New investment for cycling

0
1 week ago (3:46 PM)
To join this discussion please register or log in

Comments:

R4949

No a penny more should be spent until there has been a full analysis of the current bike lanes coving usage, accidents, impact on other road users giving an overall value-for-money for tax payers. The NHS and NICE put a value on a human life, so should TfL and really is it worth half-a-billion pounds to save 10 or so lives a year? Sorry to be harsh - but that's the bottom line.

Fernandes

London cannot function on cycling and its businesses need transport not cycles. The real,problem is that London IS FULL, yet politicians want to increase its population and therefore more congestion. Cycle lanes that are used for two hours per day whilst businesses suffer huge costs due to congestion is not on. Stop building homes in london and concentrate on improving what we have for the good of Londoners. London cannot keep its title of a great world city run on bicycles - that is for sure.

emishi55

@Fernandes
"London cannot function on cycling and its businesses need transport not cycles."

Ahh cycling is not transport in your clearly restricted outlook.

But grinding atrocious volumes of traffic, whether speeding or dragging along the toxic tonnes of carcinogen emitting shite is!

"The real,problem is that London IS FULL, yet politicians want to increase its population and therefore more congestion."

London is increasing in size - this bit is true.
Everyone wants to spend an extra day at work to pay for an idiot machine that
sits outside their flat for 95% of its life, taking up valuable road space, adding to the congestion...
and then infuraited that when they en masse go and drive through the centre of town, they aren't 'flowing freely' like those oh so smart adverts promised they would!
It's a bummer ain't it!
It makes you so cross you can't think straight doesn't it!
Who can I blame?
Oh look at those bloody cycle lanes. Where are the cyclists? they've all got to their destinations.
I'm sitting here in traffic stuck in my car. Bloody hell it's not fair.
Why should they get to work while Im here stuck in my very expensive car full of expensive petrol/diesel like millions of others all over the country?
It's not fair I tell you. Boo hoo.
they're the ones to blame not me and millions of others.

We are motro traffic an we demand our privelige to take up as much subsidised, road space
as we need.
Move out of my way. Coming through. Demolish those buildings. My 4 x 4 can't pass through here. Make space I say.

"London cannot keep its title of a great world city run on bicycles - that is for sure."

The one thing that is for sure is that your logic is flawed. Your outlook is that of someone who's spent too long looking out of a windscreen cocooned inside your steel box.

Those advertising guys have done a good job haven't they!

W2

If we continue to diminish road access for cars London will become even more difficult to get around for all kinds of people. Bicycle lanes are good but should only be available during rush hours. Older people and those without bicycles should have the option of getting around London without going underground and without roads being totally clogged up, and these days it's the bicycle lanes that are clogging things up, not the cars. And the bicycle lanes are only being used for two or three hours a day with any intensity at all, while the road are jammed. Remarkable. Who thought of that ?

emishi55

@and these days it's the bicycle lanes that are clogging things up, not the cars

Go and have a look at the thousands of miles of road space across gthe capital.
Who's doing thefoulling up. Te congesting. The polluting?

Who is inconveniencing who?
FYI, OLDER people have a right NOT TO BE DEPRIVED from being annle to cycle, by the hoardes of non-essentail, single-occupancy car users.

We need a network or cycle routes.
You've had it your way for TOO long

lindenb

I agree with those who are concerned about cyclists obeying the rules of the road. I live in W1 and scarcely a day goes by when I haven't dodged a cycle to avoid injury. I would like to see pedestrians having equal rights with cyclists, and equal consideration from the authorities.

emishi55

Oh dear.
Not like the tonnes of lethal machinery trundling and thunering around theough eh?
Or the texting moorists or the speedohiles eh linden.

You appear to have a severe balance problem with your outlook.

jonty.k.cooke@g...

The budget is encouraging but the implementation always seems to fall short. The newish Q1 route laid the cycle track over existing road including a 90 degree turn over a metal manhole cover (fine in the dry, lethal in the wet), who approves this sort of madness. Painting the road blue over potholes, road humps and manhole covers does not make a safe cycle route.
Once built a cycle route must be maintained. Some people deliberately break bottles and glass in cycle routes with predictable consequences (cost to me so far almost £200). Cycle routes need sweepers the same as roads do. In certain parts of south east London I deliberately use roads and hold up the traffic because the cycle routes are littered with glass.
I drive a car as well as riding a bike and seeing cyclists jump lights, ride across pedestrian crossings etc leads me to believe that there needs to be a system of fines and some way of enforcing the laws of the road. They are a disgrace to cycling.

emishi55

I recommend you assist with calling on the mayor to implement a NETWORK of low-car/no-car cycle routes immediately.
Abominable behaviour by motorists goes unchecked en masse-
texting, speeding and worse.

DanSW11

Abominable behaviour by cyclists also goes unchecked en masse - red lights, white stop lines, changing direction without indication, failure to stop at pedestrian crossings, using mobile phone, no lights, wrong way down one-way street etc etc

emishi55

You're still at it I see Dan.

Abominable behaviour by cyclists unchecked en masse √ check
red lights √ check
white stop lines √ check
changing direction without indication √ check
failure to stop at pedestrian crossings √ check
using mobile phone √ check
no lights √ check
wrong way down one-way street √ check

BINGO !!! .....

Wey hey!!! Full House!!....

Oh but wait, I missed one....
Riding without hi-viz -
\oh no...sorry let's have anogther go....

mickowens

About time there was a reasonable amount being spent on cycling. I'm sure it's still a drop in the ocean compared to amount spent on motorised road users. We need more cycle lanes and routes in outer London and rigorously enforced and reduced speed limits. Many car drivers in London speed past me at well above the legal speed limit only to come to a standstill at the next traffic lights.!

richard-ec2

It doesn't make any sense as a transport policy to encourage people to switch from public transport to separate, individually-owned private bicycles that take up road space and add to congestion. It makes even less sense when you consider the enormous number of horrific injuries suffered by cyclists each year.

emishi55

@ private bicycles that take up road space

errr...you think all these people sitting in jams or speeding like racetrack drivers are an intelligentuse of road space in cities and towns?

Most journeys are about three miles.

Go and have a think about that.

hatler

Bus and tube services are near (some would say over) capacity at peak hours. The road network is disproportionately occupied by vehicles with a large footprint containing only one person. We can't squeeze much more capacity out of the public transport systems. We can squeeze more capacity out of the road network by reducing the number of single occupancy vehicles.

Reducing congestion on the roads will enable bus services to be more efficient.

Providing safety and space for bikes tempts people out of vehicles, thereby reducing congestion (and public transport) and will result in the total transport capacity of the capital to be increased. Peak 'people flow' on any given road is higher for buses and bikes than it is for cars.

It strikes me that this is the most pragmatic and cost-effective solution.

How else do we increase total transport capacity in an affordable and sustainable way ?

Aside from this obvious benefit, reducing single occupancy vehicle usage will make London an even more wonderful city; reduced noise, reduced number of deaths through a reduction in pollution, fit healthy people, communities that can cross the road with reduced fear of being splattered by a car, etc etc etc.

hatler

Muddles words on one of those paras. It should read : -

Providing safety and space for bikes tempts people out of vehicles (and public transport), thereby reducing congestion and will result in the total transport capacity of the capital to be increased. Peak 'people flow' on any given road is higher for buses and bikes than it is for cars.

owenbarder

I support these proposals.

Like most cyclists, I am also a driver. I recognise that some people on bikes sometimes behave badly, and sometimes put other road users in danger; so too do some people driving cars, buses and lorries. All this is deplorable; but there is no basis for blaming one kind of road user more than another. (The harm done by dangerous driving far exceeds the harm done by dangerous cycling, but that is no excuse for cyclists to behave badly.) Car drivers who complain about the congestion caused by dedicated bike lanes should consider how much worse the traffic would be if all those cyclists were in their cars instead.

Road tax was abolished in 1937, so if there are any drivers out there still paying it, you should definitely ask for your money back. I pay emissions duty on my bike at the appropriate level, which is zero, the same as for other zero emission vehicles such as electric cars.

We all need to use roads to get to where we are going conveniently, whether by car, bus or bike; or on foot; let's recognise the need to do this as effectively and safely as we can, and not allow this to be a conflict between different kinds of transport.

bdrj

These developments will be most welcome and are overdue. Hopefully these plans will be followed soon with more plans to extend yet further the network of cycle tracks across inner and outer London boroughs.

nlyndhurst

I think this is a waste of money. The traffic congestion in London is ridiculous due to the building of them, pollution worse and the embankment is unusable. What about other road users or travellers needing to use London taxis who are also affected

How is this good for Londoners? It's made the city I live in and forced to pay ridiculous council tax on roads affected by this scheme

Why are they blocked off? Why aren't they being created so other traffic can use them off peak like in Vauxhall

Why aren't they mandatory - spend all that money and cyclists can still clog up the roads

This is a biased Boris moved that messes up the roads for everyone except cyclists who still aren't held accountable for bad road usage or fined for speeding (yes they go over 20mph) or running red lights etc

emishi55

@Why aren't they mandatory - spend all that money and cyclists can still clog up the roads

Entirely ill-informed comment.
You are simple tro;;ing aren't you.
Have you seen how many vehicles there are on the roads - EVERYWHERE???
But hey you blame the entire congested hell of unrestricted car-use on one or two cycle lanes.

Come back and coment when we have a network of cycle routes - y'know like footpaths - where you can ride door to door.
Come bck when you've trid cycling with and eight year child, or and eihjty year old adult.
I won't hold my breath though.

nlyndhurst

I think this is a waste of money. The traffic congestion in London is ridiculous due to the building of them, pollution worse and the embankment is unusable. What about other road users or travellers needing to use London taxis who are also affected

How is this good for Londoners? It's made the city I live in and forced to pay ridiculous council tax on roads affected by this scheme

Why are they blocked off? Why aren't they being created so other traffic can use them off peak like in Vauxhall

Why aren't they mandatory - spend all that money and cyclists can still clog up the roads

This is a biased Boris moved that messes up the roads for everyone except cyclists who still aren't held accountable for bad road usage or fined for speeding (yes they go over 20mph) or running red lights etc

emishi55

@I think this is a waste of money. The traffic congestion in London is ridiculous due to the building of them,

Oh dear. You've been breathing too much exhaust haven't you.
Tell you what go and have a look at one of the thousandsof miles the DON'T HAVE a cycle lane - quiet easy really.

Come back and try making an honest and intelligent comment gthat refelsts the world as it is

A little clue for you. Cycle lanes are not causing the insane levels of congestion caused by gorssly excessive and non-essential....motor vehicle use (you know...like motor cars with one person in popping to the chemist for their ventolin).

@ How is this good for Londoners?

I really don't have the tie right now to go throughthe list of benefits to Londoners of a NETWORK of low-car/no-car cycle lanes, but you...arenot helping the case for those being hospitalised by motor traffic.

Phil Bowman

While I fully support the cycle lanes, the construction seems to cause chaos to traffic flow.
It seems poorly planned and coordinated and always takes along time. Often long stretch's of road are coned off with little or no action taking place, and fairly short working days! Just look at what's happening in Enfield

emishi55

@the construction seems to cause chaos to traffic flow.

But it's funny how roads closed for everything else - bridge on Holloway Road, rstricctions at Richmond Bridge (permanently) - or even the Olympic Lanes (in 2012) don't produce thesame level of public awareness isn't it.
It always seems to be those few miles of cycle measures.

AND - those belating about hold-ups ALWAYS make more noise than those actually garteful for being enabled to cycle a few meters (so far to the shops or to work safely)

Michael Thurston

This is a terrible idea, I just don't understand TFL's obsession with cycling to the detriment if every other person trying to get around London. Does anyone there seriously think that anyone driving in London is doing it for fun? Of course they aren't, they are in their vehicle because the alternatives, including cycling, don't fit their needs.
This constant disruption and giving over of road space to cycle lanes that are only busy some of the time just defies any kind of common sense. This is not Amsterdam or any other city they think London should be like, and never will be because believe it or not they have totally different dynamics.
The idea that more cycle lanes will reduce congestion and therefore pollution is laughable. I would love to see the air quality stats from the Victoria embankment before and after the cycle lane, I'd bet my house that the pollution has gone through the roof.
The whole thing is farcical but I expect any opinions like mine will be totally ignored because TFL have their own agenda and will continue to clog up London in the vain hope that everyone will just go away

Sidcupman

Wow - this is just like reading the comments section on the Daily Mail. Full of mad nonsensical rants.

Terry Vaughan

Sidcupman, it's unreal. So much deluded ignorance.

The target is 1.5M cycle journeys per day. Do they really think all those people could be accommodated in cars or on public transport?

robyfox

It is quite a lot of money, but as a 365 days cyclist I am quite pleased. The pavement is generally speaking in terrible condition and the cycling routes are usually ignored by cars and particularly by Buses and particularly taxis.
I hope the money will be well spent.

hatler

Great news. Stick at it. Short-term disruption will fade into insignificance once these facilities are in place and recognised for the long-term civilising effect they will have on the city.

For all those who do not approve of making life safer for cyclists (and have 101 reasons why they take that stance), please do have a look at http://cyclingfallacies.com/en/. The site dispels many of the myths regularly trotted out to justify cycle-bashing.

DanSW11

Halter, one way to make cycling safer is to force cyclists to obey the laws that governs every other road user. For example, at least half the cyclists I see at the moment have no lights even though they are cycling at night. I assume you wouldn't object to the police confiscating a bike when a cyclist breaks the law, for their own safety!!

emishi55

@ make cycling safer is to force cyclists to obey the laws that governs every other road user.

Because cyclists are such a problem in your world aren't they Dan!

Here's some information for you.
Moror vehciles weigh about one or two tonnes each. They are driven by people who often shouldn't be allowed this extravagant and excessive privilege.

Drivers ADMIT to speeding (this deters many parents and children from cycling of course).
They also text whilst driving. Go and have a look next time you're near a road.

See how many mums with kids you can count on bikes.
Take your time.

DanSW11

Yes, cyclists are a problem. Every day I bike into central London & everyday I have to put up with cyclists who think they are above the law & that it's everyone else's responsibility to avoid them.

Not sure of the source of your information but if it's true at least the drivers admit to it ; reading these boards you would think that every cyclist is a puritanical saint who never breaks the law & persecuted by the world.

Terry Vaughan

Dan, I don't often drive into town, but when I do, people cycling never give me a problem. I don't cycle much now either, but when I do the impression I get sometimes is that drivers think they are above the law and that it is everyone else's responsibility to keep out of their way.

"every cyclist is a puritanical saint who never breaks the law"

That's your prejudice speaking to you. Try not to listen. You would have a hard time finding anyone on these boards claiming that. Can you give an example?

John H

You say Dan is listening to his own prejudice Terry.

It is your own rhetoric that reinforces Dans views.

If you read your own line immediately above your quote from Dan, that is exactly the stereotype you are reinforcing.

Terry Vaughan

John (and Dan), I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to the statement that "..reading these boards you would think that every cyclist is a puritanical saint who never breaks the law..."

That's only true if you allow your prejudice to influence your perception. Because I don't think anyone suggests that. Can you find an example?

Terry Vaughan

Dan, drivers break the law on just about every journey they make, so a better way would be to confiscate their vehicles. You couldn't object to that, could you? The police say that the majority of cycling accidents are the fault of the motorist, and cycling fully in accordance with the law is no guarantee of safety.

hatler

One way to make driving safer is to force drivers to obey the laws that govern every other road user. For example, at least half the drivers I see at the moment speed/jump red lights/talk on their mobiles. I assume you wouldn't object to the police confiscating a car when a driver breaks the law, for everyone else's safety!!

DanSW11

No halter because there is one subtle difference between motorists & cyclists - number plate. Cyclists carry no registration & when stopped most cyclists lie to the police about carrying id, knowing the police can't search them, so avoiding punishment whereas the motorist can look forward to a letter through the post.

Maybe my original comment was a bit OTT; how about spending the money on a cycle registration scheme so that every bike is traceable to an owner in the event of theft, and cyclists can be identified & held accountable for their actions.

Terry Vaughan

Dan, if you think number plates make motorists comply with the law and Highway Code, you are deluded. So there is no reason to think bike number plates would make a difference. Driver hit and run incidents are commonplace. If a bike rider is involved in a collision they are generally going to be in an ambulance, not riding off into the distance. And in any case, statistics show that bike riders do very little damage compared to drivers. That's why your insurance is so high. Look at the condition of street furniture - it's not bikes that do that damage. Look at the accident statistics - pedestrians are about 100 times as likely to be killed on the pavement by a driver as they are by a bike rider.

You think you know what most cyclists do, but in the real world the police do next to nothing to regulate either cycling or driving. Many people cycling break the law, but they are well aware of the risk to their own safety. Sometimes it is safer for them to break the law. Drivers are so well-protected that they don't have to worry about that so much. They break the law and the Code all the time, just as you do.

ljustice

1. You put in cycle lanes and the motorised traffic takes three times as long to go througfh the same space.

2. You then do a survey and say twice as many bikes are using the road as vehicles? Yes that is because they can move?

3. And the net result pollution goes up so then you say we need more bikes?

Try being a pedestrian and see how the complicated new roads work for children and old residents. Oh and lets keep ignoring the disabled because why do they need to be in central London anyway?

emishi55

Oh dear.
YOu see it is the problem of (how can I put this?) -
TOO...MANY....MOTOR....VEHICLES.

NOT - BICYCLES!!!. Bicycles don't kill people from speedophile behaviour, pollution and deterrence of the very form of transport that woould lead to reduced obesity, diabetes etc etc etc.

Please don't take up space on a public forum with comments that faill to note the obvious.
Thnankyou

donagga

I'm all for making better provision for cyclist, e.g. More cycle lanes, etc. However, in readiness (allegedly) for new cycle super-highways, virtually every street in De Beauvoir has now been closed to through-traffic for motorised vehicles.
There surely has to be a more reasonable balance to be struck where provision for cyclists can be made without making it nigh-on impossible for other road users to get around their local area. Now all traffic is directed onto main thoroughfares, which were already fairly congested.

Brian Of Erith

Cancel the programme it is a waste of money

emishi55

You're what's known as a troll.

The evidence for a programmed of integrated cycle routs has been overwhelming for years.

Go and get an education

Brian Of Erith

The money should be spent of the emergency services, social services etc. not unqualified road users (cyclist's). Maybe bring in a test that they have to take before getting on a bike. Having taken an hour to get over the Elephant and Castle on a Friday evening due to the moron who ride bike and do not understand the meaning on a red light.

emishi55

Troliin, Offensive. Obnoxious. Oblivious.
Do you get paid to spput such tosh.
Do you have the remotest clus a s to the danage oyu and your kind do to those who would iherwise use cycling as an obvious and safe form of gettin the few miles your anti-socail and carcinogenic hordes use.

Do you realise the inconvenience you cause to EVERYONE?
Cyclist ciurrently risking their necks to cycle. Brathing in your poison.
Pedestrians who cannot crooss the road due to selfish mob-rule car users parking so tightly they cannot get between vehicles. Or those who drive and park ON footways?
Or to bus-users, held up by your non-essential , three mile average journey, using a machine capable of lethal-force?
Sitting in your traffic jam. Texting to say you're gonna be late...because...

THE TRAFFIC IS BAD!!!
ring ring!! Wake up.

GET REAL

RolandC

Parts of Kingston have come to a complete grinding halt due to the ludicrous vanity project cycling routes that have been introduced and which no Lycra louts seem to want to use. If we are forced to have them the force cyclists to use them and penalise those that don't

emishi55

@RolandCnew
"Parts of Kingston have come to a complete grinding halt due to the ludicrous vanity project cycling routes that have been introduced and which no Lycra louts seem to want to use. If we are forced to have them the force cyclists to use them and penalise those that don't"

I'll help you with this one. I'd hate you go on looking like a tremendous fool.

Parts of Kingston have come to a complete grinding halt due to the ludicrous vanity project that allows excessive, extravagant, non-essential, single-occupancy vehicles and which are primarily for a distance of about three miles.

There. That's a bit more accurate.

k.aldo

RolandC i am afraid this is indicative of the nonsense spouted by other posters on this forum.
The only part of the New Holland cycle scheme started and completed in Kingston is the segregated 2 way cycle lane along the Portsmouth Road which reduced the car lanes from 2 to er... 2! Not many cycle lanes are perfect, including this one, but i use it and so do parents with children which would have been unthinkable before

andrewchoi

While I support cycle lanes, I would hope that they're not created by further restricting space on the main roads, and are instead created on the quieter back streets.

It seems that some of the recent cycle lanes on the main roads have made motor traffic congestion much worse (eg, Blackfriars, Victoria Embankment/Thames Street). In addition to impacting drivers, deliveries, etc, this also impacts bus journey times. So I'd hope that future works are more mindful of the impact on other forms of transport.

Pages

Showing 151-200 of 1032 comments