Cycle Superhighway 2 (campaign discussion)

[Geriatrix]

<mod insertion: this thread has been split from viewtopic.php?f=7&t=77478 about the recent tragedy on CS2, involving a cyclist riding a Boris Bike. This thread is to discuss campaign issues.


The section where the woman was killed was subject to severe criticism before the incident because the painted lanes were there/not there, and where present were too narrow.

From the ES:

The officer said: “We have been handing out leaflets in the area warning over the road dangers for cyclists and pedestrians. We were due to leaflet at that exact junction today and are absolutely gutted that this has happened. It is so dangerous around here people should be aware.

He doesn't unfortunately say whether they were handing out leaflets to drivers, or those at risk. If it's the latter then it's a bit like the "beware of falling rocks" road sign. Not much you can do with the info if you are the target rather than the source of the danger. The danger needs to be controlled at it's source.

[JamesE]

There is an update here, with more information.

From that report: "The officer said: “We have been handing out leaflets in the area warning over the road dangers for cyclists and pedestrians. We were due to leaflet at that exact junction today and are absolutely gutted that this has happened. It is so dangerous around here people should be aware.”"

The fact he's saying that about a cycle superhighway says it all, really...

[thirdcrank]

In spite of recent cutbacks in police pay and conditions, I cannot see how it can possibly be cost effective to deploy PC's or PCSO's or whatever to dish out leaflets. I fancy there are leafleting agencies who would issue a leaflet - even two each - to every resident of London for less than it costs to have the police issue a few hundred.

(Hyperbole, of course, rather than my stock-in-trade litotes, but you know what I mean.)

[Vorpal]

In spite of recent cutbacks in police pay and conditions, I cannot see how it can possibly be cost effective to deploy PC's or PCSO's or whatever to dish out leaflets. I fancy there are leafleting agencies who would issue a leaflet - even two each - to every resident of London for less than it costs to have the police issue a few hundred.

(Hyperbole, of course, rather than my stock-in-trade litotes, but you know what I mean.)

But the minimum wage employees of a leafletting firm won't sound nearly so authoritative when they say that the junction is dangerous.

[thirdcrank]

...
But the minimum wage employees of a leafletting firm won't sound nearly so authoritative when they say that the junction is dangerous.

That's right of course, but it misses the point that the leaflet is intended to give the advice, and as such, it should be crystal clear.

Apart from what seems to me to be the obvious point that it's bizarre that one public body should be doing something and another should be advising that it's unsafe (perhaps I've misunderstood something there ) I think an issue like this needs the total clarity which only comes from a properly thought out document, rather than vague chat from somebody who may not understand what they are talking about and may care even less. In this context I'd mention the reaction on here to the police recently stopping a forum member and urging them to wear a helmet.

It seems to me that what's happening is the worst of both worlds. Whatever the leaflet says, the distribution is cumbersome and - to the extent that it arrived too late for the deceased here - it's been totally ineffective in at least one case. At the same time - and here I'm presuming that police officers are doing the distribution - people paid and trained to enforce the law are doing something that could be done by somebody else. "Have you nothing better to do with your time?" is the jibe that springs to mind, and my idea of something better is reporting offenders, whatever form of transport they are using.

[Vorpal]

...
But the minimum wage employees of a leafletting firm won't sound nearly so authoritative when they say that the junction is dangerous.

That's right of course, but it misses the point that the leaflet is intended to give the advice, and as such, it should be crystal clear.

Would you like to borrow my sarcasm filter?

[661-Pete]

To be honest, looking again at Streetview and the scene of the latest tragedy: well all I can say is my flabber is well and truly ghasted! If they're calling that a cycling route?!.... No continuity. No indication to motorists as to how to cross the marked area. No delineating white lines. No nothing except a lot of blue paint and some crudely-painted cycle symbols.

I'm retiring this autumn and will have more time on my hands. I'm half minded to get myself a tin of grey paint, go up there one dark night, and paint the whole ******* lot out again! Anyone up for that?

[Geriatrix]

This picture from Cyclist in the City blog illustrates one of the problems:

The lorry is in the cycle lane and is probably there because of the lane width.
The two cyclists are on the inside of the lorry in the worst possible position. The front cyclist is pedaling which leads me to believe that she placed herself in that position rather than because the lorry passed her. The rear cyclist is doing the same. If the lorry moves to the left they are trapped between the railings and the lorry.

It's easy for an experienced cyclist to criticise the cyclists in the picture, but this is one of the big problems of cycle lanes. If it's demarcated it's reasonable to assume that its there to be used (just like any other lane).

[snibgo]

I haven't cycled in London since they started splashing blue paint around. Looking at photos and videos from the comfort of home, it's always struck me as a problem.

Blue paint carries no legal significance. Solid or broken white lines mean something legally, but blue paint doesn't.

The blue paint (and this is Barclays Blue, lest we forget) is merely symbolic. It might mean, "cyclists sometimes use this road" or "cyclists should stay on the blue paint" or "cyclists are immune from motorists if they stay on the blue paint", or whatever meaning individual users choose to assign.

But there is no official meaning, so there is inevitable conflict.

I don't know if TfL or anyone else has established that blue paint is good or bad for cycling safety.

[thirdcrank]

As a mere provincial, I find it easy to assume that the blue paint is gimicry. Bearing in mind how keen the authorities usually are to act against unauthorised signs - and the men from the ministry tend to keep a pretty tight grip on what local authorities do - the situation seems strange.

We've had something similar in Leeds with red painted areas across roads at the start of 20mph areas. As these are generally at junctions, they look like some sort of pedestrian crossing facility, but afaik, they are without any legal significance.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=strawb ... =12,0,,0,0

As for those cyclists riding down the nearside of the lorry, there's total predictability in that if there's a huge lorry averaging 2-3mph in heavy traffic, some riders will go down the nearside and painting a cycle route there will only serve to encourage them. I can read "tunnel" on the direction sign ahead an I'll guess that's where the lorry is heading.

[Geriatrix]

The blue paint is gimicry, no question. It's a politically expedient way of advertising the you are taking action without actually doing anything of any practical benefit. Your example presents the same problem because the road marking can lure the uninformed into thinking that they have priority. IMO that's dangerous.

[661-Pete]

I just googled 'cycling superhighway' and discover that these too, along with the 'boris bikes', appear to be sponsored by barclays bank. Now, that bank uses blue a lot in its logo and its advertising bumf: I would hazard a guess that the blue paint of the CS's is exactly the same shade of blue as the bank's corporate colour.

The whole thing is just an advertising gimmick for the bank. Cyclists' needs come a long way down the list of priorities.

Get rid of the lot now!

[edit] was beaten to it by Geriatrix - but same point!

[Richard Mann]

The blue paint in that location is a 1.5m stripe painted within a 3m traffic lane. The road is part of a gyratory, with south-north traffic on London's inner ring going briefly west-east, before turning left across CS2. I wouldn't go near it.

Solutions are *very* difficult, but probably require
1) forcing the ring road traffic to be two-way (on Leman St)
2) suppressing traffic on Commercial Road, to avoid having two major junctions close to one another
3) banning some turning moves (west-south and east-north probably) at the crossroads, so it doesn't jam up entirely

Then (and only then) you can start arguing over cycle lanes / tracks / floating bus stops etc.

Until the gyratory has been sorted out, the blue paint should be removed.

[snibgo]

I don't know if TfL or anyone else has established that blue paint is good or bad for cycling safety.

TfL's 2011 Barclays Cycle Superhighways Evaluation of Pilot Routes 3 and 7 says:

65 per cent of all respondents in wave 1, 71 per cent in wave 2 and 80 per cent in the scheme user survey agreed or strongly agreed that Barclays Cycle Superhighways improve safety for cyclists.

Of course, perceived safety improvement isn't necessarily because safety has actually improved.

[Vorpal]

IMO, CS2 may be of the worst possible design for a cycle facility on a busy street. I don't know about lulling cyclists into a false sense of security, but it clearly encourages poor road positioning.

A number of studies (including some conducted in Denmark) have found that cycle lanes tend to reduce cyclist safety at junctions.

Given that all of the areas on CS2 that are problematic for cyclists are at junctions blue paint is, at best, the equivalent of luring cyclists into danger.

I doubt it was deliberate. I just think that too few resources were given to study the probable impact. The approach to design is negligent. The tools are available to ensure good design and they have not been used (probably not even considered).

It's a sad state of affairs. I'd like to think that the recent death of the poor cyclist on CS2 would provide sufficient evidence that real and competent action must be taken, but I won't hold my breath.

p.s. I revel in thought of doing something like

I'm retiring this autumn and will have more time on my hands. I'm half minded to get myself a tin of grey paint, go up there one dark night, and paint the whole ******* lot out again! Anyone up for that?

I don't think I could do such a thing, but I thought of agreeing, maybe in exchange for a little help removing some obstructions? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=76492