New investment for cycling

0
55 min ago (1:21 AM)
To join this discussion please register or log in

Comments:

HuwC

No. the congestion around many of the areas where the cycle lanes are is worse than before. Elephant is a nightmare. Please no more cycle lanes

emishi55

YOU. ARE WRONG. HERE.

Motor traffic is caused by too many motor cars trying to get through hwere thyey have no business being.

CONGESTION CHARGE.
RAOD PRICING
ULEZ TO THE M25
C Y C L E N E T W O R K -- for DOOR-TO-DOOR CYCLING - FOR EVERYBODY .

Uggsie

I see a lot of folks here saying that making cycle lanes has caused traffic congestion but come to the outer London boroughs and there is ZERO by way of cycle lanes and still we have gridlocked traffic. The problem is that we are relying on our cars too much. We need to make proper provision to give people the choice to cycle safely if they want to.

profbrown

It is a laudable aim to improve the safety of cycling. However, as a pedestrian I am not in favour of the plan to increase the number of cyclists in London. We already have too much traffic, including cyclists, who contribute to congestion on the streets and also make it difficult for pedestrians to cross the roads. I would guess that most cyclists would use public transport and not cars if they did not use their cycles. Instead of encouraging cycling by making more cycle lanes and thus increasing traffic congestion, the Mayor of London should be improving public transport and encouraging people to use public transport. Pedestrians don't use the road space and therefore more efforts should be made to encourage pedestrians e.g. improving pavement layouts, having more pedestrian areas e.g. pedestrianising Oxford Street and signposting walkways in the way cycle routes are signposted.

emishi55

@profbrownnew
"We already have too much traffic, including cyclists, who contribute to congestion on the streets and also make it difficult for pedestrians to cross the roads".

cyclists, who contribute to congestion / cyclists, who contribute to congestion / cyclists, who contribute to congestion / cyclists, who contribute to congestion....

Nope. No matter how many times I repeat it, it makes no sense what....SO....ever!

I don't think I should bother wasting my time addressing your point which ignores point blank the staggeringly obvious facts that:

1) Pedestrians (ie ALL OF US) have already a network of walking routes. They are referred to as footways or pavements

2) Provision for motorists (and check the expense - you won't believe it!) - is comprehensive.
In fact you might say it is dominating, invasive, extaravagant in the extreme

3) There is NO cycling network.

Do you see?

I would guess that most cyclists would use public transport and not cars if they did not use their cycles. Instead of encouraging cycling by making more cycle lanes and thus increasing traffic congestion, the Mayor of London should be improving public transport and encouraging people to use public transport. Pedestrians don't use the road space and therefore more efforts should be made to encourage pedestrians e.g. improving pavement layouts, having more pedestrian areas e.g. pedestrianising Oxford Street and signposting walkways in the way cycle routes are signposted

emishi55

Should read:

(ie without the last paragraph)

@profbrownnew
"We already have too much traffic, including cyclists, who contribute to congestion on the streets and also make it difficult for pedestrians to cross the roads".
cyclists, who contribute to congestion / cyclists, who contribute to congestion / cyclists, who contribute to congestion / cyclists, who contribute to congestion....
Nope. No matter how many times I repeat it, it makes no sense what....SO....ever!
I don't think I should bother wasting my time addressing your point which ignores point blank the staggeringly obvious facts that:
1) Pedestrians (ie ALL OF US) have already a network of walking routes. They are referred to as footways or pavements
2) Provision for motorists (and check the expense - you won't believe it!) - is comprehensive.
In fact you might say it is dominating, invasive, extaravagant in the extreme
3) There is NO cycling network.

Do you see?

DanSW11

How about spending the money on enforcing the law on existing cycle routes first? For 2/3 hours a day a disproportionate amount of the limited road space is being given to cyclists who then continue to cycle in the 'car' lanes, fail to stop at junctions, believe that lights at night are an optional extra while at the same time blaming 'everyone else' when there are accidents. Study any junction & significantly more cyclists than motorists break the law every day with impunity. Meanwhile those who are not able to cycle have to sit in buses, cabs etc in the resulting congestion. No doubt you'll ignore the comments so at least consider making the routes shared use at weekends to avoid the pointless traffic jams witnessed in, for example, the City while the cycle lanes are empty & unused.

Terry Vaughan

Dan, motorists as a group break the law more than bike riders, and almost always with impunity. They do it differently, so you don't notice it. For example, just about all motorists break the speed limit on every journey - or doesn't that count?

emishi55

@disproportionate amount of the limited road space is being given to cyclists

Your views are so off-kilter and unbalanced you should not be taken seriously.

Your grotesque and misinformed, willingly or otherwise, opinions are responsible for the death, injury and sickness of a mass of the population.
You personally are contributing to the deprivation of a transport choice taht would alleviate a vast array of health issues.
I would not give oyu the benfit of the doubt of being so uneducated.
But you have a lot to answer for.

DanSW11

emishi55, you are an arrogant troll aren't you? Or are you one of those left-whinge cyclists who believes your view is the only view! However what about people who cannot cycle for health reasons, don't want to arrive at their destination all sweaty etc.

Just because you & your little gang enjoy dressing up in lycra does not justify spending millions on priority routes for you at the expense of all other road users

Terry Vaughan

Dan, you are still missing the point. Cycle routes are not primarily for the benefit of bike riders, though of course they do benefit. The money is being spent (little enough as a proportion of the transport budget) in an attempt to improve air quality, reduce congestion and reduce obesity and ill-health related to inactivity. All things caused in part by the forced over-reliance on motor vehicles. You and your gang of motorist friends are part of the problem, cycling is part of the solution to the damage you do. The investment in making it possible for anyone to cycle more than pays for itself.

emishi55

@DanSW11

"Just because you & your little gang enjoy dressing up in lycra does not justify spending millions on priority routes for you at the expense of all other road users"

Calm yourself...
You sound like you're getting into a bit of a state. Sounds as if delusion is getting the upper hand here.
Just as you have made your bizarre and imaginary view of my good self more than clear (or does your computer carry a means of peering into other people's computers like some hackers maybe able to? oops I had better change out of this fluorescnet pink, orange, black and gold - super stretchy lycra-onesie then hadn't I….!!! ....only joking!!

I have no "little gang". Be very handy if I did.

If your computer was capable of informing you as to what other posters were wearing, it might be a bit more accurate than what your imagination has led you to believe.
I would suggest that this attachment to a belief (i.e. an opinion or view, having no basis in fact or evidence) suggests that you might need to examine what’s behind your ranting at cyclists. These humans you see as the enemy.

Yes I'm shouting and ranting too. That's true. But, I am not making any claims that cannot be backed up. And I refuse to allow people to shout and rant unchallenged on these posts when what they are spouting is at best: a distortion of what's true; and at worst, downright deliberate misinformation, lies and tactics that serve to make the lives of those who have to endure an already intolerable weight of historic and social injustice (creating vast ill-health, vastly poor economic sense, and contributes to climate change), even more unbearable.

Furthermore, when it comes to behaviour of vehicle users, if someone cannot clearly see that a machine weighing thirty-two tonnes (I’m thinking refuse trucks here) poses far more of a risk than a person on a bicycle, then there really is a problem. And it appears there IS a problem since many people have not grasped this simple undeniable and inescapable fact.

And as far as I can see, few are ranting at the ALL TOO OFTEN below desirable standard of behaviour I would expect of people permitted to operate such machinery.

Ok many vehicles may weigh less than 32t, but whether a 32t truck or 20t, or an LGV, the undeniable disparity that exists between the weight and speed and subsequent danger is beyond reasonable doubt. And I think the speed and behaviour of the drivers of SOME of these trucks as they race to meet their tightly scheduled delivery slots, leaves a lot to be desired. And skip truck drivers will OFTEN seem a law unto themselves.

But. Whilst I would hope not to go ‘tarring ALL drivers with the same brush’ (remembering also that cyclists - are actually ‘people who choose to ride bikes for travelling’, I will nevertheless point out that the overbearing impact of motor vehicles, en masse is a problem that is simply so huge, it simply is easier to deny the existence of it. But worse, somehow manage to deflect the blame onto another group! (worse still - the one group than with the right form of provision for safety), would prove to benefit everyone else regardless of whatever group* they might be classified as being part of - for whatever part of the week!

Basically. I do not condemn ALL car use - but, the majority of journeys, could and SHOULD, be made by other means. An if that means making public transport so cheap it makes no sense to drive a car, then this is what needs to be done. If it means creating a NETWORK of cycle routes - an option that would assist the NHS, and build healthy transport choice into the routines of growing children and the elderly - the this is what must be done. It is nothing short of a win-win.

With the transformation of London into a mass cycling city, the rewards will begin to be felt beyond the capital's boundaries.

It is not just desirable. It must happen.
There is insufficient space for the expanding populace to continue with the belief that the soul aspiration and symbol of achievement and status is to own a big shiny motor car (or even a hybrid I’m afraid!). This model is broke. It has been proven not to work for long enough - and not just in London. This city has to lead the way.

And in case anyone needed reminding, the air's a bit foul. And the seasons are getting seriously messed up (floods, drought etc.. sorry ....perhaps that's a bit too outside of ...the scope of the problem...!? We still don't like to mention the CC words do we? And I don't mean 'Congestion Charge'!)

(NOTE to GLA members)
And Sadiq Khan, whilst having made some very positive noises of late with regard to funding must yet show he can shape, guide and lead TfL in the direction it needs to go.
ie. Not placating more car-use. He must provide evidence that he has undrstood the severity of the problem of uncurtailed car-use - and must, provide some pointers to who he intendes to resolve it.
Enough has been said about the essential need for ACCESS ONLY residential streets ie visitors and residents only (by car) - no through-traffic.
etc....all that needs to be done to enable mass-cycling in this city must be demonstrated by some firmed-up plans and intentions now.
We need a hundred miles at least of cycle lanes.We need access-only streets by default across te capital's residential areas - using the cellular approach as per Groningen.
This is highly achievable, effective, desirable, simple and, best of all...cheap!

But returning to my point @DanSW11….

To come back to ‘danger from cyclists’ - I do not believe most people cycling have a vested interest in riding into pedestrians or any other ‘obstacles’ - and will refer to one example reported in a London newspaper about a pedestrian who without looking, stepped out in front of a cyclist, causing a collision: the cyclist received life-changing injuries needing ongoing treatment - while the pedestrian simply walked away and to my knowledge was never traced.

*A “group”. Walkists. Cyclists. Skate-boardists. Carists. Bussists. Wheelchaiists. Hand-cyclists. Tricyclists. Horsists (!).

Some people rely on one form for mobility, more than another form.
Most people have the choice to decide which from of transport mode they are going to use on a particular day.
But. When it comes to Bi/Tri/Hand - cycling…for most people were is no choice.

A journey by any mode through the wilds of Barnett or deepest Westminster should be enough to make the reason for this crystal clear (and it ain’t the need for cycle training!)

Enough for now.

hanif

Making all roads and streets sound,smooth, safe and definately trafficless we can accept all plans are pragmatic, otherwise not.

mine86

One big problem in getting people to cycle is the weather. I got caught a few times in the rain and had to rush to the nearest bridge to take cover. I'm not saying that cycling lanes should be covered (that would be silly!) but a few extra rainshelter along the way would be good as rain often comes in strong shower that last relatively little. These shelters might simply be bus stops with a little extra room or covered bike parking shelters where we can stay dry with our bikes.

A different problem is the amount of people who can not cycle but cycle anyway *cough*tourists*cough* *cough*borisbikers*cough* endangering themselves and others. I would be pro cycling-licence but that might be counterproductive. Yet, it is important that cyclists know the street code and behave accordingly. As cycling traffic increase we should observe essential rules like keeping the left on the cycling lanes, don't cycle in clusters, don't zigzag, avoid rush hours if you're not confident on the pedals. Perhaps a police department dedicated to bicycle traffic might not be a bad idea.

emishi55

@mine86
"A different problem is the amount of people who can not cycle but cycle anyway *cough*tourists*cough* *cough*borisbikers*cough* endangering themselves and others"

Perhaps you should.be a bit more tolerant.
Cycling infrastrucrture is to enable anyone to cycle regardless of ability.
Children should be able to cycle around their home city (or as visitors) in safety as easily as you can in Amsterdam or Copenhagen.
there is no reason for everyone to have passed bikeabilty level seven or whatever if the infrastructure is as safe as it ought to be.
We don't have any qulams about tourists standing in the middle of paths to take photos etc -
might be a bit irritating but nothing more.

Improvements cycling measures (infra) are for everyone - just as the network of 'stepped tracks' for pedestrians are for everyone to be able to walk free from fear of the insane levels of traffic permitted to pour into the streets.

mine86

Going through the comments I read a fair amount of discontent. I usually don't write my appreciation but I mostly focus on critics in order to make a service better. Yet this time I feel like I have to make a my positive point. I have been a cyclist out of necessity for the past 4 years, I was studying and could not afford the high price of an oyster card. Cycling in these past few years has changed dramatically and for the best. I love these new projects, the cycling highways and the priority to cyclists that this city is focusing on. Many people are being very outspoken about the Elephant and Castle issue. I think it's great. It might be a nightmare for drivers now, but it went from being a cyclist deathtrap to a safe[er] place and I would love to see something similar in Brixton, Marble Arch, Hyde Park Corner and so on. Yes it could have been designed better but I believe that it is essential to push for more cyclists on the road even if that comes to a cost for drivers. What this city needs to change, along the assignment of road space, is the mentality of people. Cycling is faster than any other type of commuting in zone 1 and 2 but there is still a lot to do to make it safer and faster. You have my full support for these projects (even if they barely affect me in south London).

Fernandes

Do not think that, as you state, "comes as a cost to drivers". These are just not drivers but business vehicles that are struggling to service this great city and are loosing huge amounts of money on wasted time in traffic due to cycle lanes. Londoners are generally well off because London is a centre for commerce and commerce needs vehicles to make it function and make you wealthy. If you don't like that, then move to a less successful place that loves cycles.

mine86

That's why I think the mentality of people has to change alongside cycle lanes. There are many successful cities around the world that offer great services to cyclists. I don't believe that one city can either be business oriented or cyclist friendly. On the opposite, I think there are ways, and plenty of examples, on how to make businesses cyclist friendly. A great idea is the cycling to work scheme, plus incentives for showers and changing rooms in office buildings and, in the long term, I wouldn't exclude and I would welcome a city where business people use bicycles rather than cars to move around for work, not only to work.

emishi55

@wasted time in traffic due to cycle lanes

there should be classes for people like you to attend.
An eduaction would save a lot is some time and energy.
But, 'post-truth' blaming afew miles of cycle lanes for the vast quagmire of foulled up non-essential traffic in London is all too easy isn't is!
Inconvenience. Menace. Threat. Taking up space. Single occupancy tonne weigt or more machines that need to be cut drastically.

Congestion charging. Road pricing. Cycle NETWORK.
Urgently.

tfluke

These are reasonable proposals and I support the much needed investment in cycling infrastructure. As part of each of these schemes, there's a number of things I'd really like to see you focus on:
1. Joining & leaving cycle routes. People rarely cycle the full route end-to-end, so there needs to be consideration at each junction for how cyclists may wish to join or leave the route. This has been improving with more recent routes, but is still worth looking at.
2. Ability for cyclists to report specific infrastructure issues. Every cyclist has their own pet-peeves: be it a turn that's insanely sharp, signage which is less than clear or a junction with dangerous markings. There should be a simple web page for them to give feedback (without having to work out which authority to report it to). This would aid planners when designing future schemes and in more serious cases allow for remedial work on existing infrastructure.
3. Cycling at different times of the day. Most routes appear to be planned with rush-hour in mind, so it makes sense to guide cyclists through parks and down quieter roads. However, at night parks are often closed and some people feel less safe in a deserted area.
4. Diverse types of cyclist. The disparaging comments on this thread seem to be mainly directed at the stereotypical male lycra-clad commuter cyclist. It's also this image that puts many people off cycling. Your list of proposals seems to encourage these sort of cyclists with your focus on commuter routes to places like Canary Wharf, Farringdon and the Tower Bridge area. Perhaps looking at routes which would benefit schoolchildren, tourists and leisure cyclists could help soften the image of cycling in the city?

Barnyvelo

Only 5% of vehicle journeys are deliveries. 90% are made by private cars. 3% by bike. That has to increase and cycle infrastructure is the way forward. As painful as it may be to some car drivers it is the only solution to move an increasing workforce. Imagine it if everyone chose to drive rather than cycle! The gridlock would make today's congestion look like Sunday morning traffic.

John H

Can you please identify the source of your figures Barnyvelo?

Every other set of figures I've seen quoted significantly contradict yours.

EdwardsT

Whilst the "funding" is most welcome, I do worry about how it will be spent. I don't like the Mayor's emphasis on creating more Quietways. Many existing so-called Quietways are nothing more than painted 'Q's on backstreets which are used as shortcuts by motor traffic. London needs more direct, segregated cycle lanes which link up with other segregated lanes. The ones already in existence have already shown that the masses will use cycle lanes if they are done properly, and if they're direct and safe. If they are compromised then people won't use them.

I would also like to see this money used to upgrade existing "Cycle Superhighways". Cycle Superhighway 1 is a huge disappointment. Most of it is nothing more that 'CS1' painted on busy roads which are used as rat runs by speeding cars, vans and lorries. Ideally, CS1 should run down the A10 from Tottenham to Liverpool Street. Much of the A10 is wide enough and there is no good reason why it shouldn't have segregated cycle lanes along it.

I also don't understand why cycling in London is something which requires "funding". It should be considered as an integral part of the transport network and should share the same money which is spent on roads, buses, tubes, etc. I suppose this is more of a nationwide issue. It's staggering that not even 5% of the overall DfT budget is spent on cycling. Is it any wonder that so few people regard it as serious everyday transport option?

I am disappointed that the appointment of a part-time walking and cycling commissioner is taking so long. The appointment of a "night czar" was done quickly and deals with a far less important issue. To me, this speaks volumes about the Mayor's commitment to making London 'a byword for cycling'.

Terry Vaughan

EdwardsT, your point about funding is exactly right. If this country had mandatory standards for infrastructure and highway authorities were expected to make proper provision for all traffic, we would be in a better position now, instead of facing a huge backlog of work to catch up.

Natasa

Think where you could establish multilevel parking hubs so that parking on the roads could be banned. Car club, disabled and some tradesman should be permited to have parking slots on the roads. All the roads are taken up by parked cars. Reduce amount of taxis and mini cabs. Take car club to next level where drop off location can be different to pick up location so those people who absolutley want to drive can join the club which would actually be useful, not like now. Most jurneys are one way with parking. This will free a lot of road space for less money, which can then be allocated to cycle lanes and still keep road space for the vechiles.
Or build the next level above the roads over the bus height, allocated for pedestrians and cyclists, and then you can park on the pavements below and free space that way.
Just putting in cycling lanes into existing streets is short term solution and not very efficient.

emishi55

@Natasa

Some good ideas but I wasn't keen on your last suggestion:

"Or build the next level above the roads over the bus height, allocated for pedestrians and cyclists, and then you can park on the pavements below and free space that way.
Just putting in cycling lanes into existing streets is short term solution and not very efficient."

These seem to fall into the category of some radical fixes that overlook the fact that people travelling by bike have as much (and in fact arguably more) right to the road space than anyone else.
Cycle travel MUST be prioritised. You don't get people onto bike by sticking them on some overhead or specially created tunnels to get them out of the way.
People moving around by bike are the most efficient tarnsport using group in the city (ok there may be some larger distances involved in getting from one outer zone to the opposite one - but bike/train integration is the option then).
People using bikes want to egt aroound to shops amenities, museums, parks, galleries, swimming pools.
They have the right to safe, well designed, attractive cycling space.
But furthermore, by designing the streets (the new Healthy Streets option - coming to a sfreet near you), the streets have built in appeal. they become places to visit. they are transformed.
Amsterdam isn't just a great city to get around because it is so beautiful; it is the fact that you can cycle around it easily - anytime - with children - stopping off at shops more easily than you could imagine.
the Dutch have no issues with peole screaming about loss of space for cars (well they might have once - but as a society they are much more grown up now).

papadeltasierra

Where there are 'bike blocks' at traffic lights but no decent cycle lanes to get to them, they are totally useless. As a case in point, the A105 where it meets the A406 going south from Enfield has a short, tiny bike lane that is always blocked by traffic so its impossible for bikes to filter to the front of traffic lights. This needs to be sorted.

DanSW11

Why? Why do bikes need priority to the front at a set of lights? I don't know about the junction you're referring to but too many stop boxes are installed unnecessarily, for example on junctions where all traffic goes straight ahead only; their use needs to be reviewed ... are they for safety purposes at certain specific junctions or purely to inconvenience every other road user at every junction?

gazofnaz

Great plans.

One thing I would like to see is some time dedicated to reviewing some of the junctions that were previously altered.

Personally I think there is room for improvement at the Elephant and Castle roundabout. At the moment the journey feels a bit clunky - I'm never sure which shoulder I should be looking over and there is lots of stopping and starting.

A similar thing is true at the Blackfriars junction (north side), where I'm often crossing two or three lanes of traffic to reach the cycle path.

Both junctions are certainly safer than before, but we should set our standards higher than that!

denise julien

Dear Sadiq Khan
Can you please tell me if you agreed that the police should no longer issue FPN for pavement cyclists?
The problem has become much worse because cyclist know that they will not be challenged. The elderly, disabled, and many others are highly un-nerved by them.
On Talk London, it has been said that “it’s far better that a pedestrian gets injured by a cyclist rather than a cyclist injured by a car/ lorry. Do you agree with this? I can see a time when all cyclist use the pavement and pedestrians force onto the road to avoid them.

The police claim to have better things to do. But when they are on the “beat” are they just there for show? Do you agree that the police should simply enjoy there strole without having to do any work?
And if it is the case that the police should ignore pavement cyclist, surely then, the law needs to be changed. Will that happen?
Denise Julien

Terry Vaughan

Denise, do you realise that the plan is for more cycle tracks that will separate bikes from pedestrians and help protect pedestrians from motor vehicles? You support that, presumably.

As for pedestrians being forced into the road, if they carry lights and get training and pay road tax and follow all the rules and have insurance and are registered and licensed and wear high vis and helmets (but not lycra) and don't get in the way of drivers and don't jump red lights, they will be fine. That's all that cyclists need to do to keep themselves safe, apparently, so it ought to be true for people on foot too.

sanwell@ntlworld.com

What a total waste of money!! Makes precious little difference to the vast majority of Londoners. What is this obsession with cycling. It's too little, too late. If this is supposed to make any real difference to the existing transport problems, think again! As usual, I note that it appears to benefit some areas of London more than others. Lets all move to those areas so we can use the cycle 'superhighways.'

emishi55

@What a total waste of money!!

Go and find out how much oit costs for say, a bit of road infra connecting to a motorway.
The sums are huge.
Do you realise how much has been spent on cycling so far? Even the CS routes are a drop in the ocean

Do you seriously suggest that spending ANYTHING more to encourge MORE moror use is wise? sensible? desirable?
A cycling network could be implemented for next to nothing by comparison.
The disparity of expenditiure is obscene.
Enabling those who are currently deprived from cycling,would actually be a net gan economically.
The lie put out by the oil industry shills, swallowed and vomited up by tabloid-'informed' dupes is actually and wholly criminal.

Mass vehicle use has gone unchallenged for too long. In an age of a mass-trolling assisted US presidency (we now have a climate denying oil lobbyit in a prime position) -
the culture of the car-yob needs to be called out.

jacekwojt

I see a lot of people here is really angry because of a total lock in their minds that they have to drive. No you don't! The fact is that London will get bigger. There will be more people and there is no way of accommodating more cars ! Simple as that. Amsterdam is 80% closed for traffic and everyone gets by. We should enforce a culture of cycling but still the statistics are quite bland. No cyclist has ever killed a pedestrian, let alone a driver. Get over it people! There is no space for more cars. Simple as that!

emishi55

And we're off.

Never mind that uncurtailed motor vehicle use is the most criminal act of mass negligence and deprivation of the freedom of movement in London and elsewhere.

Never mind the fact that unrestricted, over indulged motor-use is rsponsible for 10,000 and rising lung-related deaths.

Never mind the fact that children and adults are denied the possibilty to travel by the most sustainable and active means.

Never mind the fact that the majority of journeys made by car are non-essential and of a distance of about THREE MILES.

Never mind the fact that the economy is squeezed evermore due to motor car dominance keeping regular an frequent shoppers travelling to the high street by cycle, on foot or public transport.

Never mind the fact that the NHS is crushed by trying to cater for a population of those addicted to car-use (self-inflicted ailments) - along with those who are afflicted by disease, ailments and injuries wrought by the car plague.

Never mind the fact that cars drive and park on footways with impunity - unnoticed by tabloid-fed dupes.

Never mind the fact that the inhabitants of London are ground into submission by thousands of pointless tons of machinery, causing more damage than open sewers.

Never mind the fact that road rage - criminal and murderous behaviour from those who have somehow been granted access to operating a lethal machine (there ought to be no new driving licences without six months cycle instruction NOTE obvious exceptions would apply wouldn’t they - of course!).

Never mind the erosion and damage done to road infrastructure fromsuch ’Slow’ markings on roads. Just one example of the extra costs borne by ALL TAXPAYERS - but of course, many people know this. Yet still some still bleat about the mythical ’road tax’.

Post-truth? It all started with the motor industry.

The many sock-puppet examples from posters whingeing about red-light jumpers and pavement cyclists are those who have been permitted by the last acceptable bastion of prejudice and hate.

Can’t indulge in sexist, racist, homophobic behaviour anymore? Hey lets have a go at anyone choosing to ride a bike!

And you can also have a go at those councils that haven’t pulled down enough buildings to make the roads wider and faster to allow more and more motorists to get through London.
After all what is the capital if not one giant rat-run, inhabited by a mob that demand action against ‘cyclists’ and an end to the ‘war on the motorist’.

jacekwojt

Amen!

imsd

As a new cyclist I can only say thank you for writing this! Reading these comments genuinely disheartened me; I've completed my cycle training and I consider myself a good road user, despite being treated like a nuisance by drivers and pedestrians when I'm doing the right thing.
I'll be cycling as long as I am physically capable and welcome the plans to make the city I love cleaner, friendlier and healthier.
Oh, and to anyone rolling their eyes, read this:
http://cyclingfallacies.com/en/

hatler

Does anyone recall the forecast congestion cataclysm that would be caused to London's traffic system when Ken Livingstone (I think it was him) proposed re-working Trafalgar Square ?

I remember that things got a bit sticky in the immediate aftermath of the implementation, but now, I detect no difference to the situation before the works.

Traffic behaviour follows a pattern. When the parameters are adjusted, there is turbulence, then people get used to the new parameters and turbulence disappears.

The recent tube strikes are a good example of this. Analysis of passenger travel data both before and after the strikes showed that disruption of people's existing travel patterns forced them to try different routes during the strike. Once the strikes were over a statistically significant proportion of people had discovered that their alternative route was actually quicker/more pleasurable/more comfortable than their previous route, and therefore stuck with it.

robertgore

The interests of the cyclists, of which i am one, need to be balanced against the bigger interests of the other road users and the damage caused to the residential environment by forcing more road users into extended traffic queues and onto more residential roads. The increased pollution will fall mainly on the pedestrians, cyclists and the residential environment.

emishi55

Actually Robert,

I must take issue with your comment:

"need to be balanced against the bigger interests of the other road users and the damage caused to the residential environment by forcing more road users into extended traffic queues and onto more residential roads."

Firstly, WHO (sorry for block caps - there's no option for italics here!) has the 'bigger interests'.
With the current levels of deprivation in exercise amongst all groups of Londoners (less than half of all Londoners get their recommend 150 minutes per week of physical activity) - this should be something built into people's routine or n=means of moving around. Children arrive at school alert; the workforce are fitter and take less sick-time - the Dutch are well aware of this of course (even their prisons are half empty - they import prisoners from Sweden - true!)

You also mention "the damage caused to the residential environment" by which I understand you are referring to rat-running traffic.
If you look at the Dutch model,this is simply how it works - side streets and residential areas are -
ACCESS ONLY. Imagine if we got this imlemented across London.
YOu would need a few links from one area to another - croossing major trunk roads (where motor traffic should be) and bike lanes on these major routes to facilitate cycling on faster direct routes and...job done....! Well more or less.

Filtering or access only (cloing streets to through traffic) is staggeringly quick, simple, cheap and effective, yet the authorities here remain intimidated by the loudmouths and the belligerent and the woefully ignorant (and also lazy and anti-social)

Your other point:
"The increased pollution will fall mainly on the pedestrians, cyclists and the residential environment."

Where displaced traffic is an issue usually means that permeability measures haven't been made to cover a sufficiently large area. Once 'leaks' are dealt with (always a problem with SATNAV enabled rat-running), then car-users are forced to take main routes (or try an alternative travel option). On main routes overall vehicle usage may increase slightly at first but is usually subject to 'evaporation' - the traffic levels settling to the original levels.
However, where traffic is particularly heavy on main arteries there is now of course the more urgent and pressing remedy of road pricing and congestion charging.

angus_h

I like the theory behind Quietways (in as much as, I'd much rather cycle to work along tree lined residential streets than on main roads), but the reality is sorely lacking:

- No real commitment to traffic reduction, still lots of fast & aggressive traffic cutting through on these narrow streets. Traffic reduction on minor roads (i.e. closing rat runs) is essential if Quietways are to mean anything.

- Not enough being done in terms of safe crossings where these minor roads cross major ones.

- Too little in the way of extending park opening hours, better lighting etc. where the routes use parks or canals.

I have friends who'd like to use the Quietway routes to cycle to work but feel they're too dangerous as it currently stands. Mostly because of traffic; in some cases lighting is a factor as well.

andy gill

need more electric vehicles. thats how you cut polution ; more financial incentives for electric vehicles. bike lanes are not the answer, its just creates permanent gridlock. cyclists need to be licensed. the cycle super highways are twice as wide as they need to be. london cannot function if you cannot get goods & services from A to B in a reasonable amount of time

Terry Vaughan

Andy, whether or not electric vehicles cut pollution, they increase congestion and force non-motorised traffic off the road. Bikes and buses are the most efficient use of road space for moving people.

"Cyclists need to be licensed". Perhaps you're right, but it would be a complicated and expensive job to introduce a scheme for that. I don't think you've thought it through. Can you explain why it's really needed?

donagga

Licensing for cyclists is required because there is a small number of highly irresponsible cyclists who make the roads dangerous for all users (as well as themselves).
Motorists are licensed to ensure that they follow the law, and highly policed in doing so (e.g. speed cameras, traffic light cameras, etc). Motorists risk losing their right to drive on the road if they choose to ignore the rules; I think that the people suggesting the same should apply for cyclists are just trying to find a way for us to keep that small proportion of irresponsible cyclists off the road.

Terry Vaughan

Donagga, can you give an example of a serious accident caused by one of these highly irresponsible cyclists? Driving and cycling aren't equivalent.

Licensing is supposed to ensure that motorists are capable of driving safely and in accordance with the law and highway code. Yet just about every one of them breaks the law on every journey, normally with impunity. If it doesn't work with motorists, it wouldn't work with bike riders, particularly highly irresponsible ones.

The point is that such a scheme would be complicated and expensive to administer and achieve very little. It would not be in the public interest.

donagga

I can give the example of me being run over by a cyclist running a red light at speed whilst on his mobile phone, requiring me to be taken to A&E and receive stitches in my head. The cyclist, by the way, didn't hang around to see if I was OK (he did stop to collect his phone, though!)
I'm not sure that your definition of "serious" is met here, since I'm still alive, but this is just one collision; I have also had a number of near misses - both as a pedestrian (where cyclists have ignored a "Cyclists please dismount" sign where there were road and pavement works), and as a motorist, where weaving cyclists in dark clothing, and without lights at night, nearly caused accidents.
I am, by no means, accusing all cyclists of such behaviour, in the same way that I wouldn't be irresponsible enough to accuse all motorists of driving badly. However, there can be bad cyclists as well as bad motorists. I just think that anyone in charge of a potentially dangerous piece of machinery be properly licensed and policed.
I'm sure that it is expensive to administer and police motor licensing, but that is not a good reason for not doing it.

k.aldo

Sorry to hear that Donnaga but you said it yourself "there can be bad cyclists as well as motorists" and to that I shall add pedestrians.
Here's my anecdote. A cyclist friend was knocked from her bike by a pedestrian stepping into the road without looking. My friend suffered a compound fracture of her lower leg and the pedestrian walked away.
Let's demand all pedestrians walk around with a number plate on their back shall we?
No, that would be impractical and costly. A cost/benefit analysis has to be applied to the introduction of licensing schemes and the number of serious incidents involving cyclists and pedestrians just doesn't justify it.

Terry Vaughan

donagga, thanks. You've had a bad experience, but you know that people cycling are far less dangerous to you than drivers are. Something like 100 times more pedestrians are killed on the pavement by drivers than by bike riders. My own experience is that bike riders have never been a problem.

What should be done about antisocial cycling and driving? If we had unlimited resources, by all means let's police both. But let's deal with the more serious problem first. You say that policing motorists is worth doing. That's the point, we don't do it. The lawlessness of motorists is one reason for some of the lawlessness of bike riders, for example when they ride on the pavement to keep out of the way of motor traffic.

silvertoes

I started cycling this spring and now cycle to work every day, from Kennington to Westminster. I also often travel to Kings Cross, and this project would make me consider cycling there too. I really love cycling now, and have lots of friends who would be interested (we're all in our twenties and need to save money on transport), but they're nervous about cycling in London. Better, segregated, cycling lanes would encourage them. The more cycling infrastructure the better, I think.

Ms Harfield-Sim...

Firstly - all bikes and cyclists should be registered to identify who they are in the event of an accident or even terroism! The amount of badly behaved cyclists who mount the pavement leaving pedestrians knocked over or injured is appalling. I walk, cycle and drive with respect for others. It is time all cyclists had a reg plate and also pay a form of cycle tax instead of relying on tax payers. I also believe children should cycle or walk to school instead of congesting the school run times. This is contributing to the congestion and those parents/nannies who choose this method should contribute more to their prospective councils during the school run timings.

Pages

Showing 201-250 of 1019 comments