CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 21 min 6 sec ago

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 3:59pm
fluffybunnyuk wrote:If we want the dutch model, then cycle paths have to go places that people want ie from home to station,shops,parks, and other places. From everything Ive seen about the superhighway it doesnt do this nor does it offer the prospect of extension to the suburbs in south london from wimbledon right round to plumstead.
I agree completely but I can't really see how having messed up (again) in Lewisham is a good reason to object to improvements in central London. Surely it would be better to improve both?

There seems more possibility of extension once there's something to extend. The south end already meets CS7 (which isn't great IMO but at least it avoids E&C and is on fairly wide roads south of there), while the east end meets the end of CS3.

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 3:44pm
axel_knutt wrote:And that's the whole point, isn't it. Cyclists with a bit of common sense need to put a stop to it now, before it's too late, or it will be another useless white elephant that we get blamed for not using.
Please no. You need to weigh in and tell them to fix the flipping thing and warn them that a lot of cyclists will not use the current design for various reasons. Please try to avoid both the Uncle Toad "cyclists don't want this" and the dual-networkist "this is a toy for weaklings" reasons.
Has anyone any idea how much further a cyclist is willing to ride in order to use it?
Personal experience from before I knew anyone cared whether we rode on roads or cycleways: one trip I did a bit, I rode 10 miles partly on cycleways instead of 7 miles on roads because I thought it was nicer by cycleway.
Are the motorists who said they would use it going to find some other excuse as soon as it's built?
Only time will tell, won't it?
Does it have more traffic lights and give way lines than the alternatives?
You could answer that by comparing the consultation plans with the current streetscape.

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 3:36pm
TonyR wrote:mjr wrote:Sorry to keep doing this, but prove it: who, on what list, when and is it visible online?
Its on a subscription list, not a public one and I am not going to betray people's trust by publishing their contributions to a closed debate. You're just going to have to believe me or not.
Like it used to say beside my supervisor's door: "In God We Trust - all others bring data". So no, I'm not accepting that as evidence. For all we can tell, it's some fantasist telling you what you want to hear. Encourage them to repeat the statements in public.

There's a touch of "not gonna get fooled again" here: I believed the anti-protectionists for some time, until I looked closely at the evidence and found holes you could drive a truck through (and straight onto a cyclist).
TonyR wrote:mjr wrote:It's one straight road from Russell Square to TCR (Montague Place, Bedford Square, Bayley Street). OK, there's been building works near the museum for ages and there's traffic lights, but there's traffic lights on Torrington Place too.

Well first you've got to get out of Guildford Street and round Russell Square - not the most cycling friendly set of junctions.
I've done it and don't remember having problems (I think I could use an advanced stop box to help get the right lane to go around the square but I don't remember how I got to it) but I thought you wanted a route without using cycling infrastructure? It's only that one right turn that's at all unfriendly, isn't it?
TonyR wrote:Then you do the lovely straight on when everything else is turning left ride at the cars waiting in Bedford Square before swerving at the last minute onto the gravel pavement of the cycle path (pictured). And then off again at the other end just at the point cars coming the other way are swerving towards you to overtake the parked cars. A true mess of a journey but on the bright side at least the redone Montague Place is not as bad as what was there before.
Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 12.32.03.png
That arrow to the left is the instructions to cyclists on where to go next.
Yeah but when the road's clear, you could just continue forwards like most people seem to. The last time I used it, that kerb was properly flat at the end, too, while the rest was fairly low.

And what's the problem at the other end? Good visibility and fairly light (for London!) traffic, so you can easily time your traversal to a gap in the traffic, dutch-style.

I'll only go so far to defend those routes because I prefer and use Torrington Place (even though it could/should be better) but they seem fairly good for roads without cycle lanes. How would you make them better?

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 2:26pm
fluffybunnyuk wrote:The problem is one partly of image i think, and also of destination. I avoid police here like the plague because their belief is in hi-viz,helmets, and as one inspector told me "body armour might be a good idea...", and mine is in sitting a niece or nephew on the back of the bike to go shopping in day clothes. Dont get me wrong i'm crazy enough to cycle up a fairly major a road like the A10. So if artics at 55mph dont scare me ,what does? Well my local roundabout does (Im not even counting the bricklayers or the ele&castle or oval). Its been recently improved into a gyratory, thats a bigger deathtrap than before. Oh dont worry its a temporary phase so it will soon be gone. However in its place will be a shiny new road system with no place for cyclists. Oh yes...it wasnt even considered during planning...
So on one arm of the gyratory we have tescos, another the railway station, and the other 2 lewisham shops. In fact its so bad I will cycle an extra 3 miles out of the way just to get 400 metres down the road from it, on the other side. Now if I wont cycle it, then what chance has someone less confident, or unsure about traffic. If we want the dutch model, then cycle paths have to go places that people want ie from home to station,shops,parks, and other places. From everything Ive seen about the superhighway it doesnt do this nor does it offer the prospect of extension to the suburbs in south london from wimbledon right round to plumstead. Of course when its done I will ride it once just to see what its really like, but after that I fully expect to go back to the usual rat runs.
I dont doubt the highway will be of use, but just dont expect it to get people on their bikes...its more likely to get the commuters off the roads.
Wow rant over.My blood pressures gone down...I should do this more often

I think its probably worse than you think on the image front. What image does it send to an average non-cyclists when they see you are expected to don head protectors, hi-viz (with body armour maybe) and cycle in special segregated places away from traffic? It says that a) cycling must be very very dangerous and b) that you would be a fool to do it outside the segregated lanes which as you say don't go to where you want. Compare and contrast that with how the Dutch portray cycling. Which do you think is more likely to entice the non-cyclist to try it?

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 1:24pm
The problem is one partly of image i think, and also of destination. I avoid police here like the plague because their belief is in hi-viz,helmets, and as one inspector told me "body armour might be a good idea...", and mine is in sitting a niece or nephew on the back of the bike to go shopping in day clothes. Dont get me wrong i'm crazy enough to cycle up a fairly major a road like the A10. So if artics at 55mph dont scare me ,what does? Well my local roundabout does (Im not even counting the bricklayers or the ele&castle or oval). Its been recently improved into a gyratory, thats a bigger deathtrap than before. Oh dont worry its a temporary phase so it will soon be gone. However in its place will be a shiny new road system with no place for cyclists. Oh yes...it wasnt even considered during planning...
So on one arm of the gyratory we have tescos, another the railway station, and the other 2 lewisham shops. In fact its so bad I will cycle an extra 3 miles out of the way just to get 400 metres down the road from it, on the other side. Now if I wont cycle it, then what chance has someone less confident, or unsure about traffic. If we want the dutch model, then cycle paths have to go places that people want ie from home to station,shops,parks, and other places. From everything Ive seen about the superhighway it doesnt do this nor does it offer the prospect of extension to the suburbs in south london from wimbledon right round to plumstead. Of course when its done I will ride it once just to see what its really like, but after that I fully expect to go back to the usual rat runs.
I dont doubt the highway will be of use, but just dont expect it to get people on their bikes...its more likely to get the commuters off the roads.
Wow rant over.My blood pressures gone down...I should do this more often

Re: Good places to cycle to in Cardiff

9 February 2015 - 1:20pm
Take Arriva train north to Merthyr Tydfil(bikes free) and return to Cardiff along Taff Trail or continue riding north to Brecon, beautiful country.
An efficient way to cycle quickly from urban Cardiff to real countryside is to take the Ely Trail due West, terminating at St Fagans folk museum (free entry, large outdoor grounds, teashop/restaurant). Although the official trail ends at the museum you're now on the country lane network which criss-crosses the Vale of Glamorgan, classic cycling country with attractive coast to the south. Get OS Landranger maps 170 and 171 and start planning. General rule is avoid red(A) roads and brown(B) roads and you won't go far wrong.
BTW there's a North Easterly route along the Wentlooge Levels to Newport (NCN route 88 I think). I don't recommend it, it's flat, boring, and seems to attract maniac drivers.

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 1:01pm
fluffybunnyuk wrote:...... and onto their own personal 25mph racetrack, where they can dream their winning the TdF.

I think they'll need to dream even more if they think its going to be a 25mph racetrack. At the widths its being built it will probably be a nose to tail cycle jam travelling at the speed of the slowest cyclist on the route at the time as its too narrow for overtaking so probably 8-10 mph is the best you'll be able to expect.

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 12:49pm
fluffybunnyuk wrote:"people who cycle like me", oh dear. I would read the blog I linked a bit further up

haha i'm a POB on a BSO and proud of it. Sorry every day I pull up at a set of red lights on the A2 and some nutter usually in cycling shorts often lycra comes steaming past me and through the lights. Or later on weaves in and out of lanes 1 and 2 to pass cars moving at slow speed. Or tries to come up the inside of vans trying to get into the inside lane. If im really lucky i'll be told to "get out of the way". in a not too charitable way. And im not that slow, Im just careful. The amount of women or kids Ive encountered on non-road bikes crossing Lewisham roundabout to visit tescos in the last year stands at zero. The reality here(in my area) is a bad stereotype of cyclists. male,commuter,fixie,lycra,impatient....take your pick of stereotypes

Fair enough!

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 12:44pm
"people who cycle like me", oh dear. I would read the blog I linked a bit further up

haha i'm a POB on a BSO and proud of it. Sorry every day I pull up at a set of red lights on the A2 and some nutter usually in cycling shorts often lycra comes steaming past me and through the lights. Or later on weaves in and out of lanes 1 and 2 to pass cars moving at slow speed. Or tries to come up the inside of vans trying to get into the inside lane. If im really lucky i'll be told to "get out of the way". in a not too charitable way. And im not that slow, Im just careful. The amount of women or kids Ive encountered on non-road bikes crossing Lewisham roundabout to visit tescos in the last year stands at zero. The reality here(in my area) is a bad stereotype of cyclists. male,commuter,fixie,lycra,impatient....take your pick of stereotypes

EDIT :And its not getting better, its getting worse...and that includes in the infrastructure.

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 12:37pm
mjr wrote:TonyR wrote:I've discussed it on another list with one of the main proponents. Having lobbied for it and then seen what was designed they discovered they didn't have enough political power/influence to change it. At that point they should have said NO to what was being offered but instead accepted it as the best they could get.
Sorry to keep doing this, but prove it: who, on what list, when and is it visible online?

Also, what evidence is there that saying "NO" would have stopped it? I've pulled that move elsewhere and sometimes it has and sometimes it hasn't.

Its on a subscription list, not a public one and I am not going to betray people's trust by publishing their contributions to a closed debate. You're just going to have to believe me or not. As to the NO evidence, since campaigners lobbied local authorities to do it and several were quite reluctant I would think saying NO would have had an effect but there is no way of knowing whether "we've started so we must finish" momentum would have seen it continue.


mjr wrote:TonyR wrote:Guildford St only helps for the eastern most section. Beyond that you have to navigate Russell Square and then thread your way through back streets to get to TCR. A slow and awkward journey.
It's one straight road from Russell Square to TCR (Montague Place, Bedford Square, Bayley Street). OK, there's been building works near the museum for ages and there's traffic lights, but there's traffic lights on Torrington Place too.

Well first you've got to get out of Guildford Street and round Russell Square - not the most cycling friendly set of junctions. Then you do the lovely straight on when everything else is turning left ride at the cars waiting in Bedford Square before swerving at the last minute onto the gravel pavement of the cycle path (pictured). And then off again at the other end just at the point cars coming the other way are swerving towards you to overtake the parked cars. A true mess of a journey but on the bright side at least the redone Montague Place is not as bad as what was there before.

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 12.32.03.png

That arrow to the left is the instructions to cyclists on where to go next.

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 12:31pm
Mark1978 wrote:It's all a matter of evolution isn't it*.

Exactly that. Carlton Reid's new piece is very good on that: http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/wear-d ... lls/017456

But the good news is that, like evolution, it's unstoppable. Already the London segregation schemes are starting to filter out, very slowly, to cities elsewhere in Britain.

Trying to win over malcontents on a forum is a fun pastime, I guess, but they've already lost. The London schemes have established the principle of segregation on busy roads as the way forward. The battle is now to spread it further and faster.

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 12:29pm
fluffybunnyuk wrote:or it will be another useless white elephant that we get blamed for not using

I wouldnt go that far...it will get the avg commuter cyclists who RLJ,filter dangerously,etc etc off some of the busy roads, and onto their own personal 25mph racetrack, where they can dream their winning the TdF.
But for people who cycle like me it does not alot.

"people who cycle like me", oh dear. I would read the blog I linked a bit further up

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 12:27pm
or it will be another useless white elephant that we get blamed for not using

I wouldnt go that far...it will get the avg commuter cyclists who RLJ,filter dangerously,etc etc off some of the busy roads, and onto their own personal 25mph racetrack, where they can dream their winning the TdF.
But for people who cycle like me it does not alot. I do think however that an ad campaign needs to be run telling peds about not wandering into and using it for dog walking...or it will become an extended pavement with potential accidents.

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 11:52am

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 10:31am
TonyR wrote:mjr wrote:TonyR wrote:As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way.
or use traversable kerbs, but neither was done in Bloomsbury.
But I don't think that's what's proposed on the superhighway.
Not as far as we know yet, and I feel that's another mistake which has been pointed out by many people... but I think it's still an improvement even without that.

The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing.
Prove it.

I've discussed it on another list with one of the main proponents. Having lobbied for it and then seen what was designed they discovered they didn't have enough political power/influence to change it. At that point they should have said NO to what was being offered but instead accepted it as the best they could get.
Sorry to keep doing this, but prove it: who, on what list, when and is it visible online?

Also, what evidence is there that saying "NO" would have stopped it? I've pulled that move elsewhere and sometimes it has and sometimes it hasn't.

Few alternative roads??? It's paralleled by Euston road to the north and Guildford Road to the south which is part of the reason it uses the streets it does, which are hardly ideal for it.

I used to use Tavistock PIace before the cycle track was built but now tend to use Euston Road.
In other words, you're using one of the alternatives!!!

Guildford St only helps for the eastern most section. Beyond that you have to navigate Russell Square and then thread your way through back streets to get to TCR. A slow and awkward journey.
It's one straight road from Russell Square to TCR (Montague Place, Bedford Square, Bayley Street). OK, there's been building works near the museum for ages and there's traffic lights, but there's traffic lights on Torrington Place too.

In short, I don't believe people are on the cycleway for lack of alternatives. It would be interesting to do an user opinion survey, but I don't have the time to do it... unless anyone would like to pay me?

There are some motorists willing to "physically encourage you" on streets without cycleways too and there were around ULU before that one was built. That's why we need the Road Justice campaign too.
And which is why we need to deal with motorists first and foremost. If you can fix that problem with presumed liability and an approach similar to the one that changed drink driving from accepted to unacceptable you would not only make segregated cycling alongside the road unnecessary but you would also open up all roads to everyday cycling in safety - something that can never be achieved by the segregational approach.
Can we deal with that first? I think not, because politicians will only make those changes once there are sufficient people cycling regularly to have more political clout than the current 15% does (especially given that a non-trivial chunk seem basically elitist and uninterested in campaigning for wider public cycling, especially if it might mean that they lose any of "their" car-dominated carriageway width on even indirect streets). At 15%, we seem only just able to get non-lethal bare-minimum cycleways!

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 10:02am
TonyR wrote:
And which is why we need to deal with motorists first and foremost. If you can fix that problem with presumed liability and an approach similar to the one that changed drink driving from accepted to unacceptable you would not only make segregated cycling alongside the road unnecessary but you would also open up all roads to everyday cycling in safety - something that can never be achieved by the segregational approach.

1. If you look at drunk driving injuries in relation to total KSIs its an interesting picture. They track. So have we reduced drunk driving, or have we just reduced total KSIs?

2. So the 6 year old is still going to mix it with the lorries, just when they get squished the lorry driver is at fault automatically. Wohoo!

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 9:43am
It's all a matter of evolution isn't it*. London started with blue paint, then had something more segregated and then moving onto this, although I agree superhighway is overstating it. You would hope it would evolve from there. Some here would have nothing done at all and cyclists kept in their place so motor vehicles can continue their reign.

*I don't know why we seem determined to go through the evolution process when we could shortcut it as others have done it before.

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 9:33am
fluffybunnyuk wrote:I think the design test for infrastructure should be would you let an 8 year old use it.

I actually think the thing that has done most for cycling in London has been the Boris Bikes. You see people of all types (not generally 8 year olds I will admit as the bikes are too big for most) wobbling along the roads of London. Accidents have been very few and only one fatality AFAIK in many tens of millions of journeys. It makes cycling in London seem possible for ordinary people and motor traffic tends to give them a cautious wide berth because the riders are seen as inexperienced and unpredictable (although many are anything but)

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 9:23am
mjr wrote:TonyR wrote:As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way.
or use traversable kerbs, but neither was done in Bloomsbury.

But I don't think that's what's proposed on the superhighway.

The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing.
Prove it.

I've discussed it on another list with one of the main proponents. Having lobbied for it and then seen what was designed they discovered they didn't have enough political power/influence to change it. At that point they should have said NO to what was being offered but instead accepted it as the best they could get.

The reason its so widely used is there are few alternative roads and if you try cycling on the road alongside there are plenty of motorists willing to physically encourage you to use the cycle track. Personally I avoid it but fortunately I don't need to go that way too often.
Few alternative roads??? It's paralleled by Euston road to the north and Guildford Road to the south which is part of the reason it uses the streets it does, which are hardly ideal for it.

I used to use Tavistock PIace before the cycle track was built but now tend to use Euston Road. Cycling in the bus lane though with taxis, buses and motorbikes and with vehicle cutting across you to turn left would not be most people's choice. And there are a couple of nasty junctions - the ones at Gt Portland St and the one with TCR - that need a level of confidence and assertiveness most cyclists won't have. Having said that a fair few do use it. Guildford St only helps for the eastern most section. Beyond that you have to navigate Russell Square and then thread your way through back streets to get to TCR. A slow and awkward journey.

There are some motorists willing to "physically encourage you" on streets without cycleways too and there were around ULU before that one was built. That's why we need the Road Justice campaign too.

And which is why we need to deal with motorists first and foremost. If you can fix that problem with presumed liability and an approach similar to the one that changed drink driving from accepted to unacceptable you would not only make segregated cycling alongside the road unnecessary but you would also open up all roads to everyday cycling in safety - something that can never be achieved by the segregational approach.

Re: Superhighway

9 February 2015 - 8:45am
TonyR wrote:As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way. or use traversable kerbs, but neither was done in Bloomsbury. The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing.
Prove it. I think it was more of a problem that the local MP opposed it and the local council was restructured part way through in a way replacing a cycling supporter with some lukewarms who were keen to compromise the scheme, as described by Vole O' speed.
The reason its so widely used is there are few alternative roads and if you try cycling on the road alongside there are plenty of motorists willing to physically encourage you to use the cycle track. Personally I avoid it but fortunately I don't need to go that way too often.
Few alternative roads??? It's paralleled by Euston road to the north and Guildford Road to the south which is part of the reason it uses the streets it does, which are hardly ideal for it.

There are some motorists willing to "physically encourage you" on streets without cycleways too and there were around ULU before that one was built. That's why we need the Road Justice campaign too.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions