Is It Just Me That Thinks This Cycle Highway Is A Joke?

[Kermit power]

ZX10R NIN said:

Kermit power said:

I wouldn't argue with your statistics, but speaking anecdotaly, I suspect that this new cycle route - if it slows motorbikes down - is possibly the best thing you could do to improve the safety of motorcyclists in Central London.

I've been commuting fairly regularly into Central London by pushbike for the last three years. In that time, I've seen 5 other cyclists in accidents and 3 motorcyclists.

Three of the cyclists were taken down by motorists turning left across them, actually all in the same place - Clapham Common Southside turning onto Rookery Row - and the other two were caused by other cyclists not looking and pulling out into them.

The motorcyclists, on the other hand, all went down the same way. They floored it (or whatever the equivalent for motorcyclists is! ) when they got a bit of space, only for a motorist to pull out of a side road into them because they've completely underestimated their speed.

Fortunately, none of the people I've seen come off were seriously injured, but one thing was pretty clear. The best way to help cyclists would've been complete segregation, but the best way to help motorcyclists could be perfectly helped by just slowing them down a bit.

Quick acceleration doesn't mean your speeding also I was taken out on a clear piece of road, this is always the common perception that all motorcyclists are speeding.

I was also taken out by a cyclist jumping a red light so does that make it my fault?

Where did I say that quick acceleration meant speeding? In some cases it does, whilst in others it doesn't. Either way, it tends to surprise motorists in Central London traffic, because they have a tendency to expect other traffic to be moving at their snail's pace, so tend to misjudge the speed of vehicles which are capable of moving faster than them.

Cyclists get it frequently too, because even though we're not moving as fast as a motorbike can, we're still moving much faster than the average witless buffoon expects a cyclist to move, so out they come regardless.

My proposal is that if this Superhighway slows motorcyclists down, it will probably improve their safety. If my assumption is correct, then I would assume you would support the Superhighway? After all, you're not complaining about it because it will slow you down, you're complaining about it because you think it will make you less safe, and I don't believe it will.

[pembo]

thelawnet said:

ZX10R NIN said:

CYCLISTS AREN'T THE MOST VULNERABLE ROAD USER MOTOR CYCLISTS ARE

Depends on your definition of vulnerable

In this case I would guess vulnerable = self obsessed.

As both a cyclist and motorcyclist, and having occasionally ridden both in London, I would say that in both instances there is a level of self preservation required. If you ride/cycle into a dangerous position you are taking your own risks, it is not completely necessary and if you don't feel comfortable with where you are putting yourself get out of there. It isn't a race, think about it and keep out of trouble.

Both bicycles and motorbikes have their own advantages for keeping themselves safe in a city centre environment. Motorbikes produce a decent sound to alert drivers of their presence with an ability to call on a decent turn of speed if they want to get away from a sticky situation. Bicycles have much more agility and should have an even more vivid sense of what's going on around them (unless the idiot is wearing headphones) so if it looks like it's getting a bit hairy they can get off the bike, pick it up and move to safety if needs be.

Other motorists need to start paying more attention but with a little bit of thought there is no reason that it shouldn't be safe to share our roads.

[ZX10R NIN]

Kermit power said:

Where did I say that quick acceleration meant speeding? In some cases it does, whilst in others it doesn't. Either way, it tends to surprise motorists in Central London traffic, because they have a tendency to expect other traffic to be moving at their snail's pace, so tend to misjudge the speed of vehicles which are capable of moving faster than them.

Cyclists get it frequently too, because even though we're not moving as fast as a motorbike can, we're still moving much faster than the average witless buffoon expects a cyclist to move, so out they come regardless.

My proposal is that if this Superhighway slows motorcyclists down, it will probably improve their safety. If my assumption is correct, then I would assume you would support the Superhighway? After all, you're not complaining about it because it will slow you down, you're complaining about it because you think it will make you less safe, and I don't believe it will.

Motorcyclists speed isn't an issue with most of the accidents in London, motorists that are frustrated sitting in traffic from badly thought out roadways & junctions means that they aren't taking as much care as they should & by removing a lane from them isn't going to help in fact I think it'll make it worse.

As I've said integration is the key to making ALL traffic flow through London, traffic that's moving normally means that people aren't diving for gaps (you will always get a minority of bad riding/driving) but you lessen this when traffics flowing, the cycle lane doesn't help this.

As a road user all of us should be taking the road planners to task & making them make roads that better reflect today's traffic conditions. All Boris has managed by doing this is play the best game of divide & conquer I've seen in a while.

[Type R Tom]

As we've seen today, London is getting bigger. We simply have to remove the reliance on motor vehicles and get people onto bikes. Most people feel that cycling on major roads is dangerous, hence the need for segregation as cyclists feel safer.

We have a limited amount of space; a decision needs to be made on whom to priorities, not just from collision statistics but future expansion too. If we want to keep London moving we need people on bikes, improving the infrastructure, possibly at the detriment of other modes, is unfortunately what is required.

[upsidedownmark]

ZX10R.. I think you must be in an alternate universe - to me at least! (as one who has spent 5 years commuting into london on a motorbike, and has a sportsbike for fun & trackdays).

I also think you're confusing vulnerability with accident rate. Simply looking at the number of deaths is not relevant: I'm pretty sure that more people are killed in cars than on motorbikes - does that make the car driver more vulnerable? No. More numerous - yes. For a worthwhile comparison you need to normalise against miles covered, or some similar measure. Personally I'd be fairly confident that would immediately redress the balance.

I would also suggest that speed is very much an aggravating factor in a large proportion of commuting motorbike accidents - whether speeding or not. Generally we ride centre lane, or filtering. Where do our threats come from? Side roads, SMIDSY U-turns, and so on. Generally everyone who's tried to / nearly taken me out has done so from my field of vision - classic examples: Car out of side road. Car turns left across bus lane.

In all those cases I have had the opportunity to assess what might happen and make my decisions accordingly, to control my environment. Frankly, if I'd been a bit less 'assertive' about making progress, it wouldn't have been close. Yes I had right of way, etc, but backing off a bit would have saved a few skidmarks. Sure it's legal for me to do 30 down a bus lane inside stationary traffic approaching a junction. Is it smart? Probably not. I also regularly see people riding a heap more aggressively and faster than I think sensible. Fair enough, you make those decisions and accept the consequences, but don't bleat about being vulnerable when it goes wrong - it's a big bad world out there, you have to assume other people make mistakes, and give them room to do so, otherwise you're not going to last long.

I also ride a (pedal) bike, though not in the city / commuting. There pretty much all my threats come from behind, mainly close / inappropriate passes, and impatience. There's little I can do about that; I can't control that environment. To me, *that* is vulnerability.

Personally I'd rather not see a proliferation of bike lanes - mainly because they're mostly unsuitable for bikes, but that's another matter. There are just too many vehicles (of all types) with too many egos trying to fit through too small a space.. unfortunately it's already been proven that adding more road space does not ease the problem - there is no easy answer, but IMHO you're banging your head on the wrong wall.

[Type R Tom]

Here are the figures for 2013, it's too early for a final set for 2014, normally ready in April

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/cas...

This is interesting too, motor cyclists don't help themselves:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/ppr...

Edited by Type R Tom on Monday 2nd February 14:43

[v12Legs]

I think this is long overdue.

There must be a great number of people who would like to cycle but don't feel able to due to the current hostile road network.

IMO segregated infrastructure is a necessary precondition for mass cycling. And mass cycling will be good for everyone, even the people who decide not to cycle.

And are people still seriously going on about "road tax"? How many times must road funding structure be explained?

[Kermit power]

v12Legs said:

I think this is long overdue.

There must be a great number of people who would like to cycle but don't feel able to due to the current hostile road network.

IMO segregated infrastructure is a necessary precondition for mass cycling. And mass cycling will be good for everyone, even the people who decide not to cycle.

And are people still seriously going on about "road tax"? How many times must road funding structure be explained?

I'm actually slightly concerned about the whole idea of segregated cycling.

My ride in is 15 miles each way, with most of the second half of it being CS7 from Colliers Wood to the Elephant. At present, I can do it in a shade over an hour, but the only reason for this is that the bus lanes are wide enough to have (and frequently do have) 4 or even 5 cyclists riding abreast, all overtaking those inside them.

I don't see that there is any way in which you could segregate that route and keep the same width available to cyclists, so the added volumes of people looking to take advantage of the newly segregated safety would, I fear, slow the experience down so much that I'd be forced back onto the train to get into the office quickly enough. Bear in mind that even with today's "dangerous" unsegregated route, there will frequently be 30 or 40 cyclists per set of traffic lights once you get past Clapham on a nice morning.

[v12Legs]

Kermit power said:

v12Legs said:

I think this is long overdue.

There must be a great number of people who would like to cycle but don't feel able to due to the current hostile road network.

IMO segregated infrastructure is a necessary precondition for mass cycling. And mass cycling will be good for everyone, even the people who decide not to cycle.

And are people still seriously going on about "road tax"? How many times must road funding structure be explained?

I'm actually slightly concerned about the whole idea of segregated cycling.

My ride in is 15 miles each way, with most of the second half of it being CS7 from Colliers Wood to the Elephant. At present, I can do it in a shade over an hour, but the only reason for this is that the bus lanes are wide enough to have (and frequently do have) 4 or even 5 cyclists riding abreast, all overtaking those inside them.

I don't see that there is any way in which you could segregate that route and keep the same width available to cyclists, so the added volumes of people looking to take advantage of the newly segregated safety would, I fear, slow the experience down so much that I'd be forced back onto the train to get into the office quickly enough. Bear in mind that even with today's "dangerous" unsegregated route, there will frequently be 30 or 40 cyclists per set of traffic lights once you get past Clapham on a nice morning.

I'd gladly add a few minutes on to my time if it meant that many more people could cycle who currently have that choice taken away from them.

Realistically, most of the things that slow me down are having to filter through traffic, and a couple of lights that could easily be reconfigured with an extra cycle-only green phase, so for me, segregation would make my journey quicker.

I think you are probably mistaken that the new routes will slow you down, but hard to say for sure at this stage.

[walm]

Kermit power said:

I don't see that there is any way in which you could segregate that route and keep the same width available to cyclists.

Turn the bus lane into a cycle (only) lane and stick a kerb between it and the other lanes??
Seems remarkably simple to me.
But as the OP has pointed out, there is an outside chance that such a change would have a knock on effect to the remaining traffic.

[Kell]

I think there are a few ways of looking at this.

The first is to think that a cycle lane through London is there purely for cyclists. It will, as you rightly say, impact other people. However, where you think cutting a lane will slow people down and make things worse, I disagree. At least in the long-term.

If there's too much traffic in a city, there are only a couple of ways to make a difference. One is to build more roads and devote more space to motorists. The other is to make it harder and harder for motorists to navigate the city and they will, in time, stop trying to drive into the centre of town.

I do feel sorry for professional drivers (deliveries, taxis etc) as it impacts on the way they earn a living, but when a city becomes too congested the only sensible answer is to reduce traffic, not provide more space for it. Most cars I see only have one person in them, and I'm pretty sure that not all journeys are essential.

That said, you do raise some vaild points. I do think a lot of cyclists would do well to remember the difference between being right, and being dead. I've been commuting in and about London by cycle for around 18 years and the biggest difference to my accident rate was to stop insisting on being right all the time and start being safe. That said, we shouldn't have to ride like that, but it does make sense.

The biggest difference between motorbikes and pushbikes is speed. That's both an advantage and disadvantage for both sides.

On the plus side, the lower speed of pushbikes means that if a car pulls out on us from a side road, and we plough into the side of it, then most often, the speed involved is low enough that it's not likely to kill us. On the flipside, the same accident involving a motorbike means that you may very well die in it.

On the downside of pushbikes, our lower speed means that other drivers often see us as holding them up (whether that's actually true or not) because very few cyclists can keep up with 30mph traffic. A motorbike can keep up with the flow, so if you're in the middle of the lane, you don't get people trying to squeeze past and turn left on you.

This would seem to be born out by the numbers linked to in the post above. A similar total number of motorbikes and pushbikes were involved in collisions, but 14 cyclists died while 22 motorcyclists did.

It would appear, that most vulnerable of all road users are pedestrians - are you suggesting they'd be better off if they were integrated into the traffic flow too?

[Type R Tom]

Kermit power said:

I'm actually slightly concerned about the whole idea of segregated cycling.

My ride in is 15 miles each way, with most of the second half of it being CS7 from Colliers Wood to the Elephant. At present, I can do it in a shade over an hour, but the only reason for this is that the bus lanes are wide enough to have (and frequently do have) 4 or even 5 cyclists riding abreast, all overtaking those inside them.

I don't see that there is any way in which you could segregate that route and keep the same width available to cyclists, so the added volumes of people looking to take advantage of the newly segregated safety would, I fear, slow the experience down so much that I'd be forced back onto the train to get into the office quickly enough. Bear in mind that even with today's "dangerous" unsegregated route, there will frequently be 30 or 40 cyclists per set of traffic lights once you get past Clapham on a nice morning.

There is a chance the segregation will slow the “hard core” cyclists down, potentially forcing them into lanes that are now narrower (potentially more conflict) but keeping in mind that the majority of collisions happen at junctions I think the fast riders will re-join the traffic lane on long stretches but use the segregated facilities to negotiate junctions.

Unfortunately the lycra mobs will have to accept some inconvenience to allow for facilities that will encourage the middle age women on a sit up and beg.

[Kermit power]

walm said:

Kermit power said:

I don't see that there is any way in which you could segregate that route and keep the same width available to cyclists.

Turn the bus lane into a cycle (only) lane and stick a kerb between it and the other lanes??
Seems remarkably simple to me.
But as the OP has pointed out, there is an outside chance that such a change would have a knock on effect to the remaining traffic.

Do that, though, and every other form of traffic would grind to a halt because of buses stopping in the main traffic flow.

[il sole]

Kermit power said:

v12Legs said:

I think this is long overdue.

There must be a great number of people who would like to cycle but don't feel able to due to the current hostile road network.

IMO segregated infrastructure is a necessary precondition for mass cycling. And mass cycling will be good for everyone, even the people who decide not to cycle.

And are people still seriously going on about "road tax"? How many times must road funding structure be explained?

I'm actually slightly concerned about the whole idea of segregated cycling.

My ride in is 15 miles each way, with most of the second half of it being CS7 from Colliers Wood to the Elephant. At present, I can do it in a shade over an hour, but the only reason for this is that the bus lanes are wide enough to have (and frequently do have) 4 or even 5 cyclists riding abreast, all overtaking those inside them.

I don't see that there is any way in which you could segregate that route and keep the same width available to cyclists, so the added volumes of people looking to take advantage of the newly segregated safety would, I fear, slow the experience down so much that I'd be forced back onto the train to get into the office quickly enough. Bear in mind that even with today's "dangerous" unsegregated route, there will frequently be 30 or 40 cyclists per set of traffic lights once you get past Clapham on a nice morning.

Just joining the debate from outside london. Would a better idea be to use some of the existing road space? I have never cycled in london, nor would I want to, but it is scary for us outside london to see the high number of cyclists when driving in the city (I commute daily by bike but also drive a lot for work). Perhaps on a 2 lane carriageway, at peak times an entire lane could be reserved for bikes? They do the same for buses and taxis on the M4 from heathrow and i've seen similar in Bristol where one lane is reserved for cars with more than one occupant. that way more people could be encouraged to commute by bike??

[walm]

Kermit power said:

Do that, though, and every other form of traffic would grind to a halt because of buses stopping in the main traffic flow.

Absolutely. Not sure that Boris would care.

[Kermit power]

Type R Tom said:

There is a chance the segregation will slow the “hard core” cyclists down, potentially forcing them into lanes that are now narrower (potentially more conflict) but keeping in mind that the majority of collisions happen at junctions I think the fast riders will re-join the traffic lane on long stretches but use the segregated facilities to negotiate junctions.

Unfortunately the lycra mobs will have to accept some inconvenience to allow for facilities that will encourage the middle age women on a sit up and beg.

Why should I have to give up my bike ride for the outside chance that some middle aged women might take my place riding shorter distances?

[Type R Tom]

Kermit power said:

Type R Tom said:

There is a chance the segregation will slow the “hard core” cyclists down, potentially forcing them into lanes that are now narrower (potentially more conflict) but keeping in mind that the majority of collisions happen at junctions I think the fast riders will re-join the traffic lane on long stretches but use the segregated facilities to negotiate junctions.

Unfortunately the lycra mobs will have to accept some inconvenience to allow for facilities that will encourage the middle age women on a sit up and beg.

Why should I have to give up my bike ride for the outside chance that some middle aged women might take my place riding shorter distances?

I would be extremely surprised if the route slowed you down sufficiently that you were forced back on to the train but there is a chance you’re going to need to change your style. Saying that if everyone is on the cycle route you might have to train to yourself!

The other thing to keep in mind is the popular drive to “go dutch”, the type of fast road bike rider over here in most of Europe simply doesn’t exist, it is generally accepted that once someone is on a bike they are unlikely to go back.

Sorry mate but you’re on a bike, you don’t need encouragement, this sort of infrastructure isn’t really designed for you but the improvement to junctions etc. that go with these schemes will make your ride better, it’s about taking the rough with the smooth.

[Kermit power]

Type R Tom said:

I would be extremely surprised if the route slowed you down sufficiently that you were forced back on to the train but there is a chance you’re going to need to change your style. Saying that if everyone is on the cycle route you might have to train to yourself!

The other thing to keep in mind is the popular drive to “go dutch”, the type of fast road bike rider over here in most of Europe simply doesn’t exist, it is generally accepted that once someone is on a bike they are unlikely to go back.

Sorry mate but you’re on a bike, you don’t need encouragement, this sort of infrastructure isn’t really designed for you but the improvement to junctions etc. that go with these schemes will make your ride better, it’s about taking the rough with the smooth.

That's a valid point, but I think the flaw in your argument with regards to the Netherlands at least is that commuting distances there are significantly shorter than they are in London. There's nothing I can do to alter the fact that my ride is 15 miles each way. A 3 mile ride would, of course, be perfectly manageable at a pootle in work clothes, but a 15 mile ride isn't, regardless of how well managed junctions are.

This is before you consider the fact that there's a side road probably every 200 yards on the second half of my commute. How on earth can you create a segregated cycle lane in those circumstances, unless you run it above other traffic on a flyover?

[ZX10R NIN]

upsidedownmark said:

ZX10R.. I think you must be in an alternate universe - to me at least! (as one who has spent 5 years commuting into london on a motorbike, and has a sportsbike for fun & trackdays).

I also think you're confusing vulnerability with accident rate. Simply looking at the number of deaths is not relevant: I'm pretty sure that more people are killed in cars than on motorbikes - does that make the car driver more vulnerable? No. More numerous - yes. For a worthwhile comparison you need to normalise against miles covered, or some similar measure. Personally I'd be fairly confident that would immediately redress the balance.

I would also suggest that speed is very much an aggravating factor in a large proportion of commuting motorbike accidents - whether speeding or not. Generally we ride centre lane, or filtering. Where do our threats come from? Side roads, SMIDSY U-turns, and so on. Generally everyone who's tried to / nearly taken me out has done so from my field of vision - classic examples: Car out of side road. Car turns left across bus lane.

In all those cases I have had the opportunity to assess what might happen and make my decisions accordingly, to control my environment. Frankly, if I'd been a bit less 'assertive' about making progress, it wouldn't have been close. Yes I had right of way, etc, but backing off a bit would have saved a few skidmarks. Sure it's legal for me to do 30 down a bus lane inside stationary traffic approaching a junction. Is it smart? Probably not. I also regularly see people riding a heap more aggressively and faster than I think sensible. Fair enough, you make those decisions and accept the consequences, but don't bleat about being vulnerable when it goes wrong - it's a big bad world out there, you have to assume other people make mistakes, and give them room to do so, otherwise you're not going to last long.

I also ride a (pedal) bike, though not in the city / commuting. There pretty much all my threats come from behind, mainly close / inappropriate passes, and impatience. There's little I can do about that; I can't control that environment. To me, *that* is vulnerability.

Personally I'd rather not see a proliferation of bike lanes - mainly because they're mostly unsuitable for bikes, but that's another matter. There are just too many vehicles (of all types) with too many egos trying to fit through too small a space.. unfortunately it's already been proven that adding more road space does not ease the problem - there is no easy answer, but IMHO you're banging your head on the wrong wall.

Okay fair point on the vulnerable vs accident rate, I ride (by motorbike) into Central London 3-4 times a week & have ridden into Central London for over Ten years, my point has always been that this scheme is badly thought out & that in order to make the roads a better place & actually get London moving we actual need integration not separation.
Road planning needs to reflect what's happening on the roads not what political stance is flavour of the month.

If you want more people riding Pedal/Motor Bikes depending on your commute raising everyone's awareness levels is a great start designing junctions properly all add up to making the roads better for all.

As I said in my first post I have no ax to grind with cyclists my view would be the same if it was motorcyclists this solution doesn't help.

I agree(to help stop the headaches)the people I'd love to speak to are the actual road planners but you never get to see these faceless wonders.

I also have no problem with cycle lanes but this Super cycle path seems to badly thought out. IMHO

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Monday 2nd February 17:56

[heebeegeetee]

ZX10R NIN said:

Okay fair point on the vulnerable vs accident rate, I ride (by motorbike) into Central London 3-4 times a week & have ridden into Central London for over Ten years, my point has always been that this scheme is badly thought out & that in order to make the roads a better place & actually get London moving we actual need integration not separation.

Has anywhere proved that to work? We know the Netherlands has gone wholly for segregation, and the result is millions of people have climbed out of their cars, with tremendous benefits for health, economy and environment. Other jurisdictions have also shown the segregation brings enormous change, and all for the better - there are all but no negatives.

You seem to be asking for more failed methods, methods which have shown not to work pretty much everywhere and never have.