So whaddya think of Boris's new cycle revolution?

bails87

Greg, do you actually know what a mandatory cycle lane is?

meanredspider

rjsterry wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I have two major problems with the Westway plan.
1: I think it will be BLOODY windy up there. Probably all of the time.

Good points. I've ridden over one of the flyovers down near the Excel, which was both steep and windswept: not fun, and I normally like hills.

You great southern softies! :roll:

Turn left - next stop: Norway.

BTW - the route that gets you from where this picture is taken to the bridge deck averages 10%

keyser__soze

I just hope they talk to the whole spectrum of cyclists about their concerns. Unlike vehicular traffic where everything but the most underpowered lawnmower-engined moped with two opera singers on it can easily hold the speed limit, the cruising speed of cyclists along stretches of the Embankment varies between 6mph and 26mph. Unless this speed differential is taken into account and the cycle lanes are wide enough for two or three cyclists side-by-side each way then it could be problematic. CS8 is wide enough in a few places, but CS3 certainly isn't and the number of near misses I see from people trying to overtake without room and nearly having a head-on collision is scary considering I rarely take the route. The west-east route isn't a quiet way or a green way, it's the cycling equivalent of a motorway used by thousands of commuting cyclists who need to get somewhere in a reasonable amount of time, and the design should reflect both current and future proposed use.

I also worry about how peds will be kept out of the lanes. It's not too bad when there's a constant stream of cyclists but outside of rush hour I'd foresee a lack of attention paid by peds when crossing the lane, especially in summer when that section of pavement is rammed with tourists.

Hopefully TFL will also put a dedicated lane in down Chelsea Embankment westbound after CS8 turns off. The pavement is already shared use and plenty wide enough for a smooth two-rider-width cycle lane to be put in between Chelsea and Battersea bridges, using the road where necessary but taking cyclists under the Albert Bridge underpass. That section of road is invariably snarled up in the evenings and there's often lots of dangerous driving around the Albert Bridge junction.

Greg66, I noticed that too, madness.

cookeeemonster

bails87 wrote:

Greg66, do you actually know what a mandatory cycle lane is?

for anyone who doean't know, 'mandatory cycle lane' simply means that non cycles ie. cars cannot use it - and not that cyclists have to use it

Boris did make this clear in his press conference and document to be fair, and he even mentioned not wanting to slow down faster cyclists who want to use the road

anonymousblackfg

I think it's great news, as being someone who would love to see a dedicated lane for cyclists to maintain 40kph and obtain full acceptance and respect of motorists, I realise not everyone can have exactly what they want.

At the moment we have one borough in London where more people cycle to work that go by car, tip that balance a bit further by starting to provide better infrastructure and cement cyclists as a group who should not be marginalised and we will see another wave of growth.

Is the solution perfect, no, is it a mssive step in the right direction, yes.

Appart from the nutter from the LTDA on the news I thought the TV reporting was pretty poor, seemed to focuss on the funding gap with little grasp of the issues. It did annoy me that their reporting from the streets was from one of the only three segregated cycle lanes in central London, thus giving the impression this was the norm!

cookeeemonster

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Hopefully TFL will also put a dedicated lane in down Chelsea Embankment westbound after CS8 turns off. The pavement is already shared use and plenty wide enough for a smooth two-rider-width cycle lane to be put in between Chelsea and Battersea bridges, using the road where necessary but taking cyclists under the Albert Bridge underpass. That section of road is invariably snarled up in the evenings and there's often lots of dangerous driving around the Albert Bridge junction.

That's be good!! I use that pavement most days now as soon as the traffic snarls up. It's bloody bumpy and it'd be great to have a nice bit of smooth tarmac to ride on...but not sure how they'd do it with all the trees currently there. Ther've made space on the Victoria Embankment by taking away a car lane, I can't see them doing the same here and so they'd have to take away pedestrian space instead and remove some of the benches and other street furniture...but it would still be too narrow at certain points...

greg66_tri_v2.0

CookeeeMonster wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Greg66, do you actually know what a mandatory cycle lane is?

for anyone who doean't know, 'mandatory cycle lane' simply means that non cycles ie. cars cannot use it - and not that cyclists have to use it

Boris did make this clear in his press conference and document to be fair, and he even mentioned not wanting to slow down faster cyclists who want to use the road

Ah - that's better than I had supposed then. A reader might have concluded that a mandatory cycle lane was a cycle lane that was, well, mandatory. For cyclists.

However, if there are physically segregated cycle lanes, I would expect motorists to be rather less sympathetic to cyclists who chose to ride in (for want of a better expression) the car lane than they are now.

keyser__soze

Were it up to me I'd have a mandatory (as above) cycle lane up to just before the junction with Royal Hospital Road, where there'd be a straight-on slight ramp up onto the pavement (so you could take it at a reasonable speed without having to turn) just before the lights. Could be either a dedicated cycle track down the pavement or just shared as now, so long as it was smoothed out. Under Albert Bridge underpass, then back on to the road (pavement bit built out and a ramp down so no turning required and cars kept over to the right) somewhere before Battersea Bridge depending on trees. May have to move a lamp or two but pretty easy way of making Albert Bridge junction a lot quicker and safer for cyclists to negotiate without having to jump back onto the road. The road either side of the junction is plenty wide enough for a mandatory cycle lane. It's ridiculous there's no proper cycle lane all the way to the NKR junction - CS8 should've gone that way and then on to Putney Bridge given how many people head that way.

pete_s

EKE_38BPM wrote:

pete_s wrote:

...The proof is in the pudding of course...

NO! The proof isn't in the pudding. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Get it right.

Indeed, and there were plenty of pictures showing how good that pudding can be.

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I get the bad feeling that this proposed new infrastructure won't go ahead as advertised and even if it does, it won't help anyone going North/South.

Not yet it doesn't but you have to understand that this is a major development and a completely new way of thinking about how a bike can be used in a utilitarian way. Rome wasn't built in a day.

It's easy to be cynical but we have to remember that Boris hasn't said, "Lets replicate what they have in Germany" or "We should do it like they do in Sweden" (the easy options). He's gone right for the Gold Standard in cycle infrastructure.

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Ignorant motorised road users will have an even bigger sense of entitlement about their exclusive use of the road. "Get out of my way and onto your £1billion piece of infrastructure that you don't pay road tax for!"

Just as King Cnut couldn't stop the tide you can't stop people being cnuts. You've got to weigh up the options:
1/ Have good infrastructure that enables a mass of people to use a cheap and sustainable mode of transport, or
2/ Have barely any infrastructure at all with people getting injured or dieing, exclude women, children, old people and the disabled from cycling just so you can ride your bike without a motorist getting so irate with you.

I know what I'd have.

EKE_38BPM wrote:

As others have said, commuting from the suburbs will hardly change, most of the journey would still rely on vehicular cycling until you reach some sort of innercity cycle-friendly nirvana where you are stuck behind nonlycra louts, pootling along at a snail's pace and weaving all over the segregated lane in such an erratic manner that it is hard to pass them safely.

As well as the main bit of infrastructure running through the city the plan has also asked for three boroughs to become 'mini-Hollands'. I take this to mean: "these places are going to experiment with infrastructure which will then role out across London if it's successful. Good practice will be enshrined in a TfL standard and then fed up the chain to a national level".

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I have two major problems with the Westway plan.
1: I think it will be BLOODY windy up there. Probably all of the time.
2: Its going to be some climb to get up there. Underpasses and flyovers have been designed for motorised transport and the vertical angles are pretty steep. I would like to see a comparison between the gradient onto The Westway with other notable London hills. Coming down will be great fun but getting up there in the first place will be hard work.

Legitimate and non-knee jerking points. You should submit them when feedback on the plan opens.

EKE_38BPM wrote:

For all of my naysaying, I look forward to seeing what actually happens and I was much more optimistic about it when I saw Lord Chris Boardman of Veloshire on the news. He knows what he's talking about and calls a spade a spade.

Hell yeah. If we don't at least try this we can either go backwards or stay the same. Both of these options are set to doom bicycle use in the UK for another 60 years.

EKE_38BPM

Infrastructure is a good thing, where it is in place but it doesn't help cyclists where that infrastructure isn't. I would like a chunk of money to be thrown at improving driver training as that would improve the lives of cyclists everywhere.
I was talking to a colleague about the new proposals yesterday (before we actually knew what the proposals were) and he had what I think is a brilliant idea for the near future onwards:
Every new driver should have to pass Bikeability 1 & 2 before they can get their driving licence.
Bikeability 1 teaches bike handling skills (shoulder checks and how to signal without wobbling) and 2 teaches road positioning, how junctions work, priority etc. as well as actually taking the trainees out on real roads to experience real world situations.
If future drivers learn how traffic works and what road users need from each other, everybody benefits, not just those cycling long the Racetrack.

This would also mean more work for me. Win-win I'd say!

jamesco

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I would like a chunk of money to be thrown at improving driver training as that would improve the lives of cyclists everywhere.

Sod driver training. There's no training needed to know that deliberately trying to left-hook a cyclist going straight - which a black cab driver once did to me - is not on. Also, if it only applies to "new" drivers then it'll take half a century for the minimal difference to filter through, and by then we'll all be in driverless cars, anyway

What'll change attitudes is enforcing the rules. I'd love it if there were traffic cops on bikes everywhere as they'd have the self-interest to know the rules (no vehicles in the ASLs, for instance) and enforce them.

meanredspider

There'd be something to be said for "plain clothes" coppers on bikes. Might makes drivers and RLJers think twice.

No hope up here though. Rare to get a twunt but every now and then there's one. Usual story, 10 metres past a passing spot giving me 6" of the road then gets upset when I hold my ground. The guy yesterday sounded his horn then stopped a safe distance away to shout abuse. He soon scarpered though when I jumped off my bike and started marching towards him shouting "Oi, come 'ere!"

pete_s

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Infrastructure is a good thing, where it is in place but it doesn't help cyclists where that infrastructure isn't. I would like a chunk of money to be thrown at improving driver training as that would improve the lives of cyclists everywhere.
I was talking to a colleague about the new proposals yesterday (before we actually knew what the proposals were) and he had what I think is a brilliant idea for the near future onwards:
Every new driver should have to pass Bikeability 1 & 2 before they can get their driving licence.
Bikeability 1 teaches bike handling skills (shoulder checks and how to signal without wobbling) and 2 teaches road positioning, how junctions work, priority etc. as well as actually taking the trainees out on real roads to experience real world situations.
If future drivers learn how traffic works and what road users need from each other, everybody benefits, not just those cycling long the Racetrack.

This would also mean more work for me. Win-win I'd say!

Have you ever heard of poka-yoke? In my line of work it's something I'm well aware of and we try to push it back to design engineers as much as possible. In my experience they have the same attitude as you do. "You should just train your staff to do it right" they say when something gets built wrong. We can keep on training people until we're blue in the face, but people are not infallible. Lets design the environment so it can't go wrong instead of hoping that the people using it don't get it wrong.

airbag

pete_s wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Infrastructure is a good thing, where it is in place but it doesn't help cyclists where that infrastructure isn't. I would like a chunk of money to be thrown at improving driver training as that would improve the lives of cyclists everywhere.
I was talking to a colleague about the new proposals yesterday (before we actually knew what the proposals were) and he had what I think is a brilliant idea for the near future onwards:
Every new driver should have to pass Bikeability 1 & 2 before they can get their driving licence.
Bikeability 1 teaches bike handling skills (shoulder checks and how to signal without wobbling) and 2 teaches road positioning, how junctions work, priority etc. as well as actually taking the trainees out on real roads to experience real world situations.
If future drivers learn how traffic works and what road users need from each other, everybody benefits, not just those cycling long the Racetrack.

This would also mean more work for me. Win-win I'd say!

Have you ever heard of poka-yoke? In my line of work it's something I'm well aware of and we try to push it back to design engineers as much as possible. In my experience they have the same attitude as you do. "You should just train your staff to do it right" they say when something gets built wrong. We can keep on training people until we're blue in the face, but people are not infallible. Lets design the environment so it can't go wrong instead of hoping that the people using it don't get it wrong.

I've not heard of poka-yoke, but thanks for that . If there's one thing I've learnt from h&s type courses (and it probably is just one thing - okay, maybe two things), it's that it's generally better to overestimate human stupidity than underestimate. You'll probably fail at the former anyway.

The best solution would be sufficient effort from the state at all levels for drivers and cyclists to get along - but that's probably a case of the best being the enemy of the good. There is a lot to be said for a far bigger roll-out of bikeability though - at a minimum, it should be an option in all schools. "Enforcing standards" doesn't have to be done by police. Hell, even if it had no direct effect on cycling at all, it would likely improve driving standards since people tend to learn better when they're young, and a fair amount of bikeability crosses over into driving skills.

rjsterry

pete_s wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Infrastructure is a good thing, where it is in place but it doesn't help cyclists where that infrastructure isn't. I would like a chunk of money to be thrown at improving driver training as that would improve the lives of cyclists everywhere.
I was talking to a colleague about the new proposals yesterday (before we actually knew what the proposals were) and he had what I think is a brilliant idea for the near future onwards:
Every new driver should have to pass Bikeability 1 & 2 before they can get their driving licence.
Bikeability 1 teaches bike handling skills (shoulder checks and how to signal without wobbling) and 2 teaches road positioning, how junctions work, priority etc. as well as actually taking the trainees out on real roads to experience real world situations.
If future drivers learn how traffic works and what road users need from each other, everybody benefits, not just those cycling long the Racetrack.

This would also mean more work for me. Win-win I'd say!

Have you ever heard of poka-yoke? In my line of work it's something I'm well aware of and we try to push it back to design engineers as much as possible. In my experience they have the same attitude as you do. "You should just train your staff to do it right" they say when something gets built wrong. We can keep on training people until we're blue in the face, but people are not infallible. Lets design the environment so it can't go wrong instead of hoping that the people using it don't get it wrong.

While it's optimistic to think that training alone will solve this, thinking you can design the perfect safe cycle infrastructure is just as misguided. People can subvert any amount of safety features, either deliberately or unintentionally. Both aspects are needed, in equal measure.

hubgearfan

I want cycling to be normal, a part of everyday life. I want it to be something you feel comfortable
doing in your ordinary clothes, something you hardly think about. I want more women cycling, more
older people cycling, more black and minority ethnic Londoners cycling, more cyclists of all social
backgrounds – without which truly mass participation can never come.
As well as the admirable Lycra-wearers, and the enviable east Londoners on their fixed-gear bikes, I
want more of the kind of cyclists you see in Holland, going at a leisurely pace on often clunky steeds.
I will do all this by creating a variety of routes for the variety of cyclists I seek.

sounds good, even tho I don't live there

roger_merriman

On the whole seem good, be interested to see how one joins these cycle lanes, such as from Parliament square. the joining up of these lanes is always the key.

realistically I live and work in the very edge of London so I only pass though central at quieter times, where the numbers of cyclists are low so, plenty of room on the CS8 (embankment) for my uses.

wandsworth

rjsterry wrote:

This jumped out at me, and has always struck me as one of the problems with segregated lanes on major routes.

With the proviso that nothing must reduce cyclists’ right to use any road, we favour segregation. Most main roads in London are, however, also bus routes, with frequent bus stops and a far denser service than in, say, Amsterdam. The cycle lane would have to go between the bus and the pavement. Everybody getting off or on a bus would step straight into the lane, risking being hit by a cyclist

Anyone who occasionally rides up Royal College Street can see what the problem is, and that is a relatively quiet road with a handful of bus routes. Can't see a way around this.

Similar with the cycle lane on Wandsworth Bridge going southbound. Can be really dangerous.

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Were it up to me I'd have a mandatory (as above) cycle lane up to just before the junction with Royal Hospital Road, where there'd be a straight-on slight ramp up onto the pavement (so you could take it at a reasonable speed without having to turn) just before the lights. Could be either a dedicated cycle track down the pavement or just shared as now, so long as it was smoothed out. Under Albert Bridge underpass, then back on to the road (pavement bit built out and a ramp down so no turning required and cars kept over to the right) somewhere before Battersea Bridge depending on trees. May have to move a lamp or two but pretty easy way of making Albert Bridge junction a lot quicker and safer for cyclists to negotiate without having to jump back onto the road. The road either side of the junction is plenty wide enough for a mandatory cycle lane. It's ridiculous there's no proper cycle lane all the way to the NKR junction - CS8 should've gone that way and then on to Putney Bridge given how many people head that way.

+1. That ought to be pretty easy to do. Smooth out the pavement and put a ramp to get you back on the road.

wandsworth

pete_s wrote:

Those are the scariest photos I've seen in a long time. Tell me they're photoshopped ...

meanredspider

wandsworth wrote:

Those are the scariest photos I've seen in a long time. Tell me they're photoshopped ...

Um - yes

Specsavers?

pete_s

rjsterry wrote:

While it's optimistic to think that training alone will solve this, thinking you can design the perfect safe cycle infrastructure is just as misguided. People can subvert any amount of safety features, either deliberately or unintentionally. Both aspects are needed, in equal measure.

That is absolutely true. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to minimise the risks as much as we possibly can. This is done with infrastructure that protects its users.

wandsworth wrote:

Those are the scariest photos I've seen in a long time. Tell me they're photoshopped ...

Heh, yeh. They're good aren't they? They're from a blog post titled Dutch scenes in a British context. The author was making a point that our current system of bike infrastructure only caters to a select few.

The fact you think they're scary goes to show that no amount of bikeability training will ever work. It may teach children best practice for negotiating roads, but would you ever let your kids out in a dual carriage way? Why not? They've been trained and they're wearing helmets.

EKE_38BPM

pete_s wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

While it's optimistic to think that training alone will solve this, thinking you can design the perfect safe cycle infrastructure is just as misguided. People can subvert any amount of safety features, either deliberately or unintentionally. Both aspects are needed, in equal measure.

That is absolutely true. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to minimise the risks as much as we possibly can. This is done with infrastructure that protects its users.

wandsworth wrote:

Those are the scariest photos I've seen in a long time. Tell me they're photoshopped ...

Heh, yeh. They're good aren't they? They're from a blog post titled Dutch scenes in a British context. The author was making a point that our current system of bike infrastructure only caters to a select few.

The fact you think they're scary goes to show that no amount of bikeability training will ever work. It may teach children best practice for negotiating roads, but would you ever let your kids out in a dual carriage way? Why not? They've been trained and they're wearing helmets.

Funny you should mention that. On Thursday, my colleague and I took a group of six kids who were doing their Bikeability Level 2 onto the cycle path on the A12 Eastern Avenue (50 mph dual carriageway). Not a shared path on the pavement, on the dual carriageway itself.

pete_s

Realistically, what are the chances of them ever doing that on their own? Not with a friend or a family member. Just on their own because they need to get somewhere.

EKE_38BPM

pete_s wrote:

Realistically, what are the chances of them ever doing that on their own? Not with a friend or a family member. Just on their own because they need to get somewhere.

We tell the kids that they have been trained to ride safely on their quiet local residential roads, but the dual carriageway is less than 200m from their school so I wouldn't be surprised if some if the more confident trainees gave it a go, even though we've told them that they shouldn't and their parents probably say the same.
What kid always does what they are told? If you assume they are going to push the boundaries, it is better that they have been trained.

bails87

There's a difference between being anti-training and being anti-"training is the only answer".

Nothing wrong with training, but just this morning I had a road side chat with a "professional driver" (his words) who didn't think the highway code said anything about overtaking through junctions, and that I should have been out of the way.

If we changed the highway code 90% of drivers wouldn't ever read if, if we changed the test then in 50 years time there'd still be loads of drivers who'd done the old test. If you seperate cyclists and motor vehicles then all that becomes moot.

rjsterry

pete_s wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

While it's optimistic to think that training alone will solve this, thinking you can design the perfect safe cycle infrastructure is just as misguided. People can subvert any amount of safety features, either deliberately or unintentionally. Both aspects are needed, in equal measure.

That is absolutely true. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to minimise the risks as much as we possibly can. This is done with infrastructure that protects its users.

Often, risk management is very counter intuitive. Take railings around pedestrian crossings. The idea was that people crossing over a wide area and at different times is more dangerous than everyone crossing at one point and at one time when traffic us held at a light, so you put in railings to restrict access to the road. Trouble is both peds and vehicles start to just look at the lights and not the road, traffic speeds increase and when someone does step out in front of a vehicle they get knocked down the road. Plus they provide a convenient immovable object to squash cyclists against. Now railings are being taken out.

cookeeemonster

rjsterry wrote:

pete_s wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

While it's optimistic to think that training alone will solve this, thinking you can design the perfect safe cycle infrastructure is just as misguided. People can subvert any amount of safety features, either deliberately or unintentionally. Both aspects are needed, in equal measure.

That is absolutely true. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to minimise the risks as much as we possibly can. This is done with infrastructure that protects its users.

Often, risk management is very counter intuitive. Take railings around pedestrian crossings. The idea was that people crossing over a wide area and at different times is more dangerous than everyone crossing at one point and at one time when traffic us held at a light, so you put in railings to restrict access to the road. Trouble is both peds and vehicles start to just look at the lights and not the road, traffic speeds increase and when someone does step out in front of a vehicle they get knocked down the road. Plus they provide a convenient immovable object to squash cyclists against. Now railings are being taken out.

Ok so the point is - cycle infrastructure has been provided around the world from Amsterdam to now New York and guess what? It works, it actually works.

People aren't suggesting infrastructure because they've run out of guesses...it just freaking works!!