[Closed] The whole cycle lane thing...

Different countries and cultures

It'll take a while but first of all we need that big push for change, there's been a few mutterings but nothing significant so far.

LB Camden have finally started owning up that their cutting edge "Dutch Style" soft infrastructure design is perhaps, quite crap, and have started making changes

[img] [/img]

where we had metal plant pots, rubber armadillo bumpers and some inconsistent white paint

[img] [/img]

we now have metal plant pots, rubber armadillo bumpers, some metal posts and a thick white paint line, in places

[img] [/img]

unfortunately it does not stop motorists from driving into said metal plant pots and blocking the cycle lane because the emergency services see fit to leave car in cycle lane..

[img] [/img]

the sad thing is this used to have a segregated, raised concrete barrier running along one side of the road. It was removed due to some collision at junctions, and they went for seperate northbound and southbound lanes

northbound you get this, cars driving into the cycle lane without notice:

[img] [/img]

southbound you get this, car drivers opening their doors into the cycle lane without notice:

[img] [/img]

or going southbound, trying to make right turns against traffic coming straight at you, at speed!

[img] [/img]

good work London Borough of Camden!

[img] [/img]

the real horror story is that they are looking to roll this shat design out across the entire borough (because its 1/10th the cost of doing it properly with segregated concrete, and employing someone who knows what they are doing!)

[img] [/img]

on a seperate note, its really sad to see nice plants ripped apart when a lorry or car smashes into the planter and spreads it all over the highway, ready for a cyclist to ride into

Pootling along down the main road with my mate the other week; I didn't like it at all. THe trsaffic seemed much faster and louder; more unnerving in general.

Interesting comment about gearing in cars, I did notice tonight, slowed down behind a cyclist coming to a pinch point, I was wary of sounding too angry/revvy in 2nd, but 3rd was too high.

Personally I think these Camden examples are pretty good, its a low cost way to trial it and gain support, realise traffic likely won't get much worse than it already is, and maybe a few years down the line maybe they make it more permanent to avoid the problems outlined above, small steps.

With the parked cars it looks like they included space for the doors to open, maybe not quite enough...

Take the Old Kent Road just outside Bromley. For about a mile it climbs steadily, forcing cyclists to slow down but the road planners have installed traffic islands at two hundred yard intervals along the stretch. I've had countless near misses there because some berk decided to overtake me, panicked at the sudden appearance of a traffic island and swung back in and nearly sideswiped me. I've often caught the miscreant at the lights and asked them how close they thought they were, in each and every case I was rewarded with a shrug of the shoulders and a "but I didn't hit you, did I?".

There are cycle lanes around Bromley, but none that I can use to get there from Catford. The cycle lanes that are provided are poorly marked and usually occupied by pedestrians with no idea (or visual cue) that they're meandering into a cycle path. The council have taken an existing footpath, made it a bit narrower and hoped that cyclists and pedestrians can avoid one another.

It isn't enough.

@esher shore. I know the guy who designed that in Camden and know a little about the history.

From what I remember the old two way cycle lane was on one side of the road. It was segregated yes but they kept having serious accidents with drivers pulling out, looking left for oncoming cars and not looking right for cyclists, as the road itself was one way (for vehicles). They also had problems with joining up the track at either ends (signals etc

So the solution was to trial full segregation ' light', on both sides of the road . It kind of goes back to a point I made earlier about finance and political will. The initial two way track was seen as revolutionary in the country and was seen as good , even though it wasn't perfect it was a step in the right direction .They best they could do with the money available and the political support. Once people started using it , they wanted more, so it got political support to have it 'improved' to the scheme you see now. However it didn't have the financial backing to make it fully segregated .

However I have no doubt in five years time it will be fully segregated . I also think the council see the planters as an ongoing maintenance cost. Better some mashed planters than mashed cyclists.

Edit: just seen rs' comments. Also with regard to the doors , I am sure the designer would have wanted parking removed , but was told no, for political reasons. So they have designed it as best they can. You are at least cycle towards the opening doors, so they'll crunch back on the unsuspecting driver when they come out ( that and the driver should in theory be looking forward when they open the door and see you)

@rs

if you look at the picture of the car parking you will see a secondary line of paint lines closer to where the cars are now parked.

The car parking bays were shifted outwards after a number of "dooring" incidents, they realised their layout was incorrect and adjusted the paint markings to compensate.

However, with certain cars the doors are longer and still intrude into the cycle lane, and people getting out of many of the cars do not look for somewhat silent oncoming cyclists before disembarking into the cycle lane, causing an emergency stop for the cyclist.

We also get couriers with trolleys coming from behind their large vehicles pushing straight into the cycle lane without looking!

the worrying thing about that, is that the people behind this design do not realize the basic understanding that a car door needs a certain width to be opened without affecting other road users. Or that a line of paint does not indicate to a motorist or courier, that beyond that paint is a "live" cycle lane

@howyourdad1

its not a perfect situation for sure, and I understand there are political and cost implications to these schemes. However, Camden have been very unwilling to hear any dissent from actual users of Royal College Street, and have spent the last 2 years bragging about it being the future.

The main issue I have with the planters is that they cannot resist a vehicle collision, and then present a hazard to any cyclists. When you see an image like this it shows how easily they are damaged

[img] [/img]

In November last year I was coming home from work along R.C.S. and at the North end by the pub, stopped just in time as my light picked up something in the cycle lane.

When I stopped and got off, I noticed 2 metal planters ripped open by what looked like a HGV. There was dirt, plants and jagged sharp metal across the cycle path. If I had not stopped, it would have been a very nasty accident. I managed to find some traffic cones further up the road, came back and put them in front of the mess to warn others cyclists. 2 days later, it was still there!

The council has been very slow to react to damage, perhaps they did not have the money to maintain it as it became damaged.

I would like to see this on R.C.S.

[img] [/img]

^ What Esher Shore said.

@esher shore Yes I totally agree, but maintainence of the scheme is a little different to the design I reckon, not defending it but I think you get what I mean. It's bad , don't get me wrong, but drivers shouldn't be hitting things in the road, whether is a parked car , person or a planter.
I really don't know as I haven't worked on cycle schemes in London for about three years now, but how is it going with accidents? Decrease or increase or no change?

That CS 7 route is another good example. Shit cycle lane was put there as part of London cycle network a long time ago, people used it , fought enough and it got upgraded. It's slightly different to royal college street in that there are no junction so no vehicle need to go across its ( I think) but yes that design definitely has its place for sure!

I don't like cycle lanes because they represent segregation - with the 'lower value' party being pushed out of the way of the 'more important' party. I don't like the inherent 'when you're on your bike you're lower in the hierarchy of road users' idea that this represents.

We badly need cycling to be treated as a priority form of transport in the UK. Not because I happen to like it, but because we have major, major health issues, which cycling can help to resolve: something like 30k dead each year from pollution-related diseases and similar from obesity-related diseases + the cost of obesity to the NHS. There's also the small matter of destroying the planet...

In terms of the benefit to individuals, to communities and to society as a whole, the car needs to be made the clear secondary choice - and cycling needs to be massively encouraged - for the sake of everyone....

The debate about cycle lanes IMO is far too parochial, far too focussed on a point of detail - we badly need to get people out of cars and cycling should dominate road use, not cars. The debate needs to be about obesity, mental health and the environment, and 'what do we do about these problems' and conclude that everyone riding is a great and very cheap way to help - rather than talking about how best to paint the side of a road or where to put the concrete - it's like Nero fiddling while Rome burnt!

Plus roads are perfectly safe when drivers are observant and careful - they must be - I've been riding for nearly 40 years and not been knocked off yet... so cycling can be made a lot safer with a tougher training, testing and legal regime for drivers

The concrete one above is on Southwark bridge and the cycle lane is well designed.

Unfortunately, just when you need it most, at the junction, it ends, forcing you into one of the most dangerous junction designs in London IMO (T-junction for cars, with two lanes, both turning right, one turning left, cyclists go straight on and risk getting left and right hooked).

The junction was supposed to be redesigned but I fear it may have been postponed or something, as any consultations or design documents have disappeared from TfL's website.

Stuff like this may encourage new cyclists by making cycling *look* safer, whilst failing to deal with the real source of the danger; the junctions.

When I stopped and got off, I noticed 2 metal planters ripped open by what looked like a HGV

Suggest you contact the council about street lighting if you cant recognize an HGV at night

Or specsavers

The debate about cycle lanes IMO is far too parochial, far too focussed on a point of detail - we badly need to get people out of cars and cycling should dominate road use, not cars.

But you are talking as someone who [i]already cycles[/i].

99% of people don't, because they don't want to mix with lots of traffic. This isn't going to change with education and or an adjustment of attitudes, and even it it did people will always make mistakes.

I don't like cycle lanes because they represent segregation - with the 'lower value' party being pushed out of the way of the 'more important' party. I don't like the inherent 'when you're on you're on your bike you're lower in the hierarchy of road users' idea that this represents.

You're right i think, many in the UK do represent that, but if they are designed properly and money spent on them it's the opposite .If these cycle lanes have priority over junctions, if traffic signals give priority to cyclists first , if segregated cycle lanes (including streets only open to cyclists or pedestrians) let the user get to their destination quicker than those driving....

stgeorge - Member
When I stopped and got off, I noticed 2 metal planters ripped open by what looked like a HGV
Suggest you contact the council about street lighting if you cant recognize an HGV at night

Or specsavers

😆 go on, try reading it again; I wonder what he really meant?

99% of people don't, because they don't want to mix with lots of traffic. This isn't going to change with education and or an adjustment of attitudes, and even it it did people will always make mistakes.

I believe that one reason for building specific facilities is it encourages those who are currently too scared because of lousy driving - and the more of those new riders on the the road we get, we slowly change the balance of numbers and slowly change attitudes and cycles eventually dominate...

ie: the infrastructure is seen as a more effective route to behaviour change than training, testing, education, marketing communications, law enforcement etc... which I do get, it just seems a long winded and expensive way to do it...

I also think Bikeability is fantastic. I did levels 2 & 3 a couple of years ago (been riding nearly 40 years at that point and learnt loads of really good techniques). It teaches you to be more assertive and more communicative. It's interesting how drivers will change their behaviour if you're more confident and assertive with them... so cycling safety can be improved by changing the behaviour of cyclists - which is waaay cheaper than loads of infrastructure.

I'm not in favour of compulsion but I'd like to see a massive effort in driving up participation in Bikeability - campaigns from CTC, BC, NHS, Mayor of London, bike shops etc etc - I reckon if 75% of cyclists took Bikeability and used it, you'd transform the safety stats... and also put a lot of the more tantrumy drivers back in their boxes

don't like the inherent 'when you're on your bike you're lower in the hierarchy of road users' idea that this represents.

Gimping car journeys needs looking at too, currently lights, lanes, junctions etc are all geared towards the most inefficient form of transport (pinched if someone a few pages back) cars are already one of the most convenient forms of transport, for short urban journeys they shouldn't be. Lower limits lights phased for bikes, public transport [i]And pedestrians* [/i] and stop with the car is king mentality. Level the playing field a bit.

*hate it when it take several minutes and a few phases of lights to get across a big junction cause car flow can't be stopped.

I also think Bikeability is fantastic. I did levels 2 & 3 a couple of years ago (been riding nearly 40 years at that point and learnt loads of really good techniques). It teaches you to be more assertive and more communicative. It's interesting how drivers will change their behaviour if you're more confident and assertive with them... so cycling safety can be improved by changing the behaviour of cyclists - which is waaay cheaper than loads of infrastructure

I'm a massive fan of bike ability too. I've said it before but I think it take more skill to cycle well in traffic than it does to drive. As you say empowering people to communicate both overtly with clear singling and implicitly with road poisoning / body lanuge is very important. Cycling on the road ufortunatlynot regarded as a skill at the level it should be

Anyone else look at the pic of the London cycle lane segregated with a raised concrete kerb and wonder if it is such a good idea? Touch the kerb and you risk being spilled over onto the road. Is a decent width white line better in the circumstances to avoid this possibility?

Not just you. Though it's the lack of width that's the problem IMHO.

[quote=D0NK ]*hate it when it take several minutes and a few phases of lights to get across a big junction cause car flow can't be stopped.

Not just you. I've literally spent years trying to persuade the council to improve the phasing on our local pedestrian crossing. Which reminded me that they did improve it and it's reverted to the original behaviour, so I've just sent an e-mail to the engineer!

Most of my the people I tried to tell that making things better for pedestrians is good for the environment (for many definitions of that) seemed to be stuck with the idea that cars must be prioritised at all costs. The planning system pays lip service to "alternative" (even the use of that word implies which form is most important) transport, whilst in reality maintaining the priority.

Well this is democracy isn't it. The car drivers are the biggest group by far, so they get pandered to by elected officials.

I only use cyle lanes if they are convenient for my route.
Alot aren't , but some are. Iknow the camden,RCS, cycle route well , I think it's an improvement on what was there before.
Quite a few boroughs in London have introduced 20mph speed limits , this has improved things when Ive ridden in town lately.
In London ,I would prefer to see investment in decent signage for the quieter routes and sensible cyle lanes where they cross busier roads.
In Amsterdam last week , watching the commuters was like a watching a cycle ballet in certain places! I was amazed I didn't see one collision , just a few close calls.

The car drivers are the biggest group by far, so they get pandered to by elected officials.

*I don't actually know the figure but this being STW I wont let that stop me making a point with it 🙂

The problem with that is a lot of people are only pedestrians if they have no alternative.

Another complaint I have with some dedicated cycle infrastructure is that it can be essentially off-limits to people towing trailers/tagalongs if it contains chicane type barriers or double gates etc. The nice route along the Dee to Chester is one such route. Very frustrating to have to turn back when you encounter such an obstacle.

It's a shame that Sustrans seem to be behind or involved in much of this sort of stuff to some degree or another. Edit to add perhaps they are powerless to prevent it being installed of course.

yeah something like 90%* of adults are drivers, however 100% of them are also pedestrians, so why do peds get sidelined as much as cyclists?

That's not quite the right statistic. On any given street how many peds are there vs drivers? On many, the peds outnumber the drivers, but on many it's the other way round.

It's a shame that Sustrans seem to be behind or involved in much of this sort of stuff to some degree or another.

That's not quite the right statistic. On any given street how many peds are there vs drivers? On many, the peds outnumber the drivers, but on many it's the other way round.

Ah, but then we get into the building a bridge across a river nobody is swimming across thing. Why are there lots of drivers and no peds?

because the river is teeming with bloody great crocodiles.

from what I've read sustrans and CTC seem to make too many concessions to the council/car lobby.

Because for a long time the thinking has been "well anything is better than nothing" which is patently untrue. Rather than say "build it properly or not at all", they've said "oh yes, those crumbs you're giving us will be lovely, thanks".

Build a POS cycle lane and no-one will use it as it's dangerous / inconvenient but people (well, drivers) can see it there and they EXPECT you to use it.

And then you're in a spiral of the council saying "oh well we built [x] but no-one uses it so we won't build any more", cyclists saying "build PROPER stuff", the council building more rubbish and everyone getting frustrated by it all.

Pedestrians get upset at being mown down by bikes on badly designed shared use paths, drivers get frustrated at those #bloodycyclists not using the lanes that are there and meanwhile, caught in the middle, unable to please either side are the cyclists who it seems no matter what they do or where they ride, someone will get upset.

That's not quite the right statistic

Cutting nose off to spite face comes to mind when pedestrians needs are second rate over-ruled by drivers'.

Because for a long time the thinking has been "well anything is better than nothing"

Another complaint I have with some dedicated cycle infrastructure is that it can be essentially off-limits to people towing trailers/tagalongs if it contains chicane type barriers or double gates etc.

And going way back to

Re Bails's two photos of Holland and Bradford - see that garden wall in the Bradford photo - that prevents the cyclepath from being further from the road. The gap between the road and the cyclepath in the Dutch photo is essential for safety - so that drivers have space to check for cyclists.

That's a fair point. But the Dutch solution to that would be to make the road one way/make the side road one way/ban left turns or something like that. The UK solution is to not affect motor vehicles in any way. The road [url= https://goo.gl/maps/uT8Pt ]in question[/url]
is a 300 metre long loop that cuts the corner off the main road. You could simply block that end of the road with a bollard and anyone who needs to get in or out by car could drive to the other end of the street, less than 250 metres away, and go in/out that way. The road there is much wider, 5 wide traffic lanes with a grassy central reservation, a hatched area next to that and a decent pavement. Plenty of room for the (perfectly sensible) 'waiting space' for driver turning into the side road. But instead we just say "oo, it's a little bit difficult, so b*llocks to the cyclists and pedestrians, let's keep it nice and easy for the drivers". Just once, we could say "we're restricting what you can do in your car at this one junction. It might add 20 seconds to your journey but it's necessary to keep vulnerable road users safe. Deal with it."

Agree with that bails.

and D0NK, well quite.

Having recently spent 4 days cycling round Normandy, I observed that there were far fewer cycle lanes than you would typically see in the UK, yet the motorists' attitude to us was entirely positive. Despite being a PITA (group of thirty, cycling slowly, strung along narrow country lanes) all the drivers we encountered were unfailingly patient and courteous. The same attitude is to be found in Denmark, which in contrast to Normandy has highly developed infrastructure.

So it ain't about cycle lanes, and until we stop tolerating UK motorists' over-developed sense of entitlement, I don't see much prospect for improvement.

Why are there lots of drivers and no peds?

Cos driving is easy, and you can't practically walk long distances that you can drive.

Has anyone considered the wider topography of these Dutch cities? How close do people live to work and shops? At this office, most people seem to be coming from 10-20 miles away. Asking people to start cycling that far is quite an ask.

no one is asking people to start cycling 10-20 (20-40 for the return journey) miles a day.

i feel compelled to bring up the old nugget:

[url= https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/why-we-need-space-for-cycling/ ]38percent of all car journeys are less than 2miles.[/url]

last time i looked, cars aren't cheap. and they're heavily subsidised. We spend an awful lot of money to avoid 40mins of excellent exercise.

enhancements to infrastructure do provide benefits however..

Making owners, managers and directors responsible for their drivers actions in the same way as HSAW Act with similar penalties would have a major impact

38percent of all car journeys are less than 2miles.

Ah yes.. but look beyond the headline stats.

Those short journeys - how many of them are in congested places? How many are made for other reasons ie people driving to work because they then need to drive somewhere else, or they have stuff to carry etc? I'm sure plenty of them are sheer laziness, but that stat doesn't distinguish.

Also - it's fatuous to suggest that people buy cars ONLY to do 2 mile journeys. They almost certainly buy them for other reasons, then end up using them for 2 mile journeys.

Plus - I'm sceptical that it's actually true.

It's better to ask what percentage of car journeys could easily be replaced by cycling, without more than minor inconvenience?

They almost certainly buy them for other reasons, then end up using them for 2 mile journeys.

If we want to turn that around, and there are a lot of very good reasons for doing so, we need to take some of that away from cars/drivers. Unfortunately all those reasons are for society/greater good, none of them benefit me me me! so it's a struggle.

*we can argue over "need" but our public transport, if not actually crap, is certainly well below the level it should be.

molgrips - Member

It's better to ask what percentage of car journeys could easily be replaced by cycling, without more than minor inconvenience?

quite.

somebody shared this on twitter a short while ago, Amsterdam street many years ago, it looks like any typical UK street and then after...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

edit: not sure its the exact same street, but more of an example of how things were then and now.

Is that a grid pattern of streets?

well yeah. people "need" cars coz public transport is so crap

Well not just that. Public transport will always require navigating a network - not everyone's going from the suburbs into town, or city centre to city centre. Cars will always be more convenient over much of the country.

we need to take some of that away from cars/drivers

You're talking about forced revolution. Good luck with that. And yes, I know the Dutch did it, but that was a long time ago in a different country.

You're talking about forced revolution. Good luck with that. And yes, I know the Dutch did it, but that was a long time ago in a different country.

That was in a time when the environment, global overpopulation, the unsustainability of everybody using a car was not such a hot topic, there are more drivers (no pun intended) to building this kind of city now than ever before!

My twitter feed is busy with good cycling stuff today, here's a cool video of Groningen, it almost seems like some kind of weird cycling utopia...

The "it works in a different country but wouldn't work here" stuff is a bit of a cop out.

It works in a windy, drizzly Northern European country that looks out across the North Sea 100 miles away. It would work on our windy, drizzly Northern European rock in the North Sea just the same. There's more distance between London and Manchester than between London and the NL! There's nothing intrinsically 'pro-cycling' about the Dutch people or the Dutch landscape (it's not all flat, and most people in the UK don't live up mountains). If it was something inbuilt and unique then immigrants and tourists to the Netherlands wouldn't ride their bikes any more than we do, but they do.

People will always come up with the example of their 102 year old grandmother who had to drive from Penzance to Sunderland to pick up their new wardrobe and "how could you do that on a bike?" so we should just stop even thinking about it. But the Dutch way of doing things doesn't even get close to banning cars, or stopping people driving. It's about making the alternative(s) better so that people [i]choose[/i] not to drive, rather than simply telling them they can't drive. Some of that might involve things mentioned above like restricting your turning options at a particular junction but that's not really any hardship, and certainly not the same as "forced revolution".