Kensington & Chelsea Cycle Lane Removal - Controversy

[northerncyclist]

Interesting article here. Cycle U.K. really need to check the details and if they are correct make a whole of noise in the right places. Also you guys that live in the area get in touch with your councillors.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ea-council

[Paulatic]

I think CUK should be fully aware. I believe the story comes from a Twitter account

Is the BMW in the RBKC cycle lane still there?
@KensingtonVan

1.343 followers in a matter of weeks using CCTV.

[simonineaston]

As the country returns (post covid) to enthusiastic use of motorised vehicles, we cyclists will continue to be marginalised, threatened, abused and indeed harmed, in ever increasing numbers. The zeitgeist is 'independance, freedom & push hard for your rights', as in 'get your twatty bike out of my car lane...' and will extend out from the centre, like a brick dropped in a pond. This and other recently reported anti-cyclist activity are just the tip of the iceburg...
Oh and Happy New Year.

[cycleruk]

Lane removed which then filled with parked cars causing increased congestion. Journey time increased from 5 minutes to 8.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... ime-487180

[Stevek76]

I think CUK were raising the prospect of a legal challenge back in early Dec but heard nothing on that part since so presumably advice received from S&G was not positive as to the chances of success.

RBKC have received a large amount of flak for this but the reality is they don't care. Persons with influence demanded it be removed and cllrs, who have never been keen on active travel anyway were all too happy to 'acquiesce'. Letters to residents associations revealed through FOIs suggested that the council cabinet only put the lane in as they felt there was a risk that control of the street would be removed if they didn't try it. Obviously that's still a risk too and it's something Khan has hinted is an option but he needs SoS approval (or at least to not object) to change TfLs network so there's some internal conservative party politics going on there. Johnson was (unsurprisingly) reportedly very angry about the removal but he has limited internal political capital left at present.

[Pete Owens]

Given that the purpose of cycle lanes is to speed up motor traffic by clearing us out of the way, it is hardly surprising that they found that removal of a cycle lane resulted in slower traffic.

What is surprising is for cyclists to argue that high speed motor traffic is desirable.

[northerncyclist]

What is surprising is for cyclists to argue that high speed motor traffic is desirable.[/quote]

Where does it say that ?????

[Stevek76]

Pete is of the vehicular cyclist mindset so inherently against any sort of protected cycle lanes that might allow the less confident, less able and very young/old to cycle without feeling like they're about to meet a squishy end.

The only reason cycling campaigners have noted the increased journey times is because one of the reasons RBKC gave for the removal of the lanes were that they were 'causing congestion'.

In neither case could the motor traffic on Kensington High Street be considered 'high speed' for the vast majority of the day, nor were these cycle lanes 'clearing cyclists out of the way' given they were repurposed space from a general traffic lane for the most part.

[mjr]

In neither case could the motor traffic on Kensington High Street be considered 'high speed' for the vast majority of the day, nor were these cycle lanes 'clearing cyclists out of the way' given they were repurposed space from a general traffic lane for the most part.

The very lane that cyclists in one direction are still expected to ride in, isn't it? (I did not visit London while the cycle lane existed, due to covid.)

[pjclinch]

Given that the purpose of cycle lanes is to speed up motor traffic by clearing us out of the way...

And here were lots of us thinking the main idea was to enable safe, reasonably pleasant routes for relatively inexperienced riders like primary school children who shouldn't be expected to mix it with fast and/or heavy traffic...

[Pete Owens]

Pete is of the vehicular cyclist mindset so inherently against any sort of protected cycle lanes that might allow the less confident, less able and very young/old to cycle without feeling like they're about to meet a squishy end.

And it is precisely because I am a cautious cyclist who doesn't want to come to a sticky end that I oppose the dangers that segregation (whatever euphemism is the current fad) inevitably causes. I don't know what age has to do with it or even what age you think I am, but I valued my life when I was younger and expect to continue value it when I grow older. I value the life of my children which is why I had to teach them to exercise extra care in the vicinity of cycle lanes - as does modern Bikability training.

The only reason cycling campaigners have noted the increased journey times is because one of the reasons RBKC gave for the removal of the lanes were that they were 'causing congestion'.

Whatever their original reason for for carefully measuring the effect of cycle lanes on traffic speeds, measure it they did. And they discovered (entirely predictably) that the effect of removing the cycle lanes reduced the traffic speed.

For anyone interested in the safety of cyclists and pedestrians that is a good thing.

[northerncyclist]

And it is precisely because I am a cautious cyclist who doesn't want to come to a sticky end that I oppose the dangers that segregation (whatever euphemism is the current fad) inevitably causes.

I think you need to pay a visit and cycle the countries with great bicycle lanes in Europe, then compare your trips with the ones you make here......There again I doubt you will be open minded about the result.

[mjr]

And they discovered (entirely predictably) that the effect of removing the cycle lanes reduced the traffic speed.

Or rather, they discovered the effect of cars parking where it was previously banned.

And those parked cars are an obstacle every cyclist has to move out, and it means cars are manoeuvring nearer walkers. For anyone interested in the safety of cyclists and pedestrians that is a bad thing.

[Stevek76]

And it is precisely because I am a cautious cyclist who doesn't want to come to a sticky end that I oppose the dangers that segregation (whatever euphemism is the current fad) inevitably causes. I don't know what age has to do with it or even what age you think I am, but I valued my life when I was younger and expect to continue value it when I grow older. I value the life of my children which is why I had to teach them to exercise extra care in the vicinity of cycle lanes - as does modern Bikability training.

Because most UK 'cycle lanes' are rubbish, there seems to be a wilful conflation of the all too common dangerous narrow strip of paint to what had gone in in Kensington High Street which was a removing motor traffic from a lane in each direction and physically demarcating that space for cyclists, something that results in a measurable improvement in safety for cyclists as well as journey times, since measures like this actually get the cars out of the way of cyclists rather than the other way around. Kensington High St at peak times is now back to an exercise in weaving & filtering for cyclists.

As for age, yours, as is mine, is irrelevant and wasn't part of what I was pointing out. I was referring to the extensive evidence that, if cyclists are expected to mix with high volume/speed motor traffic, the people who actually cycle will be, not exclusively but very predominantly, male, fairly well off, young to middle aged adults and most of the trips will be commutes or cycling for exercise and they will be a small minority of the population. If we want far more people and a far broader demographic cycling for transport then the only proven method to do so is exemplified by the dutch and where this is being implemented elsewhere, the same results are being seen.

[Stevek76]

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/parking-transpo ... cle-scheme

Well it seems there was a pre action letter in threatening a judicial review challenge (doesn't say from who).

RBKC has decided to reopen the decision in an attempt to see off such action, though are somehow managing to take 2 months to do so.