Not me!
Or have I misunderstood and it was indeed Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists who didn't spend a million on cycling infrastructure in Lewisham but instead invested it in Bikeability? Where did YL&GC get the dosh?
Make Cyclelanes Work Petition
- Thread starter downfader
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Or have I misunderstood and it was indeed Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists who didn't spend a million on cycling infrastructure in Lewisham but instead invested it in Bikeability? Where did YL&GC get the dosh?
Can you think of many examples of 2m cycle lanes on busy roads because I'm having difficulty? But my main problem is the wording:
7.4.2 Cycle lanes should be 2 metres wide on busy roads, or where traffic is travelling in excess of 40 mph. A minimum width of 1.5 metres may be generally acceptable on roads with a 30 mph limit. For cycle feeder lanes to advanced stop line arrangements, a minimum width of 1.2m may be acceptable. Cycle lanes less than 1.2 metres wide cannot easily accommodate tricycles or childcarrying cycle trailers wholly within the lane.
is too vague and open to wilful misinterpretation. It needs to be much more crisp with no wiggle room for interpretation.
IIRC the dosh came from TfL and Cycling England.
You mean part of the same TfL money that goes to more of Lewisham's plans for cycling unfriendly projects such as the upcoming Sydenham Road redevelopment with its carefully thought out pinch points and promotion of onstreet parking (and where that is difficult commandeering a part of a LCN)?
Mind you the loss of that LCN is probably a small mercy although it really screws up the proposed SuperHighway.
I put it to you that Bikeability schemes and pictures of councillors on bicycles are a sop and not a serious part of TfL & Lewisham Council's transport strategy. Have you read the LIP? TfL Streets are mean streets. There is to be no Cycling England.
Or Cycling Officer! My case rests.
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
Sorry for seeming a bit argumentative on this, but regarding:
I did already say:
Regarding the actual wording:
Busy roads, or roads where traffic is travelling in excess of 40 mph: 2m wide
Any other roads with a 30 mph limit (busy roads are already covered above): 1.5m wide
Cycle feeder lanes to ASLs: 1.2m wide (and goes on to explain why these can't be narrower)
It seems pretty unequivocal to me. The only things open to interpretation are: "how busy is busy?", "for non-busy roads with limits between 31mph and 39mph, is it 1.5m or 2.0m?" and "for what distance in advance of the ASL is a cycle lane to be considered to be a feeder lane?". Other than those, there seems to be no doubt, and I certainly see no opening for cycle lanes of less than 1.5m except in the very specific case of ASL feeder lanes.
I did already say:
which means that I consider most cycle lanes currently in place to be sub-standard.
Regarding the actual wording:
I just don't see where the wiggle room is in this. It seems to discuss three scenarios and gives clear guidance for each:
Busy roads, or roads where traffic is travelling in excess of 40 mph: 2m wide
Any other roads with a 30 mph limit (busy roads are already covered above): 1.5m wide
Cycle feeder lanes to ASLs: 1.2m wide (and goes on to explain why these can't be narrower)
It seems pretty unequivocal to me. The only things open to interpretation are: "how busy is busy?", "for non-busy roads with limits between 31mph and 39mph, is it 1.5m or 2.0m?" and "for what distance in advance of the ASL is a cycle lane to be considered to be a feeder lane?". Other than those, there seems to be no doubt, and I certainly see no opening for cycle lanes of less than 1.5m except in the very specific case of ASL feeder lanes.
That's not what it says though. It says 1.5m "may be generally acceptable" on 30mph roads. It doesn't say on non-busy roads with a 30mph limit, it says generally acceptable on 30mph roads. So its easy now to make all 30mph roads 1.5m max.
You seem determined to misinterpret everything to your world view. Who said it came through the Council? How do you account for the Cycling England money (unfortunately no more)? I put it to you that if you take off your blinkers and look at what good Bikeability and Go Ride schemes are achieving and consider what could be achieved if the money were available to support them and the trainers you would see something that has a positive effect on cycling and cycling safety. Or you can continue using the money painting white lines in the belief they are the magical answer to getting more people cycling and anything else is impossible
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
Well, we seem to be narrowing down on where the issue is. However, what it says is: "A minimum width of 1.5 metres may be generally acceptable on roads with a 30 mph limit" (so not 1.5m max). This still does not allow for cycle lanes of less than 1.5m under any circumstances (with the exception of ASL feeder lanes).
I can see an argument that there is some scope for wilful misinterpretation leading to a conclusion that busy 30mph roads might be OK with 1.5m width minimum, despite what it says in the first case, but that is all. Even that would be a vast improvement on what we currently have.
My dear RL. The problem is you continue to ascribe me a worldview I do not have. No matter how many times I try and correct you - you still criticise me for views I do not have. I don't think there is any point continuing. But just for the record:
White lines/Blue lanes. They may have some use in some places but are not in themselves a panacea. In general the rider has the same rights to the road as the motorist. The cyclist (and pedestrian) have more rights to space to protect their vulnerability than the motorist. Whether you create that with paint, legislation or some other way is tactical. I don't do theology on it.
Bikeabilty. Excellent scheme from which I have benefited. However its about riding confidently and safely. It isn't about encouraging people to ride in the same way as the IAM is about encouraging people to drive. They are most likely to have made the implicit choice to ride before they receive training. However, the existence of a course may challenge them to a decision to ride (particulary for schoolkids).
Schools are not the solution. We nearly all learnt to ride at school. We nearly all gave it up when cars (at 17+) became an option. The only way to reverse it is to make cars less of an attractive option for some journeys. Inevitably that is negative discrimination in motoring infrastructure or pricing. This requires political will (in all parties) plus social change. We don't know how to do that in the UK.
Bikes or Buses. Doesn't really matter except in displacing flexible car usage means neither is a complete solution but a combination (different orders for different people) is a better alternative. Plus trains, tubes, trams and jet packs of course.
White lines/Blue lanes. They may have some use in some places but are not in themselves a panacea. In general the rider has the same rights to the road as the motorist. The cyclist (and pedestrian) have more rights to space to protect their vulnerability than the motorist. Whether you create that with paint, legislation or some other way is tactical. I don't do theology on it.
Bikeabilty. Excellent scheme from which I have benefited. However its about riding confidently and safely. It isn't about encouraging people to ride in the same way as the IAM is about encouraging people to drive. They are most likely to have made the implicit choice to ride before they receive training. However, the existence of a course may challenge them to a decision to ride (particulary for schoolkids).
Schools are not the solution. We nearly all learnt to ride at school. We nearly all gave it up when cars (at 17+) became an option. The only way to reverse it is to make cars less of an attractive option for some journeys. Inevitably that is negative discrimination in motoring infrastructure or pricing. This requires political will (in all parties) plus social change. We don't know how to do that in the UK.
Bikes or Buses. Doesn't really matter except in displacing flexible car usage means neither is a complete solution but a combination (different orders for different people) is a better alternative. Plus trains, tubes, trams and jet packs of course.
No, like this
Perhaps you should try it some time instead of assuming that its a complete disaster. I cycle it frequently, see quite a few other cyclists on it including Boris Bikers and the worst you have to do is wait a bit like the cars and taxis do towards the Charing Cross end. Given the choice of Strand, Waterloo Bridge or Whitehall, Westminster Bridge from Trafalgar Square to Waterloo Station I nearly always take the Strand.
Well you certainly have some strange views of cycling in London that are at odds with reality viz:
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
Have you ever considered that it is you who holds strange views. What do you consider the probability of that is?
So to be specific, which of the three views do you consider strange?
- That Boris Bikes are common on the streets of Central London?
- That one school doing a good job does not mean the other 1.999 are doing a bad job?
- That the Strand is not clogged by motor vehicles along its whole length?
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
If you were presented with data showing data about one school but knew that there should be data about many schools available what would you read into it.
The time (6 years) I lived in London I recall the Strand being pretty much a carpark most of the time.
Thus I agree with the view of StuartG.
