London East-West and North-South Cycle Superhighways

[martint235]

I think they look great. I think the ideas would work fantastically well in the Netherlands or Belgium. But then again I think a Chimay branded bar looks great and I think they'd work really well in Belgium.

However and I may be being a touch cynical here, I think they will turn into a nightmare. You'll get the head down racers that I see every morning in the Riverside park behaving like complete tools and scaring your novices off the cycle paths. You'll also get, and I can guarantee this one, RLJers at the major junctions like the one proposed for Blackfriars/the Embankment "because there's no traffic and another bike can easily avoid me".

Let's stick to the roads but make them safer. It's harder for the heads down brigade on the open road cos there's stuff that might hurt them. RLJing just needs stamping out wherever it's seen but again if they are mixing it with traffic the consequences and risk assessment at least have to be a little more considered.

 

[Glow worm]

Sorry still can't get the multi quote thing to work!

At the 2 posters above, I guess I get frustrated because we've been hearing the same old same old "lets make the roads safer" for 30 years now and nothing happens. It's great that London has seen such a massive rise in cycling, but when I'm there, I'm struck by the high proportion of generally male, youngish riders. I suspect the increase has more to do with high public transport costs and crowding than anything else- more stick than carrot.

The vehicular cycling lobby offers nothing for the nervous, or novice rider. Just vague platitudes about making the roads safer. At least these proposals would cater for them. Why not suck it and see- if when built, they are crap, I'll be the first to admit it. Anyway- refreshing to have a civilised discussion without resorting to the usual insults.

 

[martint235]

Sorry still can't get the multi quote thing to work!

At the 2 posters above, I guess I get frustrated because we've been hearing the same old same old "lets make the roads safer" for 30 years now and nothing happens. It's great that London has seen such a massive rise in cycling, but when I'm there, I'm struck by the high proportion of generally male, youngish riders. I suspect the increase has more to do with high transport costs and crowding than anything else- more stick than carrot.

The vehicular cycling lobby offers nothing for the nervous, or novice rider. Just vague platitudes about making the roads safer. At least these proposals would cater for them. Why not suck it and see- if when built, they are crap, I'll be the first to admit it. Anyway- refreshing to have a civilised discussion without resorting to the usual insults.

I do think they should be built. And I think they should be great. I'm just too cynical to see them helping the novice cyclist too much unfortunately.

 

[Glow worm]

I do think they should be built. And I think they should be great. I'm just too cynical to see them helping the novice cyclist too much unfortunately.

Fair enough . The plans look quite radical- certainly by UK standards. Guess we'll have to wait and see should they get the go ahead.

 

[Tynan]

I think it gives credibility to the idea that bikes do not belong on the roads, more pointing to the super highway if a bike dares to impede a motor vehicle, and uses road space to leave less room for a motor vehicle and a cyclist to co-exist easily

 

[subaqua]

Of course they're not. But I've noticed (being a regular commuter in the City) that since painted bike symbols in the middle of the road have appeared I've been treated with more respect.

No-one so far has addressed my major problem - the proposals are a very expensive way of creating a very long way round for a journey where two much more direct routes exist, and are extremely well used. Sorting out a dozen individual junctions would be cheaper and achieve more.

the bike sign in the middle of the road has helped me outwit nobbers on more than one occasion . there is one in leyton just past the station and one obnxiuos turd pulled level and told me to jeep in my lane after going primary up past the station. I pointed to the big bike symbol in the middle of the road and asked why he was in MY lane if this was the bike lane.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Yup. They don't want to. Simple as that.

Just like in the Netherlands, eh? All those tens of millions of people who didn't want to before they got segregated facilities who then, quite coincidentally, did want to ...

 

[martint235]

Just like in the Netherlands, eh? All those tens of millions of people who didn't want to before they got segregated facilities who then, quite coincidentally, did want to ...

Why do people insist on throwing the Netherlands into any argument? It's a different culture with a different attitude.

 

[EthelF]

Why do people insist on throwing the Netherlands into any argument? It's a different culture with a different attitude.

Because the Dutch achieved a significant cultural shift by building excellent infrastructure, and some people here would like to see a similar cultural shift in this country, and therefore look to the Dutch for inspiration?

I don't think that this is an instance of "throwing the Netherlands into any argument". This discussion is about the merits or not of segregated cycle routes, so the Dutch model and experience is pretty relevant.

 

[martint235]

Because the Dutch achieved a significant cultural shift by building excellent infrastructure, and some people here would like to see a similar cultural shift in this country, and therefore look to the Dutch for inspiration?

The Dutch have a different culture entirely to the one in the UK. They don't tend to binge drink as much as UK people is just one example. The Dutch built excellent infrastructure because they already had a deeply rooted culture of cycling (largely to do with the few hills is my guess) not to create a cycling culture.

 

[EthelF]

The Dutch have a different culture entirely to the one in the UK. They don't tend to binge drink as much as UK people is just one example. The Dutch built excellent infrastructure because they already had a deeply rooted culture of cycling (largely to do with the few hills is my guess) not to create a cycling culture.

Having lived there I am not convinced that the Dutch really are that different from us. Sure, flat terrain is attractive to cycling, but the 20% greater annual rainfall is not. We also used to have a strong cycling culture. I think the key difference is they stopped the rot earlier: cars were bullying cyclists off the road, so they did something about it; we didn't, and cycling rates kept falling as the roads got busier. Yet bike ownership remains high - if only we could find a way to coax more of these bike owners out and about, I think we too could once again have a strong cycling culture.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Why do people insist on throwing the Netherlands into any argument? It's a different culture with a different attitude.

People always seem to imagine the Netherlands always had the cycling culture it has today; that's not the case. It was in large part created by the infrastructure:

 

[martint235]

People always seem to imagine the Netherlands always had the cycling culture it has today; that's not the case. It was in large part created by the infrastructure:

Still have to notice the complete lack of heads down nobbers though.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Still have to notice the complete lack of heads down nobbers though.

The lycra-clad roadie peletons exist, but they tend to stick to the roads. On the paths, sheer weight of numbers means they have to mostly behave.

 

[martint235]

The lycra-clad roadie peletons exist, but they tend to stick to the roads. On the paths, sheer weight of numbers means they have to mostly behave.

I'm afraid my cynicism remains intact then. I do hope this idea works for London but I just can't see it happening.