Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

Good cycling infrastructure in London

ndrundru Posts: 382
edited August 2010 in Commuting chat
Hi all

I am trying to find examples of good cycling infrastructure in London, like cable street for instance. If you know of any (yes I know it's hard to find) could you pm me or post it here? I want to go there (by bike of course), snap some photos. I am then going to post them on my blog and write a little about the place and send them over to some councilors so they can have a look.

Thanks for all the replies!

For the time being I have

Cable Street, E1
North Woolwich Road, E16
Skinner Street, EC1
A307 Kew Road
Byng Place, WC1E
Lambeth bridge, roundabout
«1

Posts

  • The cycle lane along the road to Richmond from Kew Bridge - smooth as you like, solid line all the way along, road wide enough that cars don't bother you, but not so wide that they try to form 2 lanes.
  • MrBlondMrBlond Posts: 161
    Cable street is fine but the contraflow on Horseferry road complete with scalextric-style crossover (where bikes are supposed to switch sides for about 10 metres creating two excellent opportunities for a head-on with another cyclist) is flippin' awful
  • Dav3mDav3m Posts: 84
    Perhaps I'm easily pleased, but I always like this bit of layout when riding back from Hyde Park which is a cyclist only section on a one way street.

    http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 2.9,,0,5.7
  • dondaredondare Posts: 2,113
    London has excellent infrastructure for cyclists.
    Unfortunately motor vehicles are also allowed to use it (under licence and subject to many conditions that motorists neither know nor care about).
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • dondaredondare Posts: 2,113
    If you want to see how dedicated cycle-lanes can make the roads more dangerous take a look at Byng Place.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • ndrundru Posts: 382
    @ost_in_thought - thanks, could you post a link to google map, can't find the exact place
    @MrBlond - I know, a petition has been sent to change it. It's funny you should say that, because it actually happened to me (head on crash there)
    @Dav3m - thanks, but taking into account that the path is totally blocked by parked cars, I wouldn't think of it as a good cycling infrastructure
    @dondare - what's wrong with Byng place? Would it be cars turning right? Well good infrastructure that isn't good isn;t good, is it? :)
  • It's the A307 Kew Road from Richmond to Kew Bridge.
  • Clever PunClever Pun Posts: 6,778
    MrBlond wrote:
    Cable street is fine but the contraflow on Horseferry road complete with scalextric-style crossover (where bikes are supposed to switch sides for about 10 metres creating two excellent opportunities for a head-on with another cyclist) is flippin' awful

    yeah that's messy
    Purveyor of sonic doom

    Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
    Fixed Pista- FCN 5
    Beared Bromptonite - FCN 14
  • ndrundru Posts: 382
    @lost_in_thought nice one, thanks. Looks good. I am just wondering - if there's enough place for the cars why not separate the cycling lane with a kerb...
  • W1W1 Posts: 2,636
    ndru wrote:
    @lost_in_thought nice one, thanks. Looks good. I am just wondering - if there's enough place for the cars why not separate the cycling lane with a kerb...

    Good god we don't want that. Everyone would queue up behind the first enduro nodder and get stuck.

    Some other places that might be of interest -
    South side of Lambeth bridge - cycle lane over the roudabout
    At the end of the Mall through Admiralty arch - finally a proper coned off section for bikes
  • MrBlondMrBlond Posts: 161
    ndru, is your petition already done? I would be on that like a shot.

    There's also a petition floating around in my building (on Narrow Street) demanding that the whole of CS3 is moved onto the A13 because cyclists are "a menace to joggers" :-/
  • Dav3mDav3m Posts: 84
    W1 wrote:
    ndru wrote:
    South side of Lambeth bridge - cycle lane over the roudabout

    that one has always left me a little confused... so i've never used it
  • W1W1 Posts: 2,636
    Dav3m wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    South side of Lambeth bridge - cycle lane over the roudabout

    that one has always left me a little confused... so i've never used it

    I have to admit that I have only used it once, and found that the "car" traffic lights get me round it and onto Lambeth bridge faster than the dedicated cycle ones. But if you're not confident in traffic on a roundabout it works - there are dedicated lights for cycles (by the pedestrian lights), then you go up and over the top of the roundabout and there are more lights the other side.

    Another one is the cross over at Hyde Park Corner (except the light phasing isn't quite right, so unless you burn it accross you end up waiting at the top in order to cross into Hyde Park).
  • ndrundru Posts: 382
    @W1 - thanks, the lane through the roundabout looks great sad it's there on it's own... I think I can see your point about the kerbs...
    @MrBlond - I signed it during a breakfast for cyclists in Juner (the bicycle week). There was a bloke from Tower Hamlet wheelers collecting signatures. I know that they have ridden the length of CS3 with the members of the council identifying possible problems (with a focus on this contraflow lane) - couldn't join them because my wheel was buckled from the collision I had in that place - ironic I know.
    I pass a lot of joggers on my way up the Narrow street. We never bother each other. I wonder why they are not bothered by all the cars parked there on both sides though. Would make more sense to remove the parking spaces and widen the sidewalk.
    @W1 - thanks again, I've seen this one and it's a well executed design. I wish we could see more of that in London.
  • PufftmwPufftmw Posts: 1,941
    They're doing something really strange in Goodman's Yard - a 2 lane cycle thingy protected from the main road by a raised curb but then there's no entry/exit to it! Trying to work out how they're going to make that one work...
  • MrBlondMrBlond Posts: 161
    Ouch. Only a matter of time for me I think :-(
  • gaz545gaz545 Posts: 493
    Good: Stockwell gyratory north bound on route 7.
    Vauxhall gyratory cycle route

    Bad: Nearly all bike lanes in Pimlico, espcially the one over vauxhall bridge south bound.
  • Stuey01Stuey01 Posts: 1,273
    gaz545 wrote:
    Good: Stockwell gyratory north bound on route 7.

    Agreed, this bit was a PITA before they put the cycle superhighway through there. Seems much safer now.
    Not climber, not sprinter, not rouleur
  • ndrundru Posts: 382
    thanks. I would be useful if you could post links to google maps. Thanks.
  • ndru wrote:
    @lost_in_thought nice one, thanks. Looks good. I am just wondering - if there's enough place for the cars why not separate the cycling lane with a kerb...

    Noooooooo Jesus H Christ NO.

    Do I really want to be stuck behind the lady on the dutch bike? Hell no. Do I want to be able to avoid the occasional chunk of debris in the cycle lane? Hell yes.

    Those kerbs are bad news.
  • NorkyNorky Posts: 276
    dondare wrote:
    London has excellent infrastructure for cyclists.
    Unfortunately motor vehicles are also allowed to use it (under licence and subject to many conditions that motorists neither know nor care about).

    +1. Most intelligent thing I've seen for a while.
    The above is a post in a forum on the Intertubes, and should be taken with the appropriate amount of seriousness.
  • NorkyNorky Posts: 276
    ndru wrote:
    ...why not separate the cycling lane with a kerb...

    Oh dear. No. Just no.
    The above is a post in a forum on the Intertubes, and should be taken with the appropriate amount of seriousness.
  • ndrundru Posts: 382
    Ok I see I've caused a little bit of concern with my comment about the kerb. I didn't mean a 20cm kerb, more of a little something to reming the driver that s/he is getting into the cycling lane. Kerbs like on skinner street are a bit of an overkill.
  • deptfordmarmosetdeptfordmarmoset Posts: 3,118
    edited August 2010
    It's at this point that discussions about cycling provision tend to split into clear yes-no opposition between integrationists (bikes have right to be on road and to be expected to be on road.) and the segregationists (safety, perceptions of road as too dangerous for young, old, beginners, or those of a nervous disposition).

    And I end up in a rather confusing position over this. I'm broadly ''integrationist'' - bikes over the last 20 - 30 years have effectively been engineered out of the road network, leading to generations of drivers who have no genuine perception of what it's like to cycle on busy roads - and a driver who doesn't understand a cyclist's needs is likely to be a very dangerous driver. Ironically, drivers who do have a reasonable perception of danger will tend to wrap themselves up with air-bags, crumple-zones, ABS brakes, seat belts and all the paraphernalia that insulates drivers from the road. For such people, getting on a bike on busy roads would seem irresponsible because it runs against the general trend toward self-protection - safety for others tends to be a secondary consideration, if it is a consideration at all. I believe the only way out of this is by aiming towards better integration of cyclists into (and I don't mean into the gutter) the road system.

    So how do you get more drivers to cycle when a good number of surveys suggest that many drivers believe it to be too dangerous to set off ''naked'' on two wheels? (And it sometimes seems like these people will often also consider those who dare to cycle as being clearly irresponsible.)

    Paradoxically, I think one necessary element of integrating cycling completely onto our roads actually involves segregation - a sort of strategic segregation. Can you really teach your children proper road sense by only accompanying them on quiet suburban roads and turning around when you get to somewhere where there might be faster moving traffic? No, you need to be able to accustom them to dealing with junctions, pedestrians, and the whole obstacle course of traffic navigation on practical journeys. And, in the other direction, drivers need to be accustomed to seeing more cyclists out and about, be they young or old. Cyclepaths provide a sort of intermediate zone for learners, nervous new and returning cyclists, and - why not? - cyclists who simply don't want the hassle of negotiating heavy traffic from too close.

    The biggest danger point would seem to be the ''you should be on the cycle path, not on the road'' attitude that a number of forummers seem to have come across (strangely, I don't remember anyone ever saying that to me). But that kind of reaction will almost invariably come from a non-cycling driver and we want more cycling drivers. If cycle paths lead to more cyclists, then, almost by definition, there will be fewer non-cycling drivers and therefore fewer people to spout such nonsense.... Some will see a kind of gutter status for cyclists and cycle paths as a way of institutionalising that gutter status. However, I'd say that nearly all of my journeys start at the gutter and end at the gutter. But the gutter, by and large, is just a means to getting properly onto the road.

    Yes, I know, tl;dr... :?
  • ndrundru Posts: 382
    As you said- segregating doesn't mean banning cycles from the road. It's more about giving people who don't feel safe on the road the possibility to ride a bicycle in a utilitarian way. This makes people want to cycle more, which takes away some of the cars from out streets, which in turn mean it's less dangerous to cycle on the road, which in turn mean more people can ride a bicycle and so on and on.

    I guess cycling infrastructure is good as long as all kinds of people on bicycles feel safe on it. Which depends on the volume and speed of traffic, obstacles and its construction.
  • dondaredondare Posts: 2,113
    I'm all for segregation: keep all vehicles with engines on the railways.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • dondaredondare Posts: 2,113
    ndru wrote:
    As you said- segregating doesn't mean banning cycles from the road. It's more about giving people who don't feel safe on the road the possibility to ride a bicycle in a utilitarian way. This makes people want to cycle more, which takes away some of the cars from out streets, which in turn mean it's less dangerous to cycle on the road, which in turn mean more people can ride a bicycle and so on and on.

    I guess cycling infrastructure is good as long as all kinds of people on bicycles feel safe on it. Which depends on the volume and speed of traffic, obstacles and its construction.

    Wherever there are cycle-lanes there are motorists who become murderous when they see cyclists not using them.

    Segregated cycle-lanes make junctions more complicated and confusing than junctions where there are no cycle-lanes, and it's at junctions that most collisions take place.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • prj45prj45 Posts: 2,208
    Norky wrote:
    ndru wrote:
    ...why not separate the cycling lane with a kerb...

    Oh dear. No. Just no.

    Can I add my view on this:

    No no no, no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no, no.
  • ndrundru Posts: 382
    Yes, everyone is entitled to their views. Some solutions work some don't. Go figure. This is getting very OT.
    Again I would be grateful for examples of good cycling infrastructure in London. Thanks.
  • Oh you didn't want it to go OT?

    Wrong forum. You wanted the boring forum over there....

    :P
Sign In or Register to comment.