Make Cyclelanes Work Petition

[MrHappyCyclist]

I can understand the rationale for keeping it simple. However, I would prefer to see one that simply asked for a ban on sub-standard cycle lanes, by which I mean cycle lanes that that do not meet the specifications set out in Section 7 of the DfT guidelines on Cycle Infrastructure Design.

The reason I prefer this is that, whilst I think cycle lanes that meet the guidelines have little or no effect on my cycling experience or safety, the substandard ones that are currently in place are actively detrimental to my cycling experience and safety, even when they are not full of parked cars and detritus. By all means paint the roads in the hope that it will encourage more people to cycle, but do not do it to the detriment of all cyclists.

 

[Red Light]

Yes, yes I want London to be as dangerous as Copenhagen for bikes!

Get a grip. Or rather take a ride through Copenhagen. Are you more or less likely to be right/left hooked here or there? Ditto for being 'doored'.

Removing the destination (parking place) is an effective way of reducing both real and perceived risk. It also magically creates new free space for public transport and/or bikes. Space that is better utilised by both making for a better urban environment and ironically reducing journey times.

You need to differentiate between cycle lane safety and the safety effect of cycling numbers. The latter is more than sufficient to explain the safety difference between Denmark and the Netherlands and the UK.

 

[Red Light]

It is not as simple as that.

If you reduce the number of cars but not their road space then they will travel faster and the speed differential kills. You need to manage that. Secondly because city streets are unbalanced this will speed traffic towards the bottlenecks. Pall Mall in London is an example. Four solid clogged lanes all day. If you want people to bike Pall Mall then you need to provide biking space. There is currently none but the pavements (covered in City of Westminster penalty notice signs). Reallocating and reserving space is probably the only solution there.

I cycle Pall Mall all the time both in its original one way version and its new improved two way version. I don't have any problems doing it. Perhaps you should try it some time.

Cyclists need space. If they do not have it then they feel very unsafe. Its about vulnerability and scared people don't stay with cycling. How you create and preserve that space is tricky. Sometimes its dedicated cycle lanes, sometimes it is legislation or another way. Being dogmatic one way or another rather than responsive to the situation in hand is what we cyclists have suffered for too long.

So where is your evidence that spending £1m a mile for cycle facilities will achieve that? The Build It and They Will Come approach has a very poor track record. Velib, Boris Bikes, DublinCycles, Bicing etc have all shown that all you need to do to get people cycling is to make it appear normal and accessible, not the preserve of the road warrior class.

So to return to kids. Remove car parking/stopping around schools. Provide secure cycle parking. Give a kid a prize if he cycles to school. Get the head to cycle to school. I bet that would change modal shift more than pushing Bikeability courses. Ironically (sorry its my favourite word) it may subsequently increase the demand for Bikeability.

Bikeability is more for people who have chosen to ride. We need to address those that haven't.

Not true. Bikeability has led to significant increases in the numbers of pupils cycling to school and in good schemes with the numbers of parents who cycle. http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com is a good example of a community programme built around Bikeability training that has had enormous success and resulted in significant extra cycle parking having to be installed. More than 10% of pupils now cycle to a London junior school.

 

[Red Light]

I can understand the rationale for keeping it simple. However, I would prefer to see one that simply asked for a ban on sub-standard cycle lanes, by which I mean cycle lanes that that do not meet the specifications set out in Section 7 of the DfT guidelines on Cycle Infrastructure Design.

Only if the recommended width becomes the default width. At present they are virtually all built to the minimum width or less. Even on Blackfriars Bridge, where cyclists exceed cars at peak times, they have still only installed a minimum width cycle lane in the recent designs.

 

[Tommi]

Not true. Bikeability has led to significant increases in the numbers of pupils cycling to school and in good schemes with the numbers of parents who cycle. http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com is a good example of a community programme built around Bikeability training that has had enormous success and resulted in significant extra cycle parking having to be installed. More than 10% of pupils now cycle to a London junior school.

As I understand Bikeability (or equivalent) has been taugh in UK since forever. Where's the evidence the amount of money spent on training / training given has resulted in comparable increase in number of people cycling? Given how training is seen as very cheap option, surely it must've consistently increased the number of people cycling by now, which in turn would've proven success and got increased budget, etc.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Only if the recommended width becomes the default width. At present they are virtually all built to the minimum width or less. Even on Blackfriars Bridge, where cyclists exceed cars at peak times, they have still only installed a minimum width cycle lane in the recent designs.

In my experience, the cycle lanes are almost exclusively narrower (and usually significantly narrower) than the 1.5m minimum that applies to 30mph roads, and that is the case even on faster, busy roads where the minimum is supposed to be 2m.

How does your proposal differ from these minimum widths that are already specified in the document? Do you mean that 2m should be the minimum width, even on 30mph roads?

 

[StuartG]

I cycle Pall Mall all the time both in its original one way version and its new improved two way version. I don't have any problems doing it. Perhaps you should try it some time.

Forgive me for a senior moment. I meant The Strand. Tried it for 20 years. Any better now?

So where is your evidence that spending £1m a mile for cycle facilities will achieve that?

Where is your evidence that I said that and not the opposite?

Bikeability has led to significant increases in the numbers of pupils cycling to school and in good schemes with the numbers of parents who cycle. http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com is a good example of a community programme built around Bikeability training that has had enormous success and resulted in significant extra cycle parking having to be installed. More than 10% of pupils now cycle to a London junior school.

Good to hear but one London school? I think that suggests that Bikeability is not working for the other 1,999. As a retired school governor in three different boroughs I think I know why unless things have changed. Money is not really the problem about Bikeability or cycling infrastructure. If society felt it was really needed it would be found. In that respect cycling has to win minds first. It hasn't.

I am always overjoyed when we see some green cycling shoots. But we have yet to see something that is sure to grow into a truly significant transport mode in London. Boris bikes are good but, on central London roads, (as opposed to docking stations), still a rare sight. When they compete with taxis I shall be pleased to recant.

Will that be 5 years, 15 years .... ???

 

[Red Light]

Do you mean that 2m should be the minimum width, even on 30mph roads?

The recommended 2m should be the default width such that most cycle lanes should be at that width with narrower ones as rare exceptions. Rather than the current situation where the minimum width is the default and ones of the recommended width are so rare they get ridiculed in the press if they are built.

 

[Red Light]

Forgive me for a senior moment. I meant The Strand. Tried it for 20 years. Any better now?

The Strand eastbound is fine. Westbound it gets clogged on the approach to the lights at Charing Cross but you can usually filter through to the front.

Good to hear but one London school? I think that suggests that Bikeability is not working for the other 1,999. As a retired school governor in three different boroughs I think I know why unless things have changed. Money is not really the problem about Bikeability or cycling infrastructure. If society felt it was really needed it would be found. In that respect cycling has to win minds first. It hasn't.

I am always overjoyed when we see some green cycling shoots. But we have yet to see something that is sure to grow into a truly significant transport mode in London. Boris bikes are good but, on central London roads, (as opposed to docking stations), still a rare sight. When they compete with taxis I shall be pleased to recant.

Will that be 5 years, 15 years .... ???

Its working there because of a dedicated teacher has gone out and found the money to make it happen. That's why not putting £1m into a mile of cycle lane but using it to support the sorts of programmes being run in Lewisham spreading to other schools.

As for Boris Bikes, the problem is there are not enough of them With 6 million journeys in the past year they can hardly be said to be a rare sight by anyone using Central London roads. And the majority of users are new to cycling in London. So that millions of journeys by new cyclists.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

The recommended 2m should be the default width such that most cycle lanes should be at that width with narrower ones as rare exceptions. Rather than the current situation where the minimum width is the default and ones of the recommended width are so rare they get ridiculed in the press if they are built.

(If we just leave aside the 1.2m minimum that is mentioned specifically in respect of ASL feeder lanes.) What I am proposing is that there should be: an absolute ban on cycle lanes of less than 2m on busy roads and roads with speed limits greater than 30mph, and also an absolute ban on cycle lanes of less than 1.5m on 30mph roads that are not busy. Narrower lanes than these should not be rare, they should be completely banned.

To be honest, I think we are largely saying the same thing. It's just that I think the document says all that we need without having to add any kind of qualification. Any implication that the document needs to be augmented in some way would complicate matters too much.

 

[Red Light]

(If we just leave aside the 1.2m minimum that is mentioned specifically in respect of ASL feeder lanes.) What I am proposing is that there should be: an absolute ban on cycle lanes of less than 2m on busy roads and roads with speed limits greater than 30mph, and also an absolute ban on cycle lanes of less than 1.5m on 30mph roads that are not busy. Narrower lanes than these should not be rare, they should be completely banned.

To be honest, I think we are largely saying the same thing. It's just that I think the document says all that we need without having to add any kind of qualification. Any implication that the document needs to be augmented in some way would complicate matters too much.

I think we do agree except on whether the DfT guidance is sufficient on its own. The problem is it allows narrower lanes than the recommended width and that allowance is then used all the time to justify narrower lanes

I'd be interested to know the widths of the cycle lanes in Figs 7.2, 7.3 and 7.5

 

[StuartG]

That's why not putting £1m into a mile of cycle lane but using it to support the sorts of programmes being run in Lewisham spreading to other schools.

Now I know you are not serious.

Lewisham probably spent rather a lot making Southend Lane impossible to ride by bike safely. Not my observation but that of my Bikeability teacher (paid for by the council!). Which more or less makes Sedgefield School inaccessible by bike from the east & west.

If instead of making the inner lane and footpath into a car park surrounded by dodgem posts - they had relabelled the lane for cycles we would have had something much better for cyclists and bikeability for the same cost. Or if they had done nothing and pocketed the cash it would still be safer. And all unnecessary if you think that providing free on-street parking to residents where there is unused off street space available makes sense.

Lewisham, possibly the most car centric borough in London, having fired its part time cycling officer as a further example of not wasting money on cycling ...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Sou...d=E_fNv8kQaDFK93KNg2vnVQ&cbp=12,90.69,,0,8.65

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I think we do agree except on whether the DfT guidance is sufficient on its own. The problem is it allows narrower lanes than the recommended width and that allowance is then used all the time to justify narrower lanes

I'd be interested to know the widths of the cycle lanes in Figs 7.2, 7.3 and 7.5

I agree that the pictures may be misleading, and I worked out that, assuming the aspect ratio has been maintained correctly and the bicycle shown has 700 wheels, then the cycle lane in the picture on the front cover is only 1.4m.

But as far as the text is concerned (which is what really matters), I can't see anything suggesting that lower widths than those indicated are acceptable or allowed. Unless you mean that "should be" allows for that in the case of the 2m one, though I'm not convinced. Do you have section references for such? (I will be most disappointed if you are right.)

 

[Red Light]

Now I know you are not serious.

Who said Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists was run by Lewisham Council? Its not and if it was it would probably be spending its time as discussed in another thread, banning children from training for the wrong head or hairdo or painting white lines with the money instead.

 

[StuartG]

The Strand eastbound is fine. Westbound it gets clogged on the approach to the lights at Charing Cross but you can usually filter through to the front.

Like this: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=the...=uklhZ5-qa2xqKwOX35O5Lw&cbp=12,71.93,,0,10.29

Sorry, but I'm not prepared to filter the entire length of The Strand which is the norm by day. Its just too nasty (and feels dangerous). I may not be as brave as you but I'm a lot more confident and experienced than most. If its not for me its most certainly not for most of those yet to ride.