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

[ZX10R NIN]

This Newly Proposed Super Highway has been badly thought out.

My reason for saying this is not because I have an ax to grind with cyclists, my reasons are many from the fact that they haven't thought about it's many effects on every other road user but mainly because they haven't even taken into account the fact that by taking away road space away from the most VULNERABLE Road User therefore increasing the chances of more Motor Cyclists dying.

Also when it comes to Air Quality (ULEZ)everyone knows vehicles are at their least efficient when idling which they will be doing a lot of if these proposals go through.

They done this with Trafalgar Square which costs transport companies an extra 40 mins each way when having to travel through there & you can add another 45 on top of that if this goes ahead.

Now I honestly think this 100 million should be spent on making the traffic flow through London better for All Road Users not just one group.

Let me know what you think.

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Saturday 31st January 19:42

[gazza285]

I think people will get tired of explaining to you over and over why raising the cycle path and removing priority from the most vulnerable road users is a bad idea, just like you have had explained to you on other threads?

Edited by gazza285 on Saturday 31st January 20:10

[ZX10R NIN]

gazza285 said:

I think people will get tired of explaining to you over and over why raising the cycle path and removing priority from the most vunerable road users is a bad idea, just like you have had explained to you on other threads?

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

Okay leave the cycle lanes as they are then but please give me a practical solution to this problem then, do you really believe taking a whole lane out from one of the main arteries through London is the right thing for making traffic flowing through London?

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Saturday 31st January 19:43

[TheInternet]

ZX10R NIN said:

do you really believe taking a whole lane out from one of the main arteries through London is the right thing for making traffic flowing through London?

When you consider the numbers of cyclists on the streets of London are expected to go up and up as time ticks, it seems like a sensible way of allocating space, especially as it will also offer a modicum of protection to the most at risk group of road users.

[ZX10R NIN]

TheInternet said:

When you consider the numbers of cyclists on the streets of London are expected to go up and up as time ticks, it seems like a sensible way of allocating space, especially as it will also offer a modicum of protection to the most at risk group of road users.

But you're not the group that's at most risk TFL's own figures show 22 Motorcyclists Died on London's Roads last year VS 12 Cyclists so how is taking a lane from the MOST AT RISK group of Road Users helping?

I applaud cyclists for campaigning well, but I feel you need to integrate not separate.

I do think the number of cyclists will increase but so will the motorcyclists as people commute from further out of London.

This is why I think this proposal has been badly thought out, Road policy also needs to be integrated the newly proposed ULEZ if you want to improve London's air quality you can't do this by having vehicles stationary, by making Traffic flow.

[gazza285]

ZX10R NIN said:

Now I honestly think this 100 million should be spent on making the traffic flow through London better for All Road Users not just one group.

Any suggestions? Banning private vehicles for anybody not a resident with off road parking would be a start, roads are for traveling on, not a car park.

[grumbledoak]

ZX10R NIN said:

This is why I think this proposal has been badly thought out, Road policy also needs to be integrated the newly proposed ULEZ if you want to improve London's air quality you can't do this by having vehicles stationary, by making Traffic flow.

It's nothing to do with being 'sensible', it's politics. One particular "Holy Group" is getting some preferential treatment in return for campaigning loudly for something that the government wants to do - in this case it is probably more to raise more tax from stationary vehicles than to gain votes from the Spandex Exhibitionists.

The "Holy" groups do change from time to time, maybe you'll be in the next one. Though as a biker I wouldn't hold your breath. Maybe at least the cyclists will shut up for a while.

[ZX10R NIN]

grumbledoak said:

It's nothing to do with 'sensible', it's politics. One particular "Holy Group" is getting some preferential treatment in return for campaigning loudly for something that the government wants to do - in this case it is probably more to raise more tax from stationary vehicles than to gain votes from the Spandex Exhibitionists.

The "Holy" groups do change from time to time, maybe you'll be in the next one. Though as a biker I wouldn't hold your breath. Maybe at least the cyclists will shut up for a while.

You mean someone in government might actually listen to a Bikers point of view at some point in the next millennium, Now I'll hold my breath for that LOL

It is about how well you campaign, why is it when a Biker dies it won't even make the news(tell a lie we sometimes make the Traffic news!!) but a cyclist dies & it's on the main news & then it's being debated on Radio.

The above is a side bar but also part of the problem, making traffic flow has to be the debate & taking a lane out isn't going to do this

[rcspeirs]

The cycling lobby have mounted a highly effective campaign, highlighting that in central London cyclists make up a high proportion of road users but don't get commensurate consideration. The new cycle super highway fixes that.
Sadly the response of the motor bike groups has been laughably inept. The response by MAG to suggest that cyclists are increasing the risk of prostate cancer - it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Do you suppose anyone in transport planning will give any credence to MAG after such a "loony" response to the cycling consultation?
I'm both a cyclist and a biker. But the chances of getting better provision for motor bikes is nil when we're "represented" in such a laughably poor way.

[Hoofy]

There are a few segregated cycle lanes near me (ie cycle lane separated by some kind of concrete barrier whether it's a normal height curb or a nice tall one to wreck cars) and what I find is that cyclists only use it if it suits them (which I can understand as if you're coming from a route that doesn't flow onto the lane then it's probably a PITA to slow down and double round on a bicycle).

I can't help thinking, therefore, that if we didn't have the lanes and in fact made the lane into an extra lane for cars (or wider lanes for cars depending on space), cyclists would still be fine and probably actually be safer as cars would have more space to drive round them.

Eg: https://goo.gl/maps/Xk0To

I'll see just as many people cycling in the right direction in the lane as on the road.

PS I hear they're about to drop £3m on a new one in the Kingston area even if there are objections on the grounds of sense and logic.

[thelawnet]

ZX10R NIN said:

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

Depends on your definition of vulnerable

[Rich_W]

"Perception" is that motorcyclists tend to bring their downfall on themselves. Mainly because they are seen, or more accurately heard, screaming around.

Now obviously that doesn't mean every biker. But even as a full licence holder. I saw 2 bikers this morning being dheads. 1 overtook me and another car by going the wrong way round a roundabout. The other overtook a car at the exact time a car coming the other way was level with it. I genuinely thought he was going to be squished! Both these instances were at 7am on a Saturday! Where was the need? As it happens the nearly squished arrived at the gym I go to all of 20 seconds before me. Filtering and overtaking is fine. But sometimes you don't wonder why many riders end up in trouble

Everyone "knows" a biker that's had an accident. There's the "organ donor" tag. A guy I used to work with showed the huge scar he had on his forearm (and subsequent pay out) as a badge of honor.

That's what people think. So as above, until the biking lobby get their act together and identify the real cause of accidents in cities, most probably SMIDSY, it won't change. Even the government? ads on the TV where the bike is filtering and car turns right whilst indicating across the bike is stupid. Since that would be the bikes fault for not seeing the indicator and anticipating the turn.

Edited by Rich_W on Saturday 31st January 23:57

[Jim AK]

You ain't seen nothing yet.

Motorcyclists have been forgotten & or ignored in favour of the cyclist lobby. Seems to me cyclists go to see Boris & he asks them how far over the desk they want him to bend!

To take an entire lane of Embankement into The City is insane, you can count on 1 hand the number of roads off the route that are car accessible since they were closed for the then Ring of Steel.

A quart does not & will not fit into a pint pot.


There is one particular 'Cycleway' alongside Gordon Square in NW1 that has so much street level activity, cycles, pedestrians, motor cyclists & cars coming together I'm always surprised there are not frequent accidents.

If, & it's not a big one, The People's Republic of Camden go ahead with the Pedestrianisation of Tottenham Court Road & exclude ALL traffic the whole area really will be permanent gridlock.

This whole scheme needs to be returned to the drawing board & all road user groups need to be properly consulted

[braddo]

ZX10R NIN said:

Let me know what you think.

You should cycle.

[gazza285]

Most cyclist deaths are in the morning rush hour, most motorcyclist deaths are on a Sunday afternoon. Most of both are caused by other people.

Too many cars is the problem, I think, with most of them being parked on the road, and in the local cycle lanes around here. The biggest cause of congestion on my way to work is navigating round parked cars, either double parked, or reducing a two lane each way into a single each way. There are lots of posts on here about parking problems, so how about some new car parks being built? Nowhere off road to park? Then no car.

[ZX10R NIN]

rcspeirs said:

The cycling lobby have mounted a highly effective campaign, highlighting that in central London cyclists make up a high proportion of road users but don't get commensurate consideration. The new cycle super highway fixes that.
Sadly the response of the motor bike groups has been laughably inept. The response by MAG to suggest that cyclists are increasing the risk of prostate cancer - it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Do you suppose anyone in transport planning will give any credence to MAG after such a "loony" response to the cycling consultation?
I'm both a cyclist and a biker. But the chances of getting better provision for motor bikes is nil when we're "represented" in such a laughably poor way.

Yes I agree cyclists have mounted a great campaign but my point it was based largely on the incorrect that they were the most vulnerable Road User a fact that wasn't correct(but when did a thing like facts stop a Politician so I don't blame you) almost 2 Bikers died for 1 every Cyclist yet you read the threads & they believe they are the most vulnerable group.

This super highway helps no one apart from the smallest portion of road user commercial vehicles car drivers & bikers are all effected in a negative way by this move it doesn't benefit London.

As a biker surely you can see that?

Drivers who are frustrated at sitting in traffic jams are going to be less likely to care about those around them therefore leaving the most Vulnerable group in more danger with less tarmac to play with.

I also note that not many cyclists are defending this cycle lane, maybe it's because they to realise keeping London moving is more important than (the smallest group of Road User who also put the least back into the Road Network) them having their own tarmac .

[gazza285]

Jim AK said:

There is one particular 'Cycleway' alongside Gordon Square in NW1 that has so much street level activity, cycles, pedestrians, motor cyclists & cars coming together I'm always surprised there are not frequent accidents.

Had a look on Google Street view, that looks pretty sensible, as long as the traffic crossing the cycle path observes the right of way. There's still plenty of room for two way traffic, so as long as everybody sticks to the rules of the road what is the problem?

I do see that the rest of the square's roads has been reduced in width to provide parking, reducing the room for cyclists, motorcyclists, cars, taxis and errant HGV drivers who like people to feel the draught.

[ZX10R NIN]

gazza285 said:

Most cyclist deaths are in the morning rush hour, most motorcyclist deaths are on a Sunday afternoon. Most of both are caused by other people.

Too many cars is the problem, I think, with most of them being parked on the road, and in the local cycle lanes around here. The biggest cause of congestion on my way to work is navigating round parked cars, either double parked, or reducing a two lane each way into a single each way. There are lots of posts on here about parking problems, so how about some new car parks being built? Nowhere off road to park? Then no car.

In London most Motorcycle accidents occur in the Morning & Evening Rush Hour not on Sunday!

[ZX10R NIN]

braddo said:

You should cycle.

To far for me to commute by pedal power that's why I take the Motorbike

[Pelo]

Hoofy said:

...
I can't help thinking, therefore, that if we didn't have the lanes and in fact made the lane into an extra lane for cars (or wider lanes for cars depending on space), cyclists would still be fine and probably actually be safer as cars would have more space to drive round them.

Eg: https://goo.gl/maps/Xk0To
...

A large part of the appeal of segregated cycle lanes is to attract new cyclists. Put simply, "Would you let your kids ride on that piece of road?"
It follows that if the road feels safe, then more people will use it. Segregated cycle lanes allow "interested but concerned" riders to travel further and feel safer.
More people cycling potentially means less people driving, less pollution, and less traffic. So that extra car lane may not even be missed!