Superhighway

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
PRL
Posts: 606
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 9:14pm
Location: Richmond upon Thames

Re: Superhighway

Postby PRL » 7 Feb 2015, 2:08pm

TonyR wrote:
Mark1978 wrote:I do despair when people trot out the same old things about cycling with heavy traffic being fine etc.


No it isn't but the answer is not to confine the cyclists to small ghettos and make everywhere else off limits, its to deal with the traffic, as the Dutch have done, to make it fine to cycle everywhere. If we're talking about the same old things being trotted out, segregated facilities have been trotted out as the answer and built for over 70 years now and it hasn't worked. Royal College St in London was the pinnacle of the local activists' achievement until it was found it was causing more accidents than before and then the tired old excuse "but they didn't build it properly" was trotted out yet again and they had another go. Its time to admit if you can't get it right in 70 years you probably won't do any better in the next seventy years and try a different approach. One of controlling the motorised traffic, not the cyclists.


I would see the superhigway as a start on that; controlling motor traffic to a section of the embankment road. The next step should be to restrict through motor traffic on smaller roads where there isn't and can't be separate space for cycling.

User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2579
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Superhighway

Postby honesty » 7 Feb 2015, 3:51pm

TonyR wrote:
honesty wrote:Profpointy made the original assertion, so its up to him to provide evidence Tha segregation is more dangerous, not the other way round.


What a strange inversion of the normal logic. You are proposing to introduce something that you claim will make me safer and its not your responsibility to show that it will but mine to show that it won't? The pharmaceutical industry would love you. No need to prove their drugs are safe/work, its the users responsibility to prove they're not safe/don't work.


I'm not proposing anything. Profpointy said they were more dangerous first, therefore prove it. Simple really.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Superhighway

Postby TonyR » 7 Feb 2015, 8:41pm

PRL wrote:I would see the superhigway as a start on that; controlling motor traffic to a section of the embankment road. The next step should be to restrict through motor traffic on smaller roads where there isn't and can't be separate space for cycling.


You do know that the superhighway is being narrowed to a 1.5m lane in each directions in several parts of the central section following concerns that motor vehicles might be slowed down otherwise.

Postboxer
Posts: 1753
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: Superhighway

Postby Postboxer » 7 Feb 2015, 8:47pm

Those Dutch cyclists must have a death wish! Could only see a couple of them wearing helmets! :lol: Great video!

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Superhighway

Postby TonyR » 7 Feb 2015, 8:59pm

Penfolds11 wrote:
aspiringcyclist wrote:Here is a video explaining some solutions to the junction/side road problem.


This Walter Mitty world tries to show motorists voluntarily stopping to let cyclists go past. Dreamers! :lol:


And just like London there's oodles of room between the buildings to build everything.

aspiringcyclist
Posts: 206
Joined: 11 Jul 2014, 6:11pm

Re: Superhighway

Postby aspiringcyclist » 7 Feb 2015, 9:43pm

TonyR wrote:
Penfolds11 wrote:
aspiringcyclist wrote:Here is a video explaining some solutions to the junction/side road problem.


This Walter Mitty world tries to show motorists voluntarily stopping to let cyclists go past. Dreamers! :lol:


And just like London there's oodles of room between the buildings to build everything.


Exactly right. Just look at some of these London roads.

Image

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Superhighway

Postby TonyR » 8 Feb 2015, 9:56am

aspiringcyclist wrote:
Exactly right. Just look at some of these London roads.

Image


Ah yes, the London road into which, for a major cycling superhighway they have managed to squeeze a 1.5m wide cycle lane for each direction. The Dutch CROW manual would require 4m wide in each direction yet everyone is jumping up and down with enthusiasm at being given the bare minimum in UK guidance for a standard roadside cycle lane being passed off as a superhighway. Yet more crap segregated infrastructure being passed off as the start of a new revolution for cycling by the segregationists. Just like the Bloomsbury cycle track 15 years ago - a segregated cycle facility described by the now London cycling tzar as the worst place to cycle in London.

fluffybunnyuk
Posts: 450
Joined: 1 Sep 2013, 10:58pm
Contact:

Re: Superhighway

Postby fluffybunnyuk » 8 Feb 2015, 11:45am

lol i actually find embankment one of the safest places in london to cycle...

User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2579
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Superhighway

Postby honesty » 8 Feb 2015, 1:34pm

TonyR wrote:
aspiringcyclist wrote:
Exactly right. Just look at some of these London roads.

Image


Ah yes, the London road into which, for a major cycling superhighway they have managed to squeeze a 1.5m wide cycle lane for each direction. The Dutch CROW manual would require 4m wide in each direction yet everyone is jumping up and down with enthusiasm at being given the bare minimum in UK guidance for a standard roadside cycle lane being passed off as a superhighway. Yet more crap segregated infrastructure being passed off as the start of a new revolution for cycling by the segregationists. Just like the Bloomsbury cycle track 15 years ago - a segregated cycle facility described by the now London cycling tzar as the worst place to cycle in London.


It narrows to 1.5m in 3 locations. Stop trying to pass the while thing off as crap because of 3 pinch points. Everywhere else along the length its 4m.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Superhighway

Postby TonyR » 8 Feb 2015, 2:05pm

honesty wrote:It narrows to 1.5m in 3 locations. Stop trying to pass the while thing off as crap because of 3 pinch points. Everywhere else along the length its 4m.


You mean everywhere else its 2m wide in each direction. So the recommended with of a normal cycle lane. So you are defending a "superhighway" being built to no more than basic cycle lane standards.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Superhighway

Postby TonyR » 8 Feb 2015, 2:06pm

TonyR wrote:
honesty wrote:It narrows to 1.5m in 3 locations. Stop trying to pass the while thing off as crap because of 3 pinch points. Everywhere else along the length its 4m.


You mean everywhere else its 2m wide in each direction - the recommended width for a normal cycle lane. So you are defending a "superhighway" being built to no more than basic cycle lane standards.

User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2579
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Superhighway

Postby honesty » 8 Feb 2015, 2:09pm

I'm not defining anything. I did not name it that. Yes obviously 2m a side. This is significantly better than anythin else we have in the UK at the moment. I really cant understand your position. You seem to swing wildly from "we shouldn't build it because its rubbish" to "we don't need segregation and stuff the 6 year olds"...

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Superhighway

Postby TonyR » 8 Feb 2015, 3:35pm

honesty wrote:I'm not defining anything. I did not name it that. Yes obviously 2m a side. This is significantly better than anythin else we have in the UK at the moment. I really cant understand your position. You seem to swing wildly from "we shouldn't build it because its rubbish" to "we don't need segregation and stuff the 6 year olds"...


What's supposed to be a landmark major arterial route for cyclists in a city where cycling is becoming a dominant mode of transport has been designed at the recommended width for a low traffic cycle lane and in places to the minimum width (because otherwise it might slow car journeys). Of course its rubbish. And your defence of it seems to be its not as bad rubbish as the worse rubbish we've been given. Actually it is worse. Its no wider but is expected to carry much higher flows which will have to all travel at the speed of the slowest cyclist because there is no overtaking room.

And please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say stuff the six year olds. I said control motor vehicles so that a six year old can cycle in Central London rather than build a rubbish facility that I doubt any six year old will use anyway. Its too narrow with cyclists going the other way and doesn't allow them to do anything other than cycle from one end to the other and back because there is nowhere else that is segregated to go on to

User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2579
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Superhighway

Postby honesty » 8 Feb 2015, 3:48pm

So you still want to mix the 6 year olds with the 20 tonne trucks then?

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16726
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Superhighway

Postby mjr » 8 Feb 2015, 4:07pm

TonyR wrote:But in any case the safety comparison you've made is bogus. The accident map you refer to is based on STATS19 data which is accidents on the road It won't record anything happening on an off-road cycleway

I hope you don't mind but I shall reply to the second part of that paragraph first. "Road" is defined in STATS20 in a broader sense than law and includes cycleways that have some lawful access by motor vehicles, so collisions (not accidents) in Castle Park and between Temple Way and Friary should definitely be recorded that way. I'm not sure if any vehicles have lawful access between Counterslip and Temple Way but there's nothing much to cause a collision there anyway: just three or so path-path junctions on a straight cycleway.
Sorry, I misread your first post as referring to segregated cycle facilities not off-road cycle routes. I have no problem with off-road routes that provide a genuine alternative and shorter route. Its on-road segregation we were primarily talking about.

You're mistaken: I was clearly disproving profpointy's "All I see in towns is infrastructure which makes cycling more dangerous, slower, and less convenient" with examples of infrastructure that does none of them which profpointy should have seen.

Discussing on-road protected space (I do not want segregation) causes two problems: there isn't much of it yet; and I wish it did, but the reports don't seem to record details that allow one to distinguish the carriageway from an immediately adjacent cycleway - for example, how can we tell whether the pedal cycle was using the carriageway or the (old-style) foot+cycleway in http://www.cyclestreets.net/collisions/ ... 521302707/ ? So any analysis becomes quite time-consuming and difficult to verify.

Probably the best study is the one done in Copenhagen where they measured before and after on a new construction to the highest Danish standards and included factors like changes in routes people took before and after. But there are many others. http://trafitec.dk/sites/default/files/ ... 0lanes.pdf
http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/helsinki.htm

The first one seems to show a very slight increase in measured safety but it was comparing the observations to predictions (which are called estimates in some places) and essentially finds that the cycleways weren't as safe as predicted - an approach that even the author calls a "second-best methodology" and I feel that second is ranking it a bit high because I'm not sure I like the claimed-better idea of using Bayesian methods, where the prior belief of the investigators becomes a factor. The 95% Confidence Interval straddled zero (meaning no difference from expectation) for every measurement in table 2 (crash/injury by track/lane) and often many others.

There seem obvious confounding factors - for example, the increases in cycle traffic, more crash-prone riders being more likely to choose a cycleway than a carriageway, and mopeds being allowed on cycleways there - but even so, if you ignore the author's predictions and look only at the Observed columns, it shows falls in most measurements.

It does illustrate some useful lessons for cycleway design, such as not forcing parking into side streets (often resulting in an increase in traffic turning across the cycleway - in other words, busier junctions and junctions are always the most dangerous places) - a lesson which I think doesn't apply for much of London's new protected cycleways which will be on streets where parking is already forbidden. Also, the Embankment in particular does not have many turnings across the cycleway because they'd be into the Thames - so that first paper basically supports the wisdom of that routing! (I suspect this effect is real, which was part of the reason why I chose the routes alongside water in Bristol - cycleway design needs to harness this effect when it can.)

That second paper "The risks of cycling" by Dr. Eero Pasanen is beyond incredible and seems to contain logical disconnects, including that cycling competes with public transport (huh? I couldn't easily do most of my cycle journeys by public transport) and that helmets could prevent half of fatalities - do you really trust that paper? Do you wear a helmet and travel by bus for the same trips when not cycling?

If those are the best you have - a paper showing reductions in numbers of accidents and a paper that also claims half of cyclist deaths can be prevented by helmets - then I conclude there's only very weak evidence that cycleways are more dangerous and the claim " Wherever people have collected the data it has shown cycle facilities to be more dangerous than the road" is unsupported. So with no safety case against them, the numbers of people saying that cycleways would be more attractive and enjoyable than carriageways is sufficient reason to build them.

mjr wrote:Cambridge has been building more protected space as well as even more modal filtering

So where has this "more protected space" been built exactly?

If you want exact, you know how to use maps or FoI requests, but for example, the cycleways alongside the busways and neighbouring roads opened earlier in 2011, if I recall correctly.
"Bikes now make up around 16% of traffic in Central London, rising to around a quarter or even half of all journeys on some routes during peak hours."
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr ... ords-began

"The biggest ever census of bike use in the city reveals one in four road users during the morning rush hour is a cyclist - and on key routes such as river crossings and roundabouts bikes even outnumber all other vehicles."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/m ... 71069.html

You were saying?

I was saying that it's far from "the dominant commuting mode" and I still say that - both of those measurements exclude rail traffic (overground or underground), are only on some roads and are vehicle counts rather than people counts (buses do hold more people - sloppy wording in the Standard - and IIRC, traffic censuses don't count pedestrians at all).

"Bristol has become England's first "cycling city" in a £100m government scheme aimed at encouraging cycling."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7462791.stm

£100m over three years is complete chicken-feed compared to what is spent on Bristol's motorways and rails and some of that £100m may well be diverted into motoring and bus projects if it's anything like what we've seen in other cities. (Actually, I think I remember that some of that £100m was used to convert Prince Street Bridge ready for bus rapid transit.) Bristol is still underspending on cycling: 8% cycle-commuting share but only 5% of its transport budget according to http://www.bristolcyclingcampaign.org.u ... ort-budget

Recap on other TonyR claims unsupported but challenges ignored: how London's 3.9% cycle-commuting is "very high levels" yet Bristol's 7.5% is some sort of failure; and what evidence there is that Royal College Street "was causing more accidents than before".
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.