised traffic - again a subject that any non-cycling judge is likely to support.

As the majority of cyclists killed in London in recent years have been killed whilst using facilities, that'd be a pretty hard case to make.

But who exactly do you think would be making such a case - andor rather what organisation speaking for cyclists with access to sufficient cash to pay for a judicial review. In the past, when CTC took a more sceptical line on segregation they could have done so. However, it wouid be extremely difficult for the CTC to oppose compulsion to use a path on safety grounds if they are on record as having supported the construction of that path in the first place.

 

[mjr]

Since virtually the entire non-cycling population believes that cycle facilities are meant for our benefit then proving this to the satisfaction of a non-cycling judge would be trivial.

I'm not so sure about that: judges are meant to care about evidence - more than politicians at least!

Also the TRO need not be about safety - it could be about the efficient movement of motorised traffic - again a subject that any non-cycling judge is likely to support.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/part/I 1(1)(c)? At least they'd be clear that it wasn't done for the benefit of people cycling, then!

But who exactly do you think would be making such a case - andor rather what organisation speaking for cyclists with access to sufficient cash to pay for a judicial review. In the past, when CTC took a more sceptical line on segregation they could have done so. However, it wouid be extremely difficult for the CTC to oppose compulsion to use a path on safety grounds if they are on record as having supported the construction of that path in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that the CTC still enthusiastically supports access to the carriageway and if they're already on board as criticising junctions as unnecessarily unsafe (as they usually are) then it wouldn't be difficult to oppose an order claiming to be on safety grounds. The bigger challenge would be if an order was made on the grounds of facilitating passage of motor traffic, but then at least it's simpler to see why CTC would act.

 

[dellzeqq]

A24 - Dorking to Leatherhead cycle path

Built as a model example, but CTC stood firmly against such things- on principle!

really? Can you tell that the the Cheam and Morden, who use it regularly?

 

[dellzeqq]

one of the new LCC approved lanes at Kennington Oval (narrow, no priority at junctions, built over what used to be public space) will be mandatory. Watch this space......