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

[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

[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.

[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

[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 .

[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

[ZX10R NIN]

Rich_W said:

"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

TFL's own figures show that bikers are normally involved in accidents during the morning & evening rush hour with over 80% being caused by other vehicles.

I agree bikers have an image of racing around the streets but when we say bikers the majority of bikers in London will be on Scooters

[ZX10R NIN]

Pelo said:

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!

Let's be real here, so your saying is the cycle lanes being segregated is in the hope of making more people cycle? So you'd want to ride along roads where vehicles are at their least efficient putting out the worst of their fumes sitting in traffic.

What about if people decide to get on Motorbikes or not get out of the car? What happens then?

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Sunday 1st February 01:32

[ZX10R NIN]

gazza285 said:

In the dead cyclist thread you suggested that cyclists need more training to stop them dying, why are you not suggesting that motorcyclists need more training as well?

Perhaps the cyclists and motorcyclists are not the problem here...

Motorcyclists changed in 2014 so it'll be interesting to see the results for 2015, everyone is the problem here but taking away road space won't help the situation.

I still believe Cyclists who commute should receive some form of training

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Sunday 1st February 00:49

[ZX10R NIN]

TheInternet said:

But if those people are in their own new lane as proposed then the danger will be lessened? The broad, smooth bit of blue lane will go some way to help keep their legs going and smiles steadfast on their face, and that is health benefit 1 & 2.

Also note that the peddlers take the least out of the road network and effectively provide miles and miles of empty road for the other traffic. When you see a cycle think about the 5m of road they have given you. Maybe knowing that puts a smile on your face, and the thought that they are selflessly taking the biggest risks so you can enjoy the road in London.

Are you suggesting Motorcycles use the cycle lanes to? So we to can (as the group most likely to be seriously injured) selflessly allow the cars buses trucks the limited space that will be left.

Also a Motorcycle will take up the same foot print as a push bike if it's a small scooter or motorbike even a 600cc motorbike will take up a very similar amount of space.

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Sunday 1st February 00:59

[ZX10R NIN]

gazza285 said:

Great idea, as long as the buses have a proper off-the-road bus stop to pull into, like we used to have, so not to get in the cyclists of both distinction's way.

Bikers are allowed in the bus lanes despite lots of protests from Cycle groups. They said there'd be more accidents between motorbikes & pushbikes so far there have been none but the protests were really strong it did make me smile.

I do think Motorbikes in the superhighway Cycle lanes is a good idea though

[ZX10R NIN]

gazza285 said:

We agree on something? Crikey Moses.

Do you have a source for the cyclists against motorcyclists in bus lanes? No complaints up here, it's all two wheels good...

Crikey we agree? lol

Just remember seeing a report from TFL in MCN after the trial & the number of accidents involving PB's & MB's was 0, the number off accidents involving Motorbikes dropped to hence why MB's are allowed in the bus lanes, to be fair I don't know if there have ever been serious collisions between Pushbikes & Motorbikes. I do know that cyclists were lobbying against it because of the potential speed differential.

I'm sure the day a Motorbike is involved in a serious accident with a Pushbike, the Cyclists will be lobbying to get us out of them again.


As I said in the first post my argument isn't with cyclists it's about bad planning of the road network, no one drives into London unless they have to the whole system seems to now be designed to slow you down & make you sit in traffic (hence why I mainly take the motorbike) the planners seem to have gone out of their way to create pinch point New Cross one system Trafalgar Sq to name a few. I have to drive an Artic into London occasionally & it frustrates me at the amount of badly thought out new junctions & road layout there are.

These plans seem to fly in the face of improving air quality, They keep on harping on about getting London MOVING yet they're doing nothing of the sort instead they're taking much needed Road space from the people that have put the most in.

I think cyclists should be treated the same as every other road user & get what everyone else has to put up with, then start lobbying for better planning also would Cyclists be as happy if they had to start paying for this cycle network?

I know you don't like the raised cycle lanes but do you cyclists really believe taking a lane out of one of the main arteries of Central London will help?

Surely there must be a better way than this.

[ZX10R NIN]

heebeegeetee said:

I agree that cyclists should be treated the same as everyone else, and they should get far more road space because right now they're getting virtually nothing.

Cyclists are paying for the cycling network - like everybody else, they have no choice.

No you're paying council tax which can be spent anywhere the Mayor decides, other Road Users are paying for the Road Network admittedly only 30% of it is going on the actual roads but I'm still paying.

I have cars & a motorbike(my choice to have more than one vehicle) I have to pay for all of them to use the road network.

A 100 million spent making the roads Half a metre wider on each side of the road along the main arteries of London obviously this can only happen in places where the pavement is wide enough but it would be a start.

Please tell me why this super cycle lane is such a good idea?

[ZX10R NIN]

thelawnet said:

Depends on your definition of vulnerable

Okay what's YOUR definition of the most vulnerable because the way it's been portrayed on PH by cyclists was that they were the road user most likely to die on London's Rd's

[ZX10R NIN]

Dammit said:

Erm, you what?

How are "other road users paying for the road network"?

I suspect you don't understand how the roads are funded - cyclists pay taxes just like everyone else, often more as cyclists typically earn more than none cyclists.

Motorcycles in bus lanes - I'm ok-ish with this, the majority of motorcyclists can share the road quite well, but some of them simply try to bully there way past, and a motorcycle does take up significantly more road-space than a bicycle.

Motorcycles in the bike lane - no, that's a crazy idea given that a major part of the goal for these things is to get nervous/first time cyclists onto the roads. Having your first cycle with a bloke on a motorcycle trying to push you into the gutter is insane.

OP - you say your commute is "too far" to cycle, how far is it?

It's from near Brands Hatch into Central London & from there home or sometimes out to Royston that's my commute

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Sunday 1st February 16:32

[ZX10R NIN]

Banana Boy said:

So you've posted on a cycling forum looking for support rubbishing a scheme designed to help and protect cyclists...

Also we're ALL paying for the building and maintenance of the highways through VED, Council Tax, Income Tax and VAT etc. 'Road Tax' hasn't existed for over 75 years! (Like many cyclists I pay all of these taxes, I suspect that unless you can find a tree hugging hippie that has manufactured their entire existence from hemp and handouts, most cyclists have contributed in one way or another!)

www.ipayroadtax.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438

While I think your tone is aggressive and misplaced (it's not the common cyclists fault that schemes like this are dreamt up!) I agree that integration is generally better than separation.

We all have two major problems when it comes to government road building schemes; firstly the motorist has ruled the roost for too long, for many reasons (money, money, money) our road networks have been tailored to suit the motor industries. Secondly, while the rest of the world is building wider more open roads to accommodate all road users our government and planners are making our highways narrower and less inclusive?! I suspect this is mostly down to the all powerful property boom that puts the value of a square meter of retailable land above everything else.

Ultimately the real answer is an increased awareness and respect from all sides of the divides. A change in attitudes would be a million times cheaper than any road scheme!

When I say Road tax I meant VED, as I said only 30% of VED actually goes towards the roads.
I didn't post this on the cycling forum I posted it on the General Gassing Forum. I stand by what I said I haven't said the road planning is the cyclists fault & I applauded the way you've made the public believe that Cyclists are the road user most likely to be seriously injured when your not.

You're right in saying All Road Users need to raise their awareness levels but I don't believe pushing for separation is the best policy as I said pushing for better road planning from all parties is the only true way of making traffic flow through London is better than adding to the traffic levels.

[ZX10R NIN]

Unless of course the OP is actually suggesting that he will be more at risk because car/van/lorry drivers will be aiming for bikers instead of cyclists!?

[/quote]

But the facts are more Motorcyclists died last year on London's Roads than Cyclists by a ratio of nearly 2to1 so by taking away road space do you really think that figure will decrease?

[ZX10R NIN]

Dammit said:

No arguments from me there, I've had my share - most recently I was stationary at a red light and the car behind drove straight into me, previous to that it's been side-swipes.

In every case bright sunshine, and I was in the drivers field of view - they just didn't look where they were going.

Now in the absence of each one of them being prosecuted for dangerous driving and banned for 12 months with a compulsory retest, segregated infra is the next best option.

I've been knocked off my Motorbike twice once very seriously by a driver that was trying to work his Idrive who ended up over my side of the road & took me out.

The other time was because a cyclist jumped a red light I hit him( he'd only seen the cars & figured he could get across the junction before the cars went but hadn't seen me filtering through) went down only light injuries but 3k's worth of damage to the bike.

Now I have my regular close shaves with car drivers not paying enough attention but I also see cyclists pedestrians & commercial drivers doing the same this is human nature there are always going to be bad riders & drivers.

This shouldn't be an excuse for bad planning

[ZX10R NIN]

Hoofy said:

I think the problem comes when a driver knocks down a cyclist who was minding his own business!

What about the driver that hits anyone minding there own business, the problem is with bad road planning & groups wanting separation as well as calling for this group that group to be banned, that attitude helps no one what we need better integration and better road planning so as I've been saying making traffic flow is the most important thing rather than any one groups interests.

Rather than the system we have at the moment in which faceless wonders bow to political will

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Sunday 1st February 16:37