Good cycling infrastructure in London
Comments
-
-
ndru wrote: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.
Respect dude, and sorry.
OK, my vote goes for the cycle lane down the east side of Hyde Park, it's smooth and such a lovely place to ride (although some cyclists take the pi55 on it and try to ride too fast).0 -
ndru wrote: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.
Coombe Lane cycle lane:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Coombe+ ... ngdom&z=16
I use it sometimes when I've come back from a long ride and am too tired to deal with pissy motorists being dicks and on my SS MTB because i'll just spin out on the road.
The road has those horrible traffic islands for pedestrians (but essential on this road, some people treat it as a race track as it links to the A3).
I'm not sure how to link up street view but it's on there.Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.0 -
dondare wrote: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.
I have real difficulty matching the ''murderous'' bit with my own road encounters. I drive with cycling experience, I cycle with driving experience, I could probably establish a fairly precise ratio between right- and left-hooks from my time on London's roads, but I really can't recall any ''you shouldn't be on the road'' encounters.
I have no problem with your second paragraph about junction dangers, it's just the ''murderous'' bit that doesn't seem to fit in my experience. Where do you cycle?0 -
@northstar - Coombe Lane - nice one, I seems like a nice neighbourhood too, cheers
@prj45 - thanks, but I can't localize it. I know it seems so obvious when you've used this route several times, but I just can't find it. Would it be possible for you to post a link?
Do you think a separate post "Vehicular cycling vs the dutch model" would be a good idea?0 -
It's not OT at all. A good proportion of us here (a majority even) really do not want you advocating a very one sided approach to road design, which is apparently to separate bicycle and motorised traffic wherever possible.ndru wrote: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.
Maybe your energy could be better spent convincing these councillors to educate drivers into accepting that cyclists have every right to be on the road whenever and wherever they want to be.0 -
deptfordmarmoset wrote:dondare wrote: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.
I have real difficulty matching the ''murderous'' bit with my own road encounters. I drive with cycling experience, I cycle with driving experience, I could probably establish a fairly precise ratio between right- and left-hooks from my time on London's roads, but I really can't recall any ''you shouldn't be on the road'' encounters.
I have no problem with your second paragraph about junction dangers, it's just the ''murderous'' bit that doesn't seem to fit in my experience. Where do you cycle?
Most of my cycling is done on roads without cycle lanes so it's not a problem that I encounter, either.
I am going by what other cyclists say on forum sites, and some have video evidence of the dangerous overtakes (and subsequent arguments) that motorists carry out quite deliberately in order to "teach them a lesson".
Perhaps murderous is too strong a word to describe deliberately unsafe driving. Then again, perhaps not.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
Sounds like a Flaming Lips album.ndru wrote:@northstar - Coombe Lane - nice one, I seems like a nice neighbourhood too, cheers
@prj45 - thanks, but I can't localize it. I know it seems so obvious when you've used this route several times, but I just can't find it. Would it be possible for you to post a link?
Do you think a separate post "Vehicular cycling vs the dutch model" would be a good idea?
The recent changes to victoria embankment have, IMO, made a huge positive difference. It's not perfect (especially westbound) but it is better.0 -
@_Brun_ And I appreciate your view too. Having separate infrastructure for bikes doesn't mean that you can't ride on the road. It's not mutually exclusive. What's more - if you want to cycle on the road, be my guest - the infrastructure is already there. Why can't I advocate my view when "a good proportion of" you "a majority even" can advocate vehicular cycling?
Thanks for advice on what to spend my energy on. And it is OT, since I am only asking about examples of good cycling infrastructure in London, again - according to your opinion.
If you'd like to have a discussion about my views on mass cycling it would be only natural to create a separate post for it or post a comment on my blog. Thanks0 -
@JonGinge - thanks, it's not showing in the street view yet, so I'll be checking it out in person.0
-
You're rather missing the point, which is simply that Black Cab Man, Addisson Lee Man, and White Van Man all think that it is mutually exclusive, and that where there is separate infrastructure for cyclists, they shouldn't be on the road. I'm not being flippant, it's something that I experience regularly, even when my speed is only 5mph or so below the legal limit. I've even had taxi drivers tell me where I 'belong' while waiting for a red light to change.ndru wrote:@_Brun_ And I appreciate your view too. Having separate infrastructure for bikes doesn't mean that you can't ride on the road. It's not mutually exclusive.
I think it's very on topic to point out that what you consider good infrastructure might not actually be such. Particularly since you have the intention of encouraging it on our behalf.ndru wrote:Thanks for advice on what to spend my energy on. And it is OT, since I am only asking about examples of good cycling infrastructure in London, again - according to your opinion.
For the above reasons this is a perfectly good place to discuss your views on mass cycling. In fact, here's a good example of some well thought out cycling infrastructure for you:ndru wrote:If you'd like to have a discussion about my views on mass cycling it would be only natural to create a separate post for it or post a comment on my blog. Thanks
Link0 -
and do you think there's any training that can make some people change their behaviour? There are similar types of cyclists who tell you to "get of the f**in' way you nodder". They will be there with or without separate infrastructure.You're rather missing the point, which is simply that Black Cab Man, Addisson Lee Man, and White Van Man all think that it is mutually exclusive, and that where there is separate infrastructure for cyclists, they shouldn't be on the road. I'm not being flippant, it's something that I experience regularly, even when my speed is only 5mph or so below the legal limit. I've even had taxi drivers tell me where I 'belong' while waiting for a red light to change.For the above reasons this is a perfectly good place to discuss your views on mass cycling. In fact, here's a good example of some well thought out cycling infrastructure for you:
If you do not wish to participate then do not. I think you are missing the point now. Of course the examples are going to be shown in an subjective way, I will look at them, judge them, then go there and judge them again, and then I will write about them what I think of them. I am not, however, going to say that _Brun_ and the rest of BikeRadar officially endorses my choices and my evaluation.0 -
ndru wrote:@prj45 - thanks, but I can't localize it. I know it seems so obvious when you've used this route several times, but I just can't find it. Would it be possible for you to post a link?
http://www.theaa.com/bike-rides/around-hyde-park-418710ndru wrote:Do you think a separate post "Vehicular cycling vs the dutch model" would be a good idea?
Go for it, but presumably even in dutch land (hay they've already got several names for one country, what's the problem with another one!) presumably cars and cycles mix at some points, so drivers and cyclists alike still have to be equipped to deal with the situation.0 -
@prj, thanks for the links.
I suggested creating a separate thread because I wouldn't want to start a flame war here. Especially that the vehicular vs dutch model discussion would take hundreds of posts, and this thread isn't about it. If you feel that a cycle lane is safe, adequate and ridable for any type of cyclist than it is a good cycling infrastructure. So please let's leave the axes at the doorstep to this thread and focus on good examples of cycling infrastructure. In the end it's all about the promotion of cycling, and showing councils examples of well executed cycle lanes and paths.0 -
Are your ears bleeding up on that soapbox?
:P0 -
Maybe if people didn't feel the need to start arguing when all the chap is asking for is examples of good cycling infrastructure...Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.0
-
Royal College Street in Camden. Haven't been there for a while so not sure if it's now part of the CSH and it's painted in blue.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Camden+Road,+Islington&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=18.514185,39.418945&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Camden+Rd,+Islington,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.543359,-0.132308&spn=0,0.019248&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.535937,-0.133501&panoid=0VrdbnLbJIkJljo7_lBfPw&cbp=12,335.89,,0,50 -
You couldn't have linked to a better spot - that arrangement with the bus stop and give ways is truly inspired! Not sure I'd describe it as 'good' however.0
-
@MacdameMarie - that's a good one indeed. Shame for the bollard at the end of it though. Colour really doesn't matter
0 -
How about a bike path that goes right down the middle of the lane, through a narrow tunnel?
It encourages cyclists to take the safest position in the road (i.e. primary) AND educates drivers that that is what the cyclist is supposed to do (link updated):
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 3&t=k&z=200 -
I am afraid this link doesn't work. If you want to link to google maps do not copy the url from the browser, instead use the link button above the map. Cheers.0
-
Whilst I think off road cycle lanes are the best solution until pedestrians learn not to walk on them I think I'll stick to the road. I do not understand why some people do not understand why the surface is green with cycles painted on it!! Worst of all when you nearly run them down they look at you as if its your fault? As an example recently my local Council have very kindly built a new cycle bridge over a small river adjacent to an existing footbridge. But despite the green surface and clear blue cycle signs it is always blocked by pedestrians who use it rather than the footbridge directly next to it for some strange reason, probably because they can walk 3 abreast rather than in single file on their bridge. Only last week I approached the bridge at a reasonable 17 mph to find some half wit walking down one side with their dog on the other with one of those extendable leads between. Fortunately I saw the lead before I hit it and stopped but in response got a filthy look from the dog owner as if I was at fault.0
-
SLX01 wrote:Whilst I think off road cycle lanes are the best solution until pedestrians learn not to walk on them I think I'll stick to the road. I do not understand why some people do not understand why the surface is green with cycles painted on it!! Worst of all when you nearly run them down they look at you as if its your fault? As an example recently my local Council have very kindly built a new cycle bridge over a small river adjacent to an existing footbridge. But despite the green surface and clear blue cycle signs it is always blocked by pedestrians who use it rather than the footbridge directly next to it for some strange reason, probably because they can walk 3 abreast rather than in single file on their bridge. Only last week I approached the bridge at a reasonable 17 mph to find some half wit walking down one side with their dog on the other with one of those extendable leads between. Fortunately I saw the lead before I hit it and stopped but in response got a filthy look from the dog owner as if I was at fault.
Are you refering to cycle lanes marked on the road or cycle lanes marked on the pavement? Guidelines for cycle paths that are not part of the road state that cyclists traveling at speeds greater than 12 mph should use the road.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
@SLX01 - See this could be because the pedestrian bridge is narrower. People don't like to be herded and I can see why. Can you tell me where this bridge is? I would consider it as a piece of good cycling infrastructure.
@dondare - This is also why shared use is not good for anyone. Sure all kinds of traffic can interact, but only in special places (public squares) but that makes everyone very uncomfortable.0 -
northstar wrote:Maybe if people didn't feel the need to start arguing when all the chap is asking for is examples of good cycling infrastructure...
Wowah, hold on, that and suggesting that a cycle lane should be kerbed, so it's the OP that went off topic first!ndru wrote:Looks good. I am just wondering - if there's enough place for the cars why not separate the cycling lane with a kerb...0 -
dondare wrote:SLX01 wrote:Whilst I think off road cycle lanes are the best solution until pedestrians learn not to walk on them I think I'll stick to the road. I do not understand why some people do not understand why the surface is green with cycles painted on it!! Worst of all when you nearly run them down they look at you as if its your fault? As an example recently my local Council have very kindly built a new cycle bridge over a small river adjacent to an existing footbridge. But despite the green surface and clear blue cycle signs it is always blocked by pedestrians who use it rather than the footbridge directly next to it for some strange reason, probably because they can walk 3 abreast rather than in single file on their bridge. Only last week I approached the bridge at a reasonable 17 mph to find some half wit walking down one side with their dog on the other with one of those extendable leads between. Fortunately I saw the lead before I hit it and stopped but in response got a filthy look from the dog owner as if I was at fault.
Are you refering to cycle lanes marked on the road or cycle lanes marked on the pavement? Guidelines for cycle paths that are not part of the road state that cyclists traveling at speeds greater than 12 mph should use the road.
Neither I'm refering cycle lanes that are marked as cycle lanes there is no footway and no carriageway and no speed limit as far as I'm aware? There is no requirement to have a speedometer and no signage so how can there be a speed limit other than that of 30 mph for being in a built up area?0 -
ndru wrote:@SLX01 - See this could be because the pedestrian bridge is narrower. People don't like to be herded and I can see why. Can you tell me where this bridge is? I would consider it as a piece of good cycling infrastructure.
.
I think you are correct but if it was a road bridge I doubt they would let dogs wander about on it? Its actually across the Hogsmill river at the end of Sheephouse way in Old Malden. There is also a good cycle lane locally along the dual carriageway opposite Tolworth BR station.0 -
ndru wrote:I am afraid this link doesn't work. If you want to link to google maps do not copy the url from the browser, instead use the link button above the map. Cheers.
Apologies, try this link instead. Thanks for the tip!
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 3&t=k&z=200 -
@snailracer thanks for the link. This one is a really interesting piece. Shame it's quite far away from where I live.0
