Superhighway

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Superhighway

Postby TonyR » 8 Feb 2015, 4:34pm

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


I asked you not to put words in my mouth.

User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2576
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Superhighway

Postby honesty » 8 Feb 2015, 4:44pm

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


I asked you not to put words in my mouth.


I'm not. I'm asking you to clarify your statement. Explain how "control traffic so that a six year old can cycle" is not having said 6 year old cycle in the same road as the 20 tonne truck?

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16696
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Superhighway

Postby mjr » 8 Feb 2015, 5:53pm

TonyR wrote: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.

Actually I agree with TonyR on that and have said as much in my response to the consultation. It should have been widened elsewhere, not narrowed at the pinch points. It seems likely that there will be a number of faster people cycling on the carriageway due to congestion of the cycleway (as happens in Bloomsbury). At least it makes a change from using the carriageway due to poor surfacing of the cycleway!
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.

There are two types of overtaking room: the other lane when there's no cycles in it (similar to on a carriageway) and rejoining the carriageway. How is that worse than elsewhere?

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

Actually, not connecting to anything isn't as much of a disabling flaw in London as in many cities. If they put hire racks at each end, anyone who can fit on the bikes (some twelve year olds rather than six, perhaps) might find it useful.

But it'll be a bit better than that, with some connections to cycle-only exits and very quiet streets which might be good enough.

Given they can't even build a riverside cycleway to the full recommended standard, there's clearly not the political will to control motor vehicles, so what are the next-best measures? What are the other possible improvements?
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.

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

Re: Superhighway

Postby aspiringcyclist » 8 Feb 2015, 6:14pm

I agree that the restricting to 3m is definitely not something we want and it seems to be pandering to unsubstantiated worries. Tavistock Pl is certainly far too narrow ( don't think it is even 2m wide ), however, despite this, it still remains a very popular route, showing how much people prefer segregation. I'm confused about your argument. Are you against cycling infrastructure or just bad cycling infrastructure?
Last edited by aspiringcyclist on 8 Feb 2015, 8:47pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wilf Roberts
Posts: 51
Joined: 10 Feb 2013, 8:05pm

Re: Superhighway

Postby Wilf Roberts » 8 Feb 2015, 7:08pm

aspiringcyclist wrote:Tavistock Pl is certainly far too narrow ( don't think it is even 2m wide ), however, despite this it still remains a very popular route, showing how much people prefer segregation.


Quite. Where I live the pavements are often narrow and awkward to cycle on but a depressing amount of cyclists opt to ride on them in preference to the roads. As a keen cyclist I'm not sure what I think of segregated cycle paths, but it's clear to me that a significant number of the able-bodied public would prefer them.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16696
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Superhighway

Postby mjr » 8 Feb 2015, 7:19pm

aspiringcyclist wrote:I agree that the restricting to 3m is definitely not something we want and it seems to be pandering to unsubstantiated worries. Tavistock Pl is certainly far too narrow ( don't think it is even 2m wide ), however, despite this it still remains a very popular route, showing how much people prefer segregation. I'm confused about your argument. Are you against cycling infrastructure or just bad cycling infrastructure?

Who is "you"? It may help if you address questions to someone in particular or everyone ;) - I'm only against bad cycling infrastructure that makes things significantly worse for more than a few people.

The Tavistock Place route is 2.75m at its widest according to the Vole O'Speed link I posted a couple of pages ago. I think I member reading it's just under 2m at its narrowest (a short section just east of Malet St, but I think there are other bits as narrow) but I didn't find a confirmation of that just now.
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.

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

Re: Superhighway

Postby aspiringcyclist » 8 Feb 2015, 8:46pm

Sorry the post was directed to TonyR. Another problem with Tavistock place and the superhighway are the unforgiving kerbs, decreasing the usable width.

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

Re: Superhighway

Postby TonyR » 8 Feb 2015, 11:31pm

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


I asked you not to put words in my mouth.


I'm not. I'm asking you to clarify your statement. Explain how "control traffic so that a six year old can cycle" is not having said 6 year old cycle in the same road as the 20 tonne truck?


Well if you can't work that one out..........

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

Re: Superhighway

Postby TonyR » 8 Feb 2015, 11:38pm

aspiringcyclist wrote:Sorry the post was directed to TonyR. Another problem with Tavistock place and the superhighway are the unforgiving kerbs, decreasing the usable width.


As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way. The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing.

The reason its so widely used is there are few alternative roads and if you try cycling on the road alongside there are plenty of motorists willing to physically encourage you to use the cycle track. Personally I avoid it but fortunately I don't need to go that way too often.

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

Re: Superhighway

Postby TonyR » 8 Feb 2015, 11:52pm

aspiringcyclist wrote:I agree that the restricting to 3m is definitely not something we want and it seems to be pandering to unsubstantiated worries. Tavistock Pl is certainly far too narrow ( don't think it is even 2m wide ), however, despite this, it still remains a very popular route, showing how much people prefer segregation


And remember those are widths for a two way cycle track so one way its between 1m and 1.4m. And as well as being narrow with lots of problem junctions it has gems like this built into it.

Image

User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2576
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Superhighway

Postby honesty » 9 Feb 2015, 7:42am

TonyR wrote:
honesty wrote:
I'm not. I'm asking you to clarify your statement. Explain how "control traffic so that a six year old can cycle" is not having said 6 year old cycle in the same road as the 20 tonne truck?


Well if you can't work that one out..........


That doesn't work for me. Sorry. State your position. Tell me what you mean and stop side stepping. All you seem to be doing is denigrating the new segregated routes without giving your idea of how you would increase cycling from 2% nationwide...

Actually rereading... You seem to have poo pooed the superhighways because their design is poor, and other off road cycleways because you say they are poorly done and dangerous. You've even came up with your own clever name (insult) for people who may argue for segregation. Cant see you offering an alternative though.

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

Re: Superhighway

Postby fluffybunnyuk » 9 Feb 2015, 8:35am

I think the design test for infrastructure should be would you let an 8 year old use it. Running North south from Kings Cross to ele&castle is a nice idea but it stops and starts in 2 very heavy traffic/dangerous places. Plus most people dont actually live in the center of london, so it doesnt go anywhere worth going. For example it takes me some riding on the A2 to get there, and then im supposed to take it north to kings cross...unfortunately its just easier to cycle over to tower bridge direction, and cross at a point near there, and meander through the back streets to kings cross.
As for the poor 8 year old...Where would they be going to use such infrastructure?
Now if it was from the elephant and castle to say lewisham, then i can see a use for it, with local people pootling back n forward on it shopping, visiting friends etc. My problem is that its just aimed solely at the commuter as in those are the only people who cycle in london apparently. If i consider all my journeys last year into central london , and factor in me wanting to deviate to make use of it then it probably comes to 4 out of 50 journeys.
As for ele&castle to someplace else well my borough doesnt seem to recognise things on 2 wheels. So im not entirely sure how it persuades anyone in the borough to get on their bike.
While segregation can be useful, what would be more useful is passing a law that states the motorist by default is at fault if contact is made with a bicycle unless proven otherwise. That would overnight revolutionise cycling in london, and persuade all types of people out on a bike.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16696
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Superhighway

Postby mjr » 9 Feb 2015, 8:45am

TonyR wrote:As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way.
or use traversable kerbs, but neither was done in Bloomsbury.
The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing.

Prove it. I think it was more of a problem that the local MP opposed it and the local council was restructured part way through in a way replacing a cycling supporter with some lukewarms who were keen to compromise the scheme, as described by Vole O' speed.
The reason its so widely used is there are few alternative roads and if you try cycling on the road alongside there are plenty of motorists willing to physically encourage you to use the cycle track. Personally I avoid it but fortunately I don't need to go that way too often.

Few alternative roads??? It's paralleled by Euston road to the north and Guildford Road to the south which is part of the reason it uses the streets it does, which are hardly ideal for it.

There are some motorists willing to "physically encourage you" on streets without cycleways too and there were around ULU before that one was built. That's why we need the Road Justice campaign too.
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.

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

Re: Superhighway

Postby TonyR » 9 Feb 2015, 9:23am

mjr wrote:
TonyR wrote:As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way.

or use traversable kerbs, but neither was done in Bloomsbury.


But I don't think that's what's proposed on the superhighway.

The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing.

Prove it.


I've discussed it on another list with one of the main proponents. Having lobbied for it and then seen what was designed they discovered they didn't have enough political power/influence to change it. At that point they should have said NO to what was being offered but instead accepted it as the best they could get.

The reason its so widely used is there are few alternative roads and if you try cycling on the road alongside there are plenty of motorists willing to physically encourage you to use the cycle track. Personally I avoid it but fortunately I don't need to go that way too often.

Few alternative roads??? It's paralleled by Euston road to the north and Guildford Road to the south which is part of the reason it uses the streets it does, which are hardly ideal for it.


I used to use Tavistock PIace before the cycle track was built but now tend to use Euston Road. Cycling in the bus lane though with taxis, buses and motorbikes and with vehicle cutting across you to turn left would not be most people's choice. And there are a couple of nasty junctions - the ones at Gt Portland St and the one with TCR - that need a level of confidence and assertiveness most cyclists won't have. Having said that a fair few do use it. Guildford St only helps for the eastern most section. Beyond that you have to navigate Russell Square and then thread your way through back streets to get to TCR. A slow and awkward journey.

There are some motorists willing to "physically encourage you" on streets without cycleways too and there were around ULU before that one was built. That's why we need the Road Justice campaign too.


And which is why we need to deal with motorists first and foremost. If you can fix that problem with presumed liability and an approach similar to the one that changed drink driving from accepted to unacceptable you would not only make segregated cycling alongside the road unnecessary but you would also open up all roads to everyday cycling in safety - something that can never be achieved by the segregational approach.

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

Re: Superhighway

Postby TonyR » 9 Feb 2015, 9:33am

fluffybunnyuk wrote:I think the design test for infrastructure should be would you let an 8 year old use it.


I actually think the thing that has done most for cycling in London has been the Boris Bikes. You see people of all types (not generally 8 year olds I will admit as the bikes are too big for most) wobbling along the roads of London. Accidents have been very few and only one fatality AFAIK in many tens of millions of journeys. It makes cycling in London seem possible for ordinary people and motor traffic tends to give them a cautious wide berth because the riders are seen as inexperienced and unpredictable (although many are anything but)