dumbass LCC bike lane on Stratford High Street

[subaqua]

I think part of the reasoning is missing from the above post, once again.

When I get home and can access the thread properly I will quote your posts so you can see what bollox you post

 

[noodle]

It matters not if it is currently used by buses. If we build it, they will come.

Right few beers in me so bear with me
I've tried following everything since my last visit and it's not happening
But is this post in relation to buses, bikes, cars or any mixture of them
As I've read it doesn't work like that about ten pages back.
No idea about London I've read a few of the chaps who looks to have a poirot thing going on whom is dead against it. Me no desire to go to London. Been it's full of people who are ever so slightly obnoxious more so than Manchester and Leeds combined
Anyway he makes sense with it not working in London if I've read him right. But please throw a few crumbs up this way even if it's only not making speed bumps full width or setting paths up on major roads, re designating rights of way to suit cycles.
Oh as for kings Lynn hmm. Thanks but no thanks I'm fine they make breakfast with chips, burgers and bubble on them
I'd sooner walk through the Syrian Turkish border in full on steampunk gear playing I'm British than visit that place again. Oh an that is coming from a pike angler

 

[noodle]

Right cheers
It works for cars though
Very serious question regarding all this
Are the points being raised and argued by seemingly quite political types in the cycling fraternity missing something? That being schemes like this probably won't make a real difference to them but it will to the plebs and idiots who ride, I'm looking at it in the manner motorways came about for years cars had to make do with rough bye ways, then a few major routes started to get metalled surfaces then later came the motorways
These silly little schemes are probably the early metalled stage as we progress to the Orwellian future where everyone rides carbon monstrosities with a sky kit adorning them
That's when the cyclists get Dutch style motorways

It was buses and yes, as you point out, it doesn't work. That was my point.

 

[srw]

Yeah sorry I was still on my first coffee. It should have said higher proportion

Evidence?

And if you mention the 2011 census I'll point out that the question was very seriously flawed (at least when it comes to big cities with good-quality public transport) and that it reports by residency, not by working or cycling location.

Any other evidence gratefully welcomed, even if it essentially boils down to "Kings Lynn is poor and people can't afford cars."

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Very serious question regarding all this
Are the points being raised and argued by seemingly quite political types in the cycling fraternity missing something? That being schemes like this probably won't make a real difference to them but it will to the plebs and idiots who ride, I'm looking at it in the manner motorways came about for years cars had to make do with rough bye ways, then a few major routes started to get metalled surfaces then later came the motorways

For me, almost the opposite. One of the arguments is that what we are looking at is a huge and costly white elephant that will lead to compulsion as justification for its existence. It'll be a feather in the cap for those with political aspertains 'look at this huge thing we made them build' while being of no practical use to the people actually cycling in that area. The motorway analogy holds some water, as it won't be built where people want to actually be. But as bikes aren't cars people won't want to make the detour to use it. Personally, I'd hate to end up with an Amsterdam style bike culture in London, while the added safety is nice bikes are treated as tools and there is no joy in the act of cycling just rows of people riding horrible, badly maintained bikes at a fraction of current cycling pace. If I want to go back to cycling in the 50's I'll move to the Isle of Wight :-) .

 

[subaqua]

I think part of the reasoning is missing from the above post, once again.

Why should travel design be decided by a place's residents rather than its travellers? You already get disproportionate power over those who have to use London, because we can only elect to Parliament while you also elect to Assembly and boroughs.

Yes, but the town tends to vote Labour (11:3:1 Lab:Con:LD last borough vote) while both councils tend to be Conservative-run. The Borough runs the town from "special expenses" which seems a bit odd to me, although it has its positives for cycling sometimes. London could teach the area quite a bit about democracy...

now which is it? London has disproportionate powers or can teach places about democracy ?

by your own admission you get to vote in the same number of elections but just to make it absolutely clear

KL London

Parliament Parliament
County council Assembly
Borough Borough

and google seems to indicate you are not unitary.

 

[subaqua]

I wonder if/when we get segregated cycle lanes if TfL will alter all the sub surface services to ensure there are no ironwoks in the lanes . the dumbass lane this morning ( sorry i had to use it and hate it ) was bordering on lethal as it was lovely and wet with some leaves and the back end slewed a fair chunk. I also noticed that when there are lots of riders it slows the lane right down - who would have thunk that cycles were becoming congestion.

 

[noodle]

If motorways were so misplaced why on earth are they full of traffic? I spend a bit of time on three of them and all seem fairly well suited to travelling between places
Sorry about the Dutch thing that was drunk talking. I do (having never been but google images tells a good tale) know what you mean about the bikes

For me, almost the opposite. One of the arguments is that what we are looking at is a huge and costly white elephant that will lead to compulsion as justification for its existence. It'll be a feather in the cap for those with political aspertains 'look at this huge thing we made them build' while being of no practical use to the people actually cycling in that area. The motorway analogy holds some water, as it won't be built where people want to actually be. But as bikes aren't cars people won't want to make the detour to use it. Personally, I'd hate to end up with an Amsterdam style bike culture in London, while the added safety is nice bikes are treated as tools and there is no joy in the act of cycling just rows of people riding horrible, badly maintained bikes at a fraction of current cycling pace. If I want to go back to cycling in the 50's I'll move to the Isle of Wight :-) .[/QUOT

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Minor diversion: after having checked it's not April 1st, I'm still having difficulty getting my head around this.... We now have something which we didn't know we wanted, namely a River Cycleway Consortium, whose big idea is to build a floating deckway from Battersea to Canary Wharf - Sorry, 2 things we didn't know we wanted...). Of course, to fund it there'll be a non-congestion charge of £1.50 for cyclists. Now, how are they going to get a pontoon across the river without messing river traffic up? Who goes from Battersea to Canary Wharf - don't most cyclists want to simply get across the river? Still, in its favour, the artist's impression shows that they'll be dismantling the Shard by the time they build it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...oute-over-river-thames-in-london-9780528.html

 

[noodle]

You have both asked and answered the question there.

No that is two questions
If and how rather being such a pedant and arguing just because you want to have a crack at answering the two

 

[noodle]

Motorways really are an example of "if you build it, they will come". The easier we make it appear for people to make journeys by car, the more they do so. The more they do so, the more congested the motorways. This leads to pressure to build more and the cycle continues.

Hang on but that doesn't work does it the whole point of this thread being
We don't want it built as no one will use it

 

[albion]

Well, that The Thames Deckway Toll Cycleway will surely get a lot of support from politicians promoting privatisation.
And I quite imagine that anyone refusing to pay their £1.50 will 'get what they deserve'.

 

[mjr]

Evidence?

And if you mention the 2011 census I'll point out that the question was very seriously flawed (at least when it comes to big cities with good-quality public transport) and that it reports by residency, not by working or cycling location.

2011 census for commuter proportions and Active People Survey 2014 for cyclist proportions. I think the 2011 census has also reported by working location as well as residency, which I think is what's shown at http://commute.datashine.org.uk/ - So as far as the data goes, there's a higher proportion of cycling in West Norfolk than London. The datashine isn't revealing any huge cycling flows across the London boundary, but tube and train travel are probably changing the shares both sides of the boundary.

It's quite true that nothing really reports by cycling location. The data we have on that are the DfT traffic count points for major roads and some council automatic counters at other locations and they're not drawn together in any consistent way.

now which is it? London has disproportionate powers or can teach places about democracy ?

Those two things are not opposites! There are a lot of people affected by London politics who have no say over them, and there are also people in King's Lynn who don't have as much say as Londoners over their own home area, as if the Assembly were running a London Borough directly and disregarding its election results. Also, missing from your table was London's directly-elected mayor.

 

[noodle]

Wasn't the mayor the point you made initially?

2011 census for commuter proportions and Active People Survey 2014 for cyclist proportions. I think the 2011 census has also reported by working location as well as residency, which I think is what's shown at http://commute.datashine.org.uk/ - So as far as the data goes, there's a higher proportion of cycling in West Norfolk than London. The datashine isn't revealing any huge cycling flows across the London boundary, but tube and train travel are probably changing the shares both sides of the boundary.

It's quite true that nothing really reports by cycling location. The data we have on that are the DfT traffic count points for major roads and some council automatic counters at other locations and they're not drawn together in any consistent way.

Those two things are not opposites! There are a lot of people affected by London politics who have no say over them, and there are also people in King's Lynn who don't have as much say as Londoners over their own home area, as if the Assembly were running a London Borough directly and disregarding its election results. Also, missing from your table was London's directly-elected mayor.

 

[mjr]

Wasn't the mayor the point you made initially?

No, it was more that London's government affects far more people than only London residents, yet only residents get a vote on most of it.

I think Kings Lynn's reputation arises from the very high level of inbreeding...

I doubt that's true in general (I'm not from round here, and King's Lynn is an old port which has usually seen more coming and going than much of Norfolk), but several bits of the royal family do live in the Borough which might skew the data, although they seem to be picking from outside the aristocracy lately... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Royalty_and_nobility