London East-West and North-South Cycle Superhighways

[EthelF]

I do not share the enthusiasm of others for these plans. Having looked in great detail today at the East West Route from Tower Hill to Bird Cage Walk, I think it is a huge step backwards for cyclists.

Why?
1. Two way cycle lanes make it inevitable that at busy times you will have idiot cyclists riding towards you on wrong side of lane. Anyone riding against the flow on these routes will be taking huge risks

2. The bus stops will be a nightmare as pedestrians will be walking all across them without concern for cyclists meaning you will need to pass them at walking pace at rush hour. This could be overcome with railings to limit pedestrians to one place to cross, but won't happen. You will get pedestrians queuing for buses on the cycle lane at busy bus stops.

3. The positioning of boris bike hire stands on the island encourages people to cross the cycle lanes on foot.

4. When heading west along the embankment and wanting to turn into Northumberland Avenue, it appears you have to stop in the cycle lane, blocking it to those heading towards Parliament, whilst waiting for traffic signal to allow you to cross the road. I am sure this is not right or intended, but from the plan it looks like this is the situation


From Tower Hill to Parliament Square, I would be happy for them to do nothing at all. I would rather ride as part of the traffic.

1) They have this arrangement in NL & DK. Apparently it works. Indeed, most roads in the UK work that way. Let's have faith in our fellow cyclists, shall we?
2) Not that many bus stops on the route in question. The more positive input from cyclists and pedestrians during the consultation phase, the better the outcome.
3) Agreed, not optimal. Detail to be ironed out?
4) Again, an important detail yet just that, a detail, which hopefully can be sorted out.

I ride much of the route you cite every day, but have a different opinion. I am happy enough to mix it with traffic on Embankment - happy enough, not ecstatic - but I can see how many cyclists and currently reluctant cyclists would be less inclined to do so.

 

[spen666]

1) They have this arrangement in NL & DK. Apparently it works. Indeed, most roads in the UK work that way. Let's have faith in our fellow cyclists, shall we?

Experience of other cyclists is where I am coming from. Even now with one directional cycle lanes we get people riding the wrong way.
The situation when there are lots of people riding at different speeds means it is inevitable selfish cyclists will be on the wrong side of the lane.

2) Not that many bus stops on the route in question.

Not many? Think you are ignoring the reality. There are plenty. However, even one dangerous crossing point is one too many. I'd rather have no accidents than one

The more positive input from cyclists and pedestrians during the consultation phase, the better the outcome.
3) Agreed, not optimal. Detail to be ironed out?

4) Again, an important detail yet just that, a detail, which hopefully can be sorted out.

I ride much of the route you cite every day, but have a different opinion. I am happy enough to mix it with traffic on Embankment - happy enough, not ecstatic - but I can see how many cyclists and currently reluctant cyclists would be less inclined to do so.

I'd rather not have my route made more dangerous, slower etc than do it to encourage tourists. It also furthers the view in motorists minds that cyclists do not have any place on the road.

It is not the solution. It is treating symptoms not the causes

 

[spen666]

Solution: If it's not wide enough for cars and bikes, then remove the cars...

Not really thought this one through have you?

Remove the cars etc? Then none of the shops or businesses will be able to have deliveries. Hence they will no longer be able to operate there and have to move elsewhere / close.

 

[srw]

Solution: If it's not wide enough for cars and bikes, then remove the cars

It's not cars that are the issue - there are very few private cars in central London these days. It's taxis (public transport), buses (public transport) and delivery vans (essential services).

You're talking about removing a through-route that is used by hundreds of buses taking tourists between two of London's biggest attractions.

 

[EthelF]

Spen666 wrote: "I'd rather not have my route made more dangerous, slower etc than do it to encourage tourists."
I was actually thinking of ordinary Londoners who would like to cycle but are put off by fear of traffic. People like my wife, who loves cycling but whom I cannot persuade to commute by bike under current road conditions.

As I said, the devil is in the detail. If done properly it can make cycling more accessible. Done badly, we'll be stuck with it. But TFL has been improving, slowly, so I for one support the proposals for now - conditionally.

"It also furthers the view in motorists minds that cyclists do not have any place on the road."
That is an unfortunate potential side effect. But as more people cycle, encouraged by more inviting infrastructure, more motorists will either cycle themselves or know people who do, so cyclists should become less of an out group. I can dream, can't I?

 

[spen666]

Spen666 wrote: "I'd rather not have my route made more dangerous, slower etc than do it to encourage tourists."
I was actually thinking of ordinary Londoners who would like to cycle but are put off by fear of traffic. People like my wife, who loves cycling but whom I cannot persuade to commute by bike under current road conditions.

As I said, the devil is in the detail. If done properly it can make cycling more accessible. Done badly, we'll be stuck with it. But TFL has been improving, slowly, so I for one support the proposals for now - conditionally.

So we make it far more dangerous and less pleasant for those who already cycle in the 9probably vain) hope of attracting new cyclists.

doesn't seem the way forward to me, especially as it gives out the message to motorists cyclists do not belong on the road. This will affect cyclists everywhere, not just in Central London, but out in the country lanes we ride on a weekend.

A very retrograge step.

"It also furthers the view in motorists minds that cyclists do not have any place on the road."
That is an unfortunate potential side effect. But as more people cycle, encouraged by more inviting infrastructure, more motorists will either cycle themselves or know people who do, so cyclists should become less of an out group. I can dream, can't I?[/QUOTE]

You are wanting to treat the symptoms not the causes.


We could reduce rapes by banning women from going out at night and banning them from wearing revealing clothes or drinking alcohol and making them only allowed to attend segregated wonmen only social events. We don't do that because it is punishing the victims

Yet some people seem to think the same style of approach is the way to deal with cyclists

 

[Glow worm]

So we make it far more dangerous and less pleasant for those who already cycle in the 9probably vain) hope of attracting new cyclists.

I don't get this. How can creating (motorised) traffic free, wide, direct routes, with priority over side roads, possibly be less pleasant and more dangerous? Looks bloody great to me!

 

[glenn forger]

It's the segregation argument, the risk that choosing an alternative will result in drivers abusing you for not using the path that runs alongside a dual carriageway.

 

[EthelF]

So we make it far more dangerous and less pleasant for those who already cycle in the 9probably vain) hope of attracting new cyclists.

A very retrograge step.

Why are you so convinced that a segregated lane along the Embankment will be more dangerous? Done properly, it should make it safer. The Dutch and Danes seem to manage. Less pleasant? I don't enormously enjoy being left hooked by tippers, or having to put on the afterburners to get through the various pinch points currently in place. Slower? Almost certainly yes. But I can live with that if that means more people can ride. And I think more people will ride if it is built properly. So in my opinion putting in high quality infrastructure that prioritises cycling is not a retrograde step - how can it be when we have never had such infrastructure before?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

 

[spen666]

Why are you so convinced that a segregated lane along the Embankment will be more dangerous? Done properly, it should make it safer. The Dutch and Danes seem to manage. Less pleasant? I don't enormously enjoy being left hooked by tippers, or having to put on the afterburners to get through the various pinch points currently in place. Slower? Almost certainly yes. But I can live with that if that means more people can ride. And I think more people will ride if it is built properly. So in my opinion putting in high quality infrastructure that prioritises cycling is not a retrograde step - how can it be when we have never had such infrastructure before?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Yes, you may be segregated from a tipper lorry on that path, but personally I have never had a problem with them,. I find other cyclists far more of a danger to my safety, especially when I will now have then riding head on at me, not just in the same direction.

However, if you look at the bigger picture, it is encouraging motorists to see cycling as something that has no place on the road. This is the concern.

We need to make roads safer for cyclists . Removing cyclists from the road does not do that

 

[Glow worm]

Yes, you may be segregated from a tipper lorry on that path, but personally I have never had a problem with them,.

But can you understand why some folks might?

[/QUOTE] We need to make roads safer for cyclists . Removing cyclists from the road does not do that[/QUOTE]

I've been hearing this for 30 years now and nothing ever happens, except things get gradually worse. It's always the same old same old. Perhaps a different approach may, in some cases be at least worth trying? No one's removing anyone's rights to use the road. A small minority of knuckledraggers will always give cyclists abuse, whatever the road layout.

Edit: I've been on CC 6 years and still haven't been able to figure out how to do the quote thing properly

 

[EthelF]

I agree the roads should be made safe for cyclists. Unfortunately I see precious little progress on that front, and am not holding my breath. I used to be anti segregation, but in recent years I have had a change of heart - maybe as I am getting older and slower, maybe it's my children starting to cycle, maybe it's spending time cycling with my nieces in the Netherlands - and I have come to see segregation as the only viable option on busy major routes*, coupled with a network of well signposted routes on quiet back streets.

* Provided it is done properly. I used to commute along the segregated route along Gordon Square/Tavistock Place and routinely used the road as the cycle route was not so much inconvenient as downright dangerous (too narrow, with guaranteed conflict at junctions)

 

[Glow worm]

* Provided it is done properly. I used to commute along the segregated route along Gordon Square/Tavistock Place and routinely used the road as the cycle route was not so much inconvenient as downright dangerous (too narrow, with guaranteed conflict at junctions)

I've done that route in London and agree it is truly awful.

 

[CopperBrompton]

No doubt thousands of people will use these new whizzy lanes, which will be hailed as a success, but I suspect that with one or two exceptions like the Parliament Square contraflow I've already welcomed the same effect could be had for much less money over a much wider area using more intelligence.

If you honestly think the pathetic painted bike symbols are remotely equivalent to proper segregated paths, you need to get over to the Netherlands as a matter of urgency so that you can see what nonsense you're talking ...

 

[CopperBrompton]

Edit: I've been on CC 6 years and still haven't been able to figure out how to do the quote thing properly

Exactly as you did but without the / in the first quote box. The / prefix closes a quote.