http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-06-09/cyclists-who-fail-to-use-dedicated-lanes-could-be-fined
[img] 
[/img]
Its a way of making sure cyclists use his cycle super highways I guess, have they been judged as white by the cycling community perhaps?
😆
To be fair, I think motorists driving down bike lanes will also be fined.
Case law is not on his side.
It'll make Jason Wells happy 😀
Has anyone actually read the link. It makes perfect sense, this is the important part
[i]The rule is likely to apply only to fully segregated bike lanes where a physical barrier protects cyclists from other traffic.[/i]
So if you have a dedicated separate bike lane with a barrier to keep out other traffic it's use should be mandatory. Makes sense to me
It makes sense unless you're only going a few hundred meteres, in which case you'd have to cross 4 lanes of traffic on embankment to reach the cycle lane, cycle for a bit, then cross 4 lanes of traffic to get back to the other side of the road.
[i]Cyclists [b]in London[/b][/i]
Whatever.
jambalaya - MemberHas anyone actually read the link. It makes perfect sense, this is the important part
The rule is likely to apply only to fully segregated bike lanes where a physical barrier protects cyclists from other traffic.
So if you have a dedicated separate bike lane with a barrier to keep out other traffic it's use should be mandatory. Makes sense to me
Yes I did.
Firstly that itself is a bad idea for various reasons, they're too narrow and mix up very slow and very fast cyclists, and already too busy, send you against traffic, etc.
Secondly they will give ammunition to ignorant twits who think we shouldn't be allowed to ride on the road when there is a cycle lane, no matter how unsuitable.
Thirdly it paves the way to making all cycle lanes in cities throughout the country mandatory.
If they're good enough, people will use them without needing to be forced.
[i]Thirdly it paves the way to making all cycle throughout the country lanes mandatory[/i]
No it doesn't.
Totally disagree. It's designed to address a symptom, not the cause. A segregation is the opposite to integration. You'll never overcome the cultural issue with attitudes towards cyclists if you shepherd them out of the way into walled pens. Not unless the space for these highways is space taken from motorists and the cyclist is presented as being a higher priority, otherwise the car will remain king and drivers will continue with their feudal attitude.
Beyond that, I have no strong opinion!
Pretty sure thats how it works in the Netherlands?
If there is a separate bike lane, cyclists must use it.
So long as they are well thought out and well kept/swept, then it makes sense I think.
As long as it's actually going your way, I guess maybe - or do you have to use it as far as you can, say a hundred yards, then get off, cross the barrier and only then use the road ? How will they judge that - do they observe you for ages before stopping you ?So if you have a dedicated separate bike lane with a barrier to keep out other traffic it's use should be mandatory. Makes sense to me
I wonder if you can bill Boris right back when a lane becomes unusable due to glass/rubble/litter/potholes/pedestrians etc ?
What if it's jammed with really slow cyclists ?
WHat if motorists begin to assume cyclists don't belong on any roads ?
Dodgy precedent, IMO, making it mandatory
@retro we don't know how big these cycles lanes will be as as far as I know none have been built / designated as yet. We are not entitled to drive our cars where we like, there are rules including with respect to bus lanes for example. Seems reasonable that if significant amounts of money is spent on building designated cycle lanes that cyclists are obliged to use them and they are not clogging up roads.
@scardy if a cycle lane is clogged up with slow cyclists you'll have to cycle slowly, just like a motorist who has to drive slowly if the road is clogged up with slow driver or a bus !
Perhaps he's being advised by the York bus driver who hurled abuse at me (with a bus full of school kids) earlier for riding on the road rather than the cycle path on the curb.
Funnily enough I chose the uninterumpted mile stretch of road rather than the adjacent cycle lane that has eight separate lateral roads coming into the main road, stopping and starting (or slowing at least) constantly versus a straight run on the road? Easy choice for me and I chose to legally ride on the road.
Other threads have obv covered this recently but the speed of route is key for me and the majority of our cycle tracks simply don't support the needs of many cyclists vers people on bikes.
I'm not with you Andy, thin end of a wedge for a start, also cyclists have a right to be on the road by right not licence.
Roads tend to be clogged up by traffic, not slow drivers, totally different.
Hasn't Boris's east west bridge bike path been roundly harangued?
If you build proper bike infrastructure you don't need to force people to use it.
FFS
And THIS is the problem with separate infrastructure. It reinforces the notion that the roads are not for bikes.
jambalaya - Member@retro we don't know how big these cycles lanes will be as as far as I know none have been built / designated as yet. We are not entitled to drive our cars where we like, there are rules including with respect to bus lanes for example.
Buses are allowed to leave bus lanes when they want to.
As soon as you have a situation where the cycle lane isn't the best way to complete the journey- which will happen all the time- this is moronic.
Boris is an asshat.
Yes, if anything demonstrates the poverty of ambition for cycling provision, it is the idea that you should be using the force of law to compel people to use it. As others have said, well designed infrastructure would be the natural choice.
It demonstrates massive lack of faith in cycle superhighways IMO. If he thought they were good enough for people to use them because they're the best solution available, then he wouldn't have to put in punitive measures to force people to use them, he'd have confidence they'd use them anyway...
Given people don't need a licence to cycle and are on the highway as of right, is there any legal basis people can be punished for using it if they're riding in a manner which is otherwise legal?
He also has to accept capacity issues... how can someone use the lane if it's already full?
I suspect he knows full well how badly this will go down with the cycling community in London - it's probably a pretence to keep the antis quiet for a while.
And anyone who dismisses this because it's 'London' - come and cycle round London - the rise in numbers in the last few years has been massive - it's wonderful to see and it's a great proof of concept that with the right pressure and the right approach, we can make all UK cities cycling-friendly - the whole country will benefit from the example London is setting right now
To those who beilve this is a good idea do you still think this should hold if the cyclist is travelling at 100% of the motorised traffic speed? What about 75%, 50%? And what if the cyclist only drops below this % for 5 seconds, 10 second 30 seconds? Does it still matter
Or do you beilve that no matter whatever the speed differences involved, bike traffic level and motorised traffic level, if the is a segregated bike lane then bikes should keep to the bike lane.
And anyone who dismisses this because it's 'London' - come and cycle round London - the rise in numbers in the last few years has been massive - it's wonderful to see and it's a great proof of concept that with the right pressure and the right approach, we can make all UK cities cycling-friendly - the whole country will benefit from the example London is setting right now
Agreed cycling around London works and is more pleasant than cycling around most other urban area in the UK I have cycled in, rush hour or middle of the night.
cyclists are obliged to use them and they are not clogging up roads.
How are the cyclists cloggingup the roads any more than the rest f the traffic.
Even if a cyclist slows a motor car it does not mean that it has altered its overall journey time or average speed. As someone who currently drives to work along a route with poor availability of overtaking and a reasonable number of cyclists most of the time I am unable to overtake I does not alter my journey time. It is just traffic.
I'm coming to the opinion we should just remove all cycle lanes and make the roads wider. How about we remove footpaths too.
For the second time I got abuse yesterday for riding on the road and not on a short parallel shared use path, which had dogs and children on and every few hundred metres has junctions. I was travelling at 27mph and the car was able to pass easily, as they had enough time to wind down the window and shout and gesture at me. Really really effing me off, and stupid comments from boris only add to the problem.
Boris is talking about the new cycle lanes which are being built to a much better standard.
I suspect however, that it would be nigh on impossible to construct a law that means cyclists have to use *only* these new cycle lanes, but aren't required to use any others, which are 99% crap.
Maybe this is a crafty press release to make it clear to LTDA and haulage lobbyists that he has considered making it compulsory, so when we inevitably find out that this isn't possible, he can say it wasn't his fault.
The timing of this announcement seems very close to that Jason Wells road rage video too, maybe that prompted it?
@jambalya - cyclists don't clog up roads, cars do that! I'd be able to cycle around my town much faster without all the cars and busses in the way 😉
[quote=mtbmatt ]Pretty sure thats how it works in the Netherlands?
If there is a separate bike lane, cyclists must use it.
Where the worst cycle paths which are being phased out and upgraded are still better than anything Boris is building. It makes sense if you have proper cycling infrastructure and there really is no advantage to cycling on the road, but to achieve that you have to make the cycling routes more convenient than the road, rather than just a place to send the cyclists to get them out of the way.
Don't worry, its not compulsory to agree and certainly not with me on here
As an aside I read about the number of bike hire schemes that are closing (a couple in France) and the operator in NYC has gone bust. I was stunned to see that the average scheme costs between £,500 and £4,000 per anum per bike 😯 Costs are for the docking stations, maintenance and the vans which have to move the bikes round every day. The sponsorship and usage fees don't come close to paying for the schemes.
Well the one I was using this morning was 100% blocked by an Audi A4 estate stopping to pick up a pedestrian ahead of me, so I hopped into the road instead. I'd like to have seen someone remonstrate with me over that.
The point is - cars cause congestion - not cyclists.
I wonder if you can bill Boris right back when a lane becomes unusable due to glass/rubble/litter/potholes/pedestrians etc ?
I can get round the other issues but this stops me using cycle lanes pretty much anywhere.
I live and work in and around London (unfortunately) and will continue to use what ever path, road, pavement io believe will get me to where I need to be without being killed
Well the one I was using this morning was 100% blocked by an Audi A4 estate stopping to pick up a pedestrian ahead of me, so I hopped into the road instead. I'd like to have seen someone remonstrate with me over that.
So that wasn't the type of protected lane (eg with a kerb) whic Boris was referring to. Lanes just painted on aren't going to be subject to the proposal.
I live and work in and around London (unfortunately) and will continue to use what ever path, road, pavement io believe will get me to where I need to be without being killed
@plumber that's fair enough, I sneak round the pavement to dodge red lights if I am turning left for example but we should all appreciate we don't have a right to do that and if there is an accident with a pedestrian for example we could well get sued.
jambalaya - MemberAs an aside I read about the number of bike hire schemes that are closing (a couple in France) and the operator in NYC has gone bust. I was stunned to see that the average scheme costs between £,500 and £4,000 per anum per bike Costs are for the docking stations, maintenance and the vans which have to move the bikes round every day. The sponsorship and usage fees don't come close to paying for the schemes.
Are they supposed to pay for themselves? The health and transport benefits must be considerable, it's £1400 per boris bike apparently but that's a lot of congestion reduced, strain off other transport methods, boost to tourism etc. Direct cost savings to users too.
They can make money- the velib does, though it's a pretty complicated arrangement with the billboards etc. But I don't think it's a good metric of success
No not necessarily but if they lose too much they get shut down or go bust like the one in New York. Like everything the idea is one thing but making it work and work financially is more tricky.
Cannot believe this video has not been posted yet. Just show him this.
Im not sure what the health benefits of cycling in London are vs heavy breathing some of the most polluted air in Europe.
Bus strikes lead to a huge reduction in central London air pollution and reduction in hospital admittances for breathing difficulties and heart attacks.
Borris' vanity projevt Routemasters for all their cost were pushed through with engines that fall foul of new EU pollution laws.
He has managed to claim the glory of implementing kens hire bike scheme as his own and handed Barclay's a huge advertising g coup in the process.
The kind of segregated lanes he's talking about don't exists because he took men's orginial superhighway plans and dumped them in favour of painting some if the most dangerous stretches of road in London Barclay's blue and calling them 'safe'.
Ultimately its all just headline grabbing nonsense appealing to the old right wingers out there for his forthcoming leadership and election campaigns(see also his comments about a free vote on EU membership etc)
@db 🙂 I would imagine the Police, taxis and delivery trucks are allowed to park/stop in a cycle lane. If they weren't they'd have to stop in the middle of the road
Im not sure what the health benefits of cycling in London are vs heavy breathing some of the most polluted air in Europe.
Bus strikes lead to a huge reduction in central London air pollution and reduction in hospital admittances for breathing difficulties and heart attacks.
Borris' vanity projevt Routemasters for all their cost were pushed through with engines that fall foul of new EU pollution laws.
He has managed to claim the glory of implementing kens hire bike scheme as his own and handed Barclay's a huge advertising g coup in the process.
The kind of segregated lanes he's talking about don't exists because he took men's orginial superhighway plans and dumped them in favour of painting some if the most dangerous stretches of road in London Barclay's blue and calling them 'safe'.
air: you need to visit some more European cities, there are tons worse than London
buses: possibly but much better than more cars/taxis/Ubers
Routemasters: very popular re-introduction, they are excellent and are hybrids with electric start to get moving. A million times better than the death trap/congestion causing bendy buses so popular in Europe.
Bikehire: Ken had an idea, well not really as bike hire is in many cities. Boris made it work.
Barclays: Very poor return which is why they didn't renew. Nobody calls them Barclays bikes, they are virtually anonymous as a sponsor.
Superhighway: Agreed generally just paint but given budget constraints there wasn't a lot of choice. How much input do you think Boris has to the location and route choices, answer very little. Some are indeed appalling, Bow and Blackfriars bridge spring to mind. Alternative in each location though was nothing.
The superhighway lane along the Embankment is well underway. It is 3m wide with high kerbs on both sides.
Looks good until you realise it's two-way!
It's so short-sighted. Infrastructure improvements should cater for the situation you want to create - more people on bikes. These lanes are insufficient for the situation we already have.
They will be great for the slower and less confident cyclists, but no good for impatient commuters like me.
They will be great for the slower and less confident cyclists, but no good for impatient commuters like me.
😯
this is indeed one of the downsides of completely segregated landed s they have in Denmark and the Netherlands but I think I'm asking to live with it to see more people out on bikes. I think the whole eBike thing may solve that anywayThey will be great for the slower and less confident cyclists, but no good for impatient commuters like me
[quote=leffeboy ]this is indeed one of the downsides of completely segregated landed s they have in Denmark and the Netherlands
Not in the Netherlands it isn't in general, as they build the bike paths wide enough that fast people can still ride fast. Of course this isn't the case in busy city centres at peak hours, but even then it's faster on a bike path than on the road.
This is bad.
Do cyclists actually hold up traffic in London? I don't think so. Other traffic holds up traffic.
It would be massively frustrating for anyone needing to get anywhere to have to use the superhighways and more than likely result in loads of cyclist/other cyclists/ped accidents.
The best place for FAST cyclists is on the road.
If experience here in Scotland is a guide, they'll be poorly maintained, difficult to access, ungritted and unswept, festooned with dogs, horses, and their leavings, and in general essentially unusable for transport purposes.
t demonstrates massive lack of faith in cycle superhighways IMO. If he thought they were good enough for people to use them because they're the best solution available, then he wouldn't have to put in punitive measures to force people to use them, he'd have confidence they'd use them anyway...
This
The best place for FAST cyclists is on the road.
Depends how well you build the cycle paths. In Belgium you quite regularly get whole club runs using specific cycle paths as they're very wide, well surfaced, safe and convenient.
I've done rides averaging 20mph on some of the cycle paths over there and I'm very happy to use them.
Over here of course, even the best paths give way to traffic at every junction, they're not wide enough, they disappear at random intervals... If Boris built them properly there wouldn't be any need to threaten cyclists with fines for not using them, they should be the default choice for cyclists because they're so good (as in Belgium). Somehow can't see that happening in London...
a twitter bloke from Belfast @nigreenways regularly posts pics of (usually commercial) vehicles parked in Belfast's protected (by kerbs) bike lanes
If Boris built them properly there wouldn't be any need to threaten cyclists with fines for not using them, they should be the default choice for cyclists because they're so good (as in Belgium). Somehow can't see that happening in London...
It also would need a change in culture. Cyclists using the lanes would need to learn lane discipline and to expect faster cyclists to be over taking, learn to use life savers etc as they would on the road. Pedestrians etc will also need to learn to stay out of them as they would the road, which may be naturally easy to do, or not, depending on they these lanes come about.
I'm still not in favour of compulsory usage, never mind that it shouldn't be be needed in the first place, but it sets the wrong example and could set an unwelcome precedent.
The lanes will need to accommodate Boris-Bike bimblers, mamils, little sister jeans hipsters, strava warriors and, in an ideal world, kids and their parents and grandparents touring London landmarks. Its brilliant that they will have the chance to get around by the most civilised form of transport in relative safety.
All these people have just as much right to the roads and lanes as me, and I should show the patience that I expect from other road users and sit back and cruise. But, like most people, I'm a selfish hypocrite.
If they jam up as it looks like they will, I will stick to the road or go by other routes
I supported the plans when they came up for consultation (the lane was supposed to be 4m wide at that point)but I made the comment that people shouldn't be compelled to use the lanes and that this should be publicised to avoid the sort of altercation most of us experience from time to time.
I hope these first attempts at proper infrastructure inspire more ambitious schemes in the future.
I hope these first attempts at proper infrastructure inspire more ambitious schemes in the future.
I think this stance is important. Be cautiously positive.
If they're not very good, we should say thanks for the investment, they're a good start but not good enough... be positive and show support but maintain pressure until we get something decent - be clear about what we do want.
Whilst also remembering that this magical 'something decent' is the roads we already have, but with proper enforcement of existing law and culture change to deal with the ridiculous tantrums some people have when they drive... the rest of Europe seems to manage to mix cyclists with drivers without acting like toddlers!
In the meantime, even the weak effort so far has led to a massive increase in people riding in London so really, there's great hope here for the future
Bubbles for Prime Minister!
All these people have just as much right to the roads and lanes as me, and I should show the patience that I expect from other road users and sit back and cruise.
No, you shouldn't. You should be able to use the road if it enables you to make safe progress at reasonable speeds. Cycling infrastructure is great, but we shouldn't be forced to use it.
In the same way that motorists aren't forced to trundle around on country lanes - they get motorways to reduce journey time. Roads (at least certain roads* ) do the job of motorways for fast cyclists.
* In London I'm thinking of Victoria Embankment and Thames St. It takes bloody ages to pick your way through the City and these roads, whilst busy and unpleasant, turn a 50 min trip into a 30 min one.
If you want to see what happens when fast cyclists who need to get to or from work on a nice cycleway, go on the Bristol-Bath cycleway at rush hour. It's not nice for the pootlers, nor is it nice for the Stravaholics.
[quote=molgrips ]If you want to see what happens when fast cyclists who need to get to or from work on a nice cycleway, go on the Bristol-Bath cycleway at rush hour. It's not nice for the pootlers, nor is it nice for the Stravaholics.
The thing is, as always, what passes for top notch cycling facilities here would be seen as sub-standard if it was in Holland, where a path with similar levels of use would be twice as wide.
Why not let the fast guys use the road?
(In the Bristol-Bath example, for those who don't know, the cycleway is much shorter and more direct city-centre to city-centre which is why it gets that much traffic including fully lycrad up on training runs. It's an example of what happens when you mix lots of fast and slow riders, which you'd get in London)