Blackfriars Flashride Friday @8.30
Comments
-
ndru wrote:Asprilla wrote:EC2boy wrote:@asprilla
If your cycling is truly onlty to the station and to work, then I can understand why you think you wouldn't use cycle facilities.
I live in Lambeth. I have to cross the bridges in London all the time.
Have you ever tried cycling over Blackfriars at 2am on the way home from a night out? It's not a barrel of laughs.
I get about London by bike and join my friends and sometimes family in getting about by bike. I drive a bit too. Good (and I stress the word 'good') cycle facilities should make it easier for all sorts of people to take to their bikes. As it is, I often give up and take the car because I can't face certain junctions or traffic at night when I am getting places not for work. Actually, I also want to be able to cycle from where I work (City) to the West End for meetings rather than sitting in some smelly, slow moving bus. And I'd like to be able to do that in my suit, like I can in Paris now. Or Berlin. Or, increasingly, New York....
Nope, my cycling is generally a 34 miles round trip to West London and back every day. If I were forced to use cycle tracks / paths the time taken to do this trip would be untenable.
I don't think you know what a normal dutch cycle track looks like. It's effectively a car lane width in one direction. Look at examples at David Hembrow's blog. He even posted a video of a guy doing almost 70km/h on a cycle track in a velomobile. Do you really prefer to compete with cars and generally be the second class citizen? I don't believe that. But this requires good cycling infrastructure, not the stuff that gets built all the time just because all the cycling campaigners are against dedicated cycle tracks. In result 2% of population makes cycling elitist and unattractive for the other 98%. Do you think it's right? Fortunately as cycling is slowly leaving it's niche of cycle couriers and boy racers the balance between VCs and mainstream cyclists will tip over to the latter and then we will start seeing change.
Now about loosing the right to ride on the road - pedestrians have the right to walk on the road, except formotorways - how many peds can you see fighting against building pavements because they might be banned from the roads? And how many of them want to use the dual carriageways because they are generally wider and more direct? None? Thought so. There's no indication that cyclist would be banned from the roads, however I would really doubt that given a proper cycle track you'd want to ride the road as opposed to a cycle track. Think about it. Secondly you will get abuse from certain types of drivers anyhow. Dedicated infrastructure separates cyclist from freaks - not removes us from their path as if we were obstacles. This is the difference between good and bad infrastructure. Bicycles get priority, lots of space for themselves and so on.
And yes there is space. All it takes is someone to brake this vicious circle of trying to reinvent the wheel by cycling campaigns and start using a tried and tested template. Start as Copenhagen started - check the demand lines and then built proper cycle tracks - takes as little as taking one lane away from parked/moving vehicles, raising it by 2 inches and inserting a curb, flush with the cycle trakc surface. For me it's at least Copenhagen, but ideally Amsterdam type of facilities - everything else is not good enough really. But if campaigns are not asking for that, and don't even have a proper strategy or design (vide LCC's "visionary" Blackfriars design) cycling will remain hostile to anyone but super fit daredevils who need to ride at 30mph because it's not fun otherwise.
BTW don't have anything against such people, I only think it's not up to them to decide what kind of infrastructure is needed for mass cycling.
The pedestrians/dual carriageway argument is a bit thin: urban dual carriageways generally do have a pavement, albeit set well back and separated by a barrier, and rural DCs generally cover distances larger than most are prepared to walk, and are frequently circuitous routes (bypasses).
Re. the question of whether there is space: I can't speak about the whole of London, but my local CS7 is mostly a direct straight line into the centre of London (those Romans) so ideal for upgrading you might think, however for large parts of it's length there is only a single lane in either direction, and where wider, the space is used as a bus lane (these are not continuous, and suffer the same problems as cyclists trying to filter in and out of the rest of the traffic). Without demolishing buildings in Tooting, Balham and Clapham, there is not room for a full segregated cycle lane in both directions of the size you describe on anything but short stretches of CS7 and there isn't another similarly direct alternative route.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
0
-
The argument was that although pedestrians have the right to use roads, they choose to use pavements, because they are safer and more convenient then interacting with car traffic. They don't say "we don't want pavements, because this would mean we will loose our right to walk on the road":rjsterry wrote:The pedestrians/dual carriageway argument is a bit thin: urban dual carriageways generally do have a pavement, albeit set well back and separated by a barrier, and rural DCs generally cover distances larger than most are prepared to walk, and are frequently circuitous routes (bypasses).
Re. the question of whether there is space: I can't speak about the whole of London, but my local CS7 is mostly a direct straight line into the centre of London (those Romans) so ideal for upgrading you might think, however for large parts of it's length there is only a single lane in either direction, and where wider, the space is used as a bus lane (these are not continuous, and suffer the same problems as cyclists trying to filter in and out of the rest of the traffic). Without demolishing buildings in Tooting, Balham and Clapham, there is not room for a full segregated cycle lane in both directions of the size you describe on anything but short stretches of CS7 and there isn't another similarly direct alternative route.
I agree that CS7 is mostly on narrow roads. But I ask:
1) if it was supposed to be real superhighway - bicycles should get the space at the expence of cars. Make it a one way road or close it to traffic altoghether.
2) if this is not viable, perhaps a slightly different route should be made available exclusively to cyclist.
These were supposed to be superhighways - while the highway part still stands, it's not really that superb. This is the problem - make one really good superhighway instead of 12 crappy ones. Because what is the point really? Again - where were the campaigners when the plans where drafted and agreed upon? I also haven't heard them talking about blackfriars untill after the first email bombing... It's great they have called for a flashride - we need more of those - but there also needs to be clear and sane strategy.0 -
ndru wrote:
The argument was that although pedestrians have the right to use roads, they choose to use pavements, because they are safer and more convenient then interacting with car traffic. They don't say "we don't want pavements, because this would mean we will loose our right to walk on the road":rjsterry wrote:The pedestrians/dual carriageway argument is a bit thin: urban dual carriageways generally do have a pavement, albeit set well back and separated by a barrier, and rural DCs generally cover distances larger than most are prepared to walk, and are frequently circuitous routes (bypasses).
Re. the question of whether there is space: I can't speak about the whole of London, but my local CS7 is mostly a direct straight line into the centre of London (those Romans) so ideal for upgrading you might think, however for large parts of it's length there is only a single lane in either direction, and where wider, the space is used as a bus lane (these are not continuous, and suffer the same problems as cyclists trying to filter in and out of the rest of the traffic). Without demolishing buildings in Tooting, Balham and Clapham, there is not room for a full segregated cycle lane in both directions of the size you describe on anything but short stretches of CS7 and there isn't another similarly direct alternative route.
I agree that CS7 is mostly on narrow roads. But I ask:
1) if it was supposed to be real superhighway - bicycles should get the space at the expence of cars. Make it a one way road or close it to traffic altoghether.
2) if this is not viable, perhaps a slightly different route should be made available exclusively to cyclist.
These were supposed to be superhighways - while the highway part still stands, it's not really that superb. This is the problem - make one really good superhighway instead of 12 crappy ones. Because what is the point really? Again - where were the campaigners when the plans where drafted and agreed upon? I also haven't heard them talking about blackfriars untill after the first email bombing... It's great they have called for a flashride - we need more of those - but there also needs to be clear and sane strategy.
Yes, on re-reading, I do seem to have misunderstood your first point. To move on to CS7: no, it's not viable. It's a main route into London, and has been since it was called Londinium. Morden, Tooting, Balham Clapham and so on to London Bridge have developed along the route, and the road network has developed to feed into it. There aren't any other even vaguely direct routes into London from Morden (why would there need to be?), so the route needs to be shared unless those of us in zones 3-5 fancy an even longer commute.
All this infrastructure to remove the risk from a few bad drivers. Would the money not be better spent on addressing those drivers directly?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Asprilla wrote:Forcing people to use the segregated areas where there is no major benefit to them, only drawbacks, not cool.
*sigh* I never said "ban cyclists from the road" I just said there was no good reason to be there in any congested area, and I stand by that.
It's the emphasis on the vehiclular cyclist, rather than on the infrastructure for the normal person that irritates me.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
I've repeatedly stated that my only issue is with forcing cyclists onto cycle infrastructure and not giving them the option of riding on the road and it's taken you this long to realise that.
Have a :roll: to go with that sigh.Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
Sun - Cervelo R3
Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX0 -
People are and continue to voice there concerns over the plans for the superhighways. Cyclists in the city is doing a great job and analyising and breaking them down. The problem is they draft plans are released around 2 years before the routes are built. And that is the time we need to voice our concerns. Who knew about the superhighways back in 2008?ndru wrote:
The argument was that although pedestrians have the right to use roads, they choose to use pavements, because they are safer and more convenient then interacting with car traffic. They don't say "we don't want pavements, because this would mean we will loose our right to walk on the road":rjsterry wrote:The pedestrians/dual carriageway argument is a bit thin: urban dual carriageways generally do have a pavement, albeit set well back and separated by a barrier, and rural DCs generally cover distances larger than most are prepared to walk, and are frequently circuitous routes (bypasses).
Re. the question of whether there is space: I can't speak about the whole of London, but my local CS7 is mostly a direct straight line into the centre of London (those Romans) so ideal for upgrading you might think, however for large parts of it's length there is only a single lane in either direction, and where wider, the space is used as a bus lane (these are not continuous, and suffer the same problems as cyclists trying to filter in and out of the rest of the traffic). Without demolishing buildings in Tooting, Balham and Clapham, there is not room for a full segregated cycle lane in both directions of the size you describe on anything but short stretches of CS7 and there isn't another similarly direct alternative route.
I agree that CS7 is mostly on narrow roads. But I ask:
1) if it was supposed to be real superhighway - bicycles should get the space at the expence of cars. Make it a one way road or close it to traffic altoghether.
2) if this is not viable, perhaps a slightly different route should be made available exclusively to cyclist.
These were supposed to be superhighways - while the highway part still stands, it's not really that superb. This is the problem - make one really good superhighway instead of 12 crappy ones. Because what is the point really? Again - where were the campaigners when the plans where drafted and agreed upon? I also haven't heard them talking about blackfriars untill after the first email bombing... It's great they have called for a flashride - we need more of those - but there also needs to be clear and sane strategy.
I voiced my concerns about CS7 when it was being built and I got through to the project manager. We even cycled a section of the route together and we talked about potential issues. But nothing was done.
Unfortunatly there are many in TFL who are car pro and if we try to take any space away from them, they make lots of noise. So the superhighways are a compromise.
Dutch cycling facilites where not built in a day!0 -
Which makes me wonder why lcc keeps it shut about something as important as the CSs - even those being built now. If we can organise a flashride for the BFB there should defo be one for each of the crappy bits of the superhighway. The thing is for LCC the CSs might actually be really god design. I think that as soon as there is a consensus over what good design is and what is needed for mass cycling in reality the conversations with tfl and major will be much differerntgaz545 wrote:
People are and continue to voice there concerns over the plans for the superhighways. Cyclists in the city is doing a great job and analyising and breaking them down. The problem is they draft plans are released around 2 years before the routes are built. And that is the time we need to voice our concerns. Who knew about the superhighways back in 2008?ndru wrote:
The argument was that although pedestrians have the right to use roads, they choose to use pavements, because they are safer and more convenient then interacting with car traffic. They don't say "we don't want pavements, because this would mean we will loose our right to walk on the road":rjsterry wrote:The pedestrians/dual carriageway argument is a bit thin: urban dual carriageways generally do have a pavement, albeit set well back and separated by a barrier, and rural DCs generally cover distances larger than most are prepared to walk, and are frequently circuitous routes (bypasses).
Re. the question of whether there is space: I can't speak about the whole of London, but my local CS7 is mostly a direct straight line into the centre of London (those Romans) so ideal for upgrading you might think, however for large parts of it's length there is only a single lane in either direction, and where wider, the space is used as a bus lane (these are not continuous, and suffer the same problems as cyclists trying to filter in and out of the rest of the traffic). Without demolishing buildings in Tooting, Balham and Clapham, there is not room for a full segregated cycle lane in both directions of the size you describe on anything but short stretches of CS7 and there isn't another similarly direct alternative route.
I agree that CS7 is mostly on narrow roads. But I ask:
1) if it was supposed to be real superhighway - bicycles should get the space at the expence of cars. Make it a one way road or close it to traffic altoghether.
2) if this is not viable, perhaps a slightly different route should be made available exclusively to cyclist.
These were supposed to be superhighways - while the highway part still stands, it's not really that superb. This is the problem - make one really good superhighway instead of 12 crappy ones. Because what is the point really? Again - where were the campaigners when the plans where drafted and agreed upon? I also haven't heard them talking about blackfriars untill after the first email bombing... It's great they have called for a flashride - we need more of those - but there also needs to be clear and sane strategy.
I voiced my concerns about CS7 when it was being built and I got through to the project manager. We even cycled a section of the route together and we talked about potential issues. But nothing was done.
Unfortunatly there are many in TFL who are car pro and if we try to take any space away from them, they make lots of noise. So the superhighways are a compromise.
Dutch cycling facilites where not built in a day!0
