Upgrading Superhighways

ndru

It's usually difficult to get consensus between cyclist when it comes to what kind of changes we would like to see. Thus I was wondering - if there was a proposition of upgrading the Superhighways along the entire length to the standard of cable street in the widest place, would you be for or against it?

Just to give you a reference in case you have never seen Cable Street

Wrath Rob

Against. Not eniough space for each lane and Cable St has the major problem that it cuts across side turnings and drivers, especially all of the minicab's along there have enough of a problem looking up and down the road let alone the road and the cycle lane. I aplaud the concept but I think the implementation is flawed.

deptfordmarmoset

Is Cable Street supposed to be a shining example? The time before last that I was on it, a cyclist, all head-down and iPod on max, overtook me. A minute later I caught up with him - he'd managed to acquire a deep cut on his elbow and a completely trashed front wheel. I asked another cyclist coming in the opposite direction what had happened, because the guy involved was negotiating with the witnesses and the driver who'd knocked him off. The cyclist told me that he'd just carried on across a junction without looking. Evidently, he'd assumed that he had priority.

And so, equally evidently but infinitely more predictably, did the car....

Since then, there's been another post on here about a people carrier that took out a couple of cyclists, one of them pretty badly from what I remember.

We should be used to the fact that cars think they have automatic priority. Giving cyclists the impression that they also have priority, with the aid of a magic blue carpet, in the same space is only going to lead to more accidents.

rjsterry

Don't really know Cable Street, but from the photo it looks like the daft two-way segregated cycle path on Royal College St which suffers from the same problems described above.

Koncordski

It was this one

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12792216

Cable street is great for the casual midday plodder but utterly useless for commuting (surely what all this cycling malarky is aimed at encouraging?) because it's far too narrow. Overtakes are dangerous at peak times unless you've got the muscle to make it stick quickly and tuck back in. 8)

It cuts across about 6 side roads of which 5 the lane has priority and one where it doesn't and two where it has lights so there's no consistency for drivers. I have to say i sympathise with them because they really don't know where to look. To get out of the turning you have to cross the cycle lane to get visibility of the road, the cycle lane contains plodders at 6mph and commuters at 20mph coming from two directions, you have to have the patience of a saint to sit and wait for a safe gap.

The lanes should be like embankment, wide and at the same height as the road, not the footpath. Drivers treat them like bus lanes and they obviously have priority as part of the main carriageway. Outside of peak times they revert to all traffic (like most bus lanes).

Cable street appeals to boris bikers and BSO's but it utterly crap for it's intended purpose. I only use it because of the construction trucks along the highway going to canary wharf and the cement plant by the limehouse link entrance make that really hairy!

Cycle lanes serve a purpose but the sooner bikes are treated as part of normal traffic the better. Segregating us into special lanes makes drivers treat us as an annoyance to be pushed aside when we don't rigidly keep inside them. If anything they are making it acceptable to treat us as 2nd class road users.

Apologies to you non london folk, you should all get a chance to come and cycle here one day. Seeing the bikes outnumber cars at the lights is really encouraging, it seemingly goes up every day. If only we could stop RLJ'ing eh? :roll:

dhope

Looks poor, too narrow to cycle on with anyone that's not doing exactly the same pace.
It's a nice pavement mod but not for the road.

DonDaddyD

CS7 where it's wide enough to overtake is the shinning example for me.

Yes I've ridden CS8, CS3 and CS2 so er... all of them.

People forget that when I speak up the merits of CS7....

nation

Not a londoner, but that looks too narrow and I'm not a fan of designs that make it difficult to join and leave the main carriageway safely.

I mostly ignore cycle infrastructure in Brum precisely because sticking to main carriageway and especially bus lanes puts me in far fewer situations where my intentions/actions are in conflict with those of other traffic.

vorsprung

nation wrote:

Not a londoner, but that looks too narrow and I'm not a fan of designs that make it difficult to join and leave the main carriageway safely.

I mostly ignore cycle infrastructure in Brum precisely because sticking to main carriageway and especially bus lanes puts me in far fewer situations where my intentions/actions are in conflict with those of other traffic.

Same here in Taunton

Only place I've seen cycle paths that are any good in the UK is in Bristol. The Bristol -Bath and the tracks parallel to the ring road in North Bristol are fine.

rick_chasey

If you curb off the path then it's fine.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you curb off the path then it's fine.

Eh? how does that help matters? There would still be side roads cutting across it, with the question of who has priority even less clear (are the cyclists on the pavement or in the road?) and no chance of getting out of the way if needed.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you curb off the path then it's fine.

Eh? how does that help matters? There would still be side roads cutting across it, with the question of who has priority even less clear (are the cyclists on the pavement or in the road?) and no chance of getting out of the way if needed.

Little gap in the curb with a dotted line - bikes get priority.

Job done.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you curb off the path then it's fine.

Eh? how does that help matters? There would still be side roads cutting across it, with the question of who has priority even less clear (are the cyclists on the pavement or in the road?) and no chance of getting out of the way if needed.

Little gap in the curb with a dotted line - bikes get priority.

Job done.

Not thanks - no wish to be hemmed in, and the kerbs would be more dangerous to bikes than they would be protective against cars.

I have only ridden one superhighway - CS8 - and it's bloody brilliant from Chelsea bridge to (just before) Lambeth bridge. More please.

iPete

OT from the original post but how about they start by correcting the big issues, like ignoring Parliament Square on CS8!

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you curb off the path then it's fine.

Eh? how does that help matters? There would still be side roads cutting across it, with the question of who has priority even less clear (are the cyclists on the pavement or in the road?) and no chance of getting out of the way if needed.

Little gap in the curb with a dotted line - bikes get priority.

Job done.

Not thanks - no wish to be hemmed in, and the kerbs would be more dangerous to bikes than they would be protective against cars.

Eh?




How is that more dangerous?

jonginge

No room to manouevre when you've got two fecking idiots riding side by side coming the other way?

Actually, on tuesday night I encountered a couple of bo-bikers riding towards the city on the westbound stretch of CS8 on the run up to Chelsea bridge :roll:

rick_chasey

Ah you lot are a bunch of crazy vehicular cyclists.

The reason the majority don't consider cycling is because they don't have the above.

S'why it's a minority pursuit where everyone turns up to their destination sweaty and gets angry about stuff on the way.

keyser__soze

Wrath Rob wrote:

Against

WHS. Just had a big rant about CS3 on another thread. I take my chances with the artics/tippers on the dual-carriageway Highway instead as I feel it's safer!

keyser__soze

iPete wrote:

OT from the original post but how about they start by correcting the big issues, like ignoring Parliament Square on CS8!

And putting it on the right side of the river west of CB! Should've gone along the rest of the Embankment, down the NKR and on to Putney Bridge, ideally all the way to Richmond Park.

notsoblue

Keyser__Soze wrote:

iPete wrote:

OT from the original post but how about they start by correcting the big issues, like ignoring Parliament Square on CS8!

And putting it on the right side of the river west of CB! Should've gone along the rest of the Embankment, down the NKR and on to Putney Bridge, ideally all the way to Richmond Park.

+1 That would be excellent.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah you lot are a bunch of crazy vehicular cyclists.

The reason the majority don't consider cycling is because they don't have the above.

S'why it's a minority pursuit where everyone turns up to their destination sweaty and gets angry about stuff on the way.

And that's just the way I like it.

While the motorists of the Netherlands or Denmark might be au fait with giving cyclists on these segregated routes priority when they cross side roads, that isn't the case in this country. It's also, I would argue, counter-intuitive to have effectively two roads side by side, rather than adding an extra lane to an existing road (similar to a bus lane, which UK drivers are generally familiar with). Road layouts should be intuitive: if you need special rules to use them safely, then the designers have failed. That example in central London that you posted is fine, until you have to try and reintegrate with a normal road layout, and nobody knows where to go or who has priority.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah you lot are a bunch of crazy vehicular cyclists.

The reason the majority don't consider cycling is because they don't have the above.

S'why it's a minority pursuit where everyone turns up to their destination sweaty and gets angry about stuff on the way.

And that's just the way I like it.

While the motorists of the Netherlands or Denmark might be au fait with giving cyclists on these segregated routes priority when they cross side roads, that isn't the case in this country. It's also, I would argue, counter-intuitive to have effectively two roads side by side, rather than adding an extra lane to an existing road (similar to a bus lane, which UK drivers are generally familiar with). Road layouts should be intuitive: if you need special rules to use them safely, then the designers have failed. That example in central London that you posted is fine, until you have to try and reintegrate with a normal road layout, and nobody knows where to go or who has priority.

That's because the UK rules on rights-of-way are rubbish. If people don't know what the rule is, the rules are rubbish.

There needs to be a hard and fast rule to go with the infrastructure.

e.g. bike is right.

Straightforward, easy enough, promotes cycling to ease congestion.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's because the UK rules on rights-of-way are rubbish. If people don't know what the rule is, the rules are rubbish.

There needs to be a hard and fast rule to go with the infrastructure.

e.g. bike is right.

Straightforward, easy enough, promotes cycling to ease congestion.

Totally agree, but that needs to be done before making changes to the infrastructure.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah you lot are a bunch of crazy vehicular cyclists.

Its no surprise given the forum the question was asked on!

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's because the UK rules on rights-of-way are rubbish. If people don't know what the rule is, the rules are rubbish.

There needs to be a hard and fast rule to go with the infrastructure.

e.g. bike is right.

Straightforward, easy enough, promotes cycling to ease congestion.

They may be rubbish, but that's what they are. The way the change to allow m/cycles in bus lanes was introduced, but only in certain places, and then changed back in some of those places, leading to just a general (incorrect) assumption that m/cycles are allowed anywhere bar the pavement shows how problematic it is to mess around with the fundamentals of our traffic system.

Butterd2

Against for all the reasons already described. When I use Cable Street I use the road rather than the cycle path, feels much safer riding with the traffic rather than cutting across it.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah you lot are a bunch of crazy vehicular cyclists.

Its no surprise given the forum the question was asked on!

No I know, it's just it's the same lot who shout the loudest about cycling infrastructure.

What that results in is infrastructure that suits the minority vehicular cyclist with their 'wanna go as fast as possible! mentality, rather than a mentality that actually makes cycling a viable and preferable alternative transport.

I don't commute by bike now but I've commuted by bike for more of my life than not, to school, 6th form, university etc, so I feel I've got a good idea about commuting, and I've been a proper roadie since I was 16.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

...I don't commute by bike now...

Oh that really is the LIMIT!!

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah you lot are a bunch of crazy vehicular cyclists.

Its no surprise given the forum the question was asked on!

No I know, it's just it's the same lot who shout the loudest about cycling infrastructure.

What that results in is infrastructure that suits the minority vehicular cyclist with their 'wanna go as fast as possible! mentality, rather than a mentality that actually makes cycling a viable and preferable alternative transport.

I don't commute by bike now but I've commuted by bike for more of my life than not, to school, 6th form, university etc, so I feel I've got a good idea about commuting, and I've been a proper roadie since I was 16.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Cycling infrastructure is generally designed for the slower rider. Though its debatable in many cases whether or not its suitable, I don't see any evidence that it is designed for the vehicular cyclist. I'd consider myself 80% vehicular cyclist, and all I really want is a reduction in speed limit on certain roads and a general softening of the attitude that motorists have towards cyclists.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with that. Cycling infrastructure is generally designed for the slower rider. Though its debatable in many cases whether or not its suitable, I don't see any evidence that it is designed for the vehicular cyclist. I'd consider myself 80% vehicular cyclist, and all I really want is a reduction in speed limit on certain roads and a general softening of the attitude that motorists have towards cyclists.

Was my experience in Cambridge.

There were many opportunities for various places to have properly segregated paths, and I turned up to the meetings as a school/6th form representative and the planners all got shouted down by various cycling organisations and angry people who insisted that segregation wasn't the answer.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with that. Cycling infrastructure is generally designed for the slower rider. Though its debatable in many cases whether or not its suitable, I don't see any evidence that it is designed for the vehicular cyclist. I'd consider myself 80% vehicular cyclist, and all I really want is a reduction in speed limit on certain roads and a general softening of the attitude that motorists have towards cyclists.

Was my experience in Cambridge.

There were many opportunities for various places to have properly segregated paths, and I turned up to the meetings as a school/6th form representative and the planners all got shouted down by various cycling organisations and angry people who insisted that segregation wasn't the answer.

I'm basing what I've said on my experience of segregated cycle infrastructure in London being mostly unsuitable for my style of riding. I always tend to assume its designed for slower, more casual cyclists. Which is totally fine.

With regards to your experiences in Cambridge of segregated cycle lanes being shouted down by vehicular cyclists, what were they asking for instead?

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with that. Cycling infrastructure is generally designed for the slower rider. Though its debatable in many cases whether or not its suitable, I don't see any evidence that it is designed for the vehicular cyclist. I'd consider myself 80% vehicular cyclist, and all I really want is a reduction in speed limit on certain roads and a general softening of the attitude that motorists have towards cyclists.

Was my experience in Cambridge.

There were many opportunities for various places to have properly segregated paths, and I turned up to the meetings as a school/6th form representative and the planners all got shouted down by various cycling organisations and angry people who insisted that segregation wasn't the answer.

I'm basing what I've said on my experience of segregated cycle infrastructure in London being mostly unsuitable for my style of riding. I always tend to assume its designed for slower, more casual cyclists. Which is totally fine.

With regards to your experiences in Cambridge of segregated cycle lanes being shouted down by vehicular cyclists, what were they asking for instead?

They were asking for all sorts, wider roads, changing traffic light sequences. Most were asking for the money to be spent on awarness campaigns etc, and not changing it at all.

The only thing they agreed upon was NO SEGREGATION. Seriously. They were quite aggressive about it to.

For what it's worth, it's not that uncommon. I did a bit of work for the transport department of the local transport authority, helping them with the plan they submit to whitehall to set their budget for the next 4 years. They all said that taxis and horse riders get a vastly disproportionate amount of money, support and legislation in their favour because they are organised and noisy. The councils, in theory, want to do what's best for the majority, but they're tied to listening to the locals who make noise, who are, unsurprisingly, people with minority interests.