Mayor's Vision For Cycling
Discussion
Anyone read The Mayor's Vision For Cycling In London?
Boris is going to try and push through a big change in London's roads to favour cycling for people at all levels and at first read it looks great.
Highlights being
- a "Bike Crossrail" going from Hillingdon to Barking, along the A40, Hyde Park, Victoria Embankment, mostly segregated
- "Quietways" off the main roads, designated for cyclists and fully signposted, safe joining at junctions etc
- "a Dutch-style cycle superhub in at least one central London mainline rail terminus"
Well worth a read if you cycle in London.
Also I liked this bit:
"A trial of the latest all-terrain, full-suspension electric mountain bikes with the Metropolitan Police. These bikes go over rough ground faster than a normal bike goes over tarmac, and also climb stairs. With criminals increasingly using (ordinary) bikes, e-bikes will keep the police one step ahead"
I fancy riding one of them on my next club ride. b
ds wouldn't drop me then 
Boris is going to try and push through a big change in London's roads to favour cycling for people at all levels and at first read it looks great.
Highlights being
- a "Bike Crossrail" going from Hillingdon to Barking, along the A40, Hyde Park, Victoria Embankment, mostly segregated
- "Quietways" off the main roads, designated for cyclists and fully signposted, safe joining at junctions etc
- "a Dutch-style cycle superhub in at least one central London mainline rail terminus"
Well worth a read if you cycle in London.
Also I liked this bit:
"A trial of the latest all-terrain, full-suspension electric mountain bikes with the Metropolitan Police. These bikes go over rough ground faster than a normal bike goes over tarmac, and also climb stairs. With criminals increasingly using (ordinary) bikes, e-bikes will keep the police one step ahead"
I fancy riding one of them on my next club ride. b
ds wouldn't drop me then I saw a picture of the proposed changed to the Embankment between Westminster and Hungerford Bridges and it filled me with dread.
1. To get to/from the cycle paths will now take at least 2 extra sequences of traffic lights to enter and exist the cycle lanes so will delay everyone's journey, including cyclists.
2. You will now be putting opposing lanes of cylists in very close proximity. In other words if you now cycle at 20mph and are passed by cars at 25/30mph then the potential impact speed is very small. On the new lanes, you could easily have 2 bikes passing at 20mph each in opposing directions only a few inches apart.
I used to commute via the Elephant & Castle south roundabout and when I found out about the changes to turn it from a traditional roundabout to a light-controlled junction I did a quick anecdotal study before the change and after the change. And the time it took me to get past that junction increased by nearly a minute. Now imagine a similar change made on 20 other junctions on your route. It doesn't take long before cycling becomes a waste of time.
1. To get to/from the cycle paths will now take at least 2 extra sequences of traffic lights to enter and exist the cycle lanes so will delay everyone's journey, including cyclists.
2. You will now be putting opposing lanes of cylists in very close proximity. In other words if you now cycle at 20mph and are passed by cars at 25/30mph then the potential impact speed is very small. On the new lanes, you could easily have 2 bikes passing at 20mph each in opposing directions only a few inches apart.
I used to commute via the Elephant & Castle south roundabout and when I found out about the changes to turn it from a traditional roundabout to a light-controlled junction I did a quick anecdotal study before the change and after the change. And the time it took me to get past that junction increased by nearly a minute. Now imagine a similar change made on 20 other junctions on your route. It doesn't take long before cycling becomes a waste of time.
AyBee said:
oyster said:
It doesn't take long before cycling becomes a waste of time.
I guess that depends on whether you cycle for the enjoyment and fitness as well as for the speed, or just the speed.But if the cycling (plus shower and/or clothes change) starts to take a lot longer than commuting by train, plainly it starts to lose its benefit.
oyster said:
AyBee said:
oyster said:
It doesn't take long before cycling becomes a waste of time.
I guess that depends on whether you cycle for the enjoyment and fitness as well as for the speed, or just the speed.But if the cycling (plus shower and/or clothes change) starts to take a lot longer than commuting by train, plainly it starts to lose its benefit.
AyBee said:
oyster said:
AyBee said:
oyster said:
It doesn't take long before cycling becomes a waste of time.
I guess that depends on whether you cycle for the enjoyment and fitness as well as for the speed, or just the speed.But if the cycling (plus shower and/or clothes change) starts to take a lot longer than commuting by train, plainly it starts to lose its benefit.
Only skimmed it.. but my general reaction is exasperation.
Am I the only person that thinks cycle paths are NOT the answer - and wishes someone would wake up to the fact that cyclists are not some mary poppins stereotype wobbling along at walking pace? 20mph is a half sensible *average* speed. Meaning travelling substantially faster than 20 a lot of the time.
Typically cycle paths have no place for anyone making 'progress'. Close to / unsegregated / shared use with ambling pedestrians, pets and kids. Cr*p road surface (ok, so the new stuff will be nice for a while) I'd rather take my chances with the cars (who'll now be tooting and getting irate 'cos they think I should be using the cycle path, not the road).
Don't get me started on 20mph limits either - anyone who's done a lap of Richmond park on a weekend knows very well what chaos that brings: every time there's a slight incline and you drop to <=18mph, or even when you're doing 20mph, the cars *have* to get past you (it's a bike innit?), and crawl by at 22mph, pull in half way past 'cos they've got no concept you're still there.. then realise they're past the speed limit and jump on the brakes / 5 minutes later you're up their chuff again 'cos it's leveled.. Then you either take your chances on them spotting a deer and stamping on the brakes / putting you through the back window, or back right off, then rinse and repeat with the next car. Besides, 20mph+ is normal on the bike.
I'd rather it was a 30 and they just passed me and toddled off (not that I'm not doing 30+ on occasion, but..)
<rant off>. That wasn't constructive, was it - Sorry!
Am I the only person that thinks cycle paths are NOT the answer - and wishes someone would wake up to the fact that cyclists are not some mary poppins stereotype wobbling along at walking pace? 20mph is a half sensible *average* speed. Meaning travelling substantially faster than 20 a lot of the time.
Typically cycle paths have no place for anyone making 'progress'. Close to / unsegregated / shared use with ambling pedestrians, pets and kids. Cr*p road surface (ok, so the new stuff will be nice for a while) I'd rather take my chances with the cars (who'll now be tooting and getting irate 'cos they think I should be using the cycle path, not the road).
Don't get me started on 20mph limits either - anyone who's done a lap of Richmond park on a weekend knows very well what chaos that brings: every time there's a slight incline and you drop to <=18mph, or even when you're doing 20mph, the cars *have* to get past you (it's a bike innit?), and crawl by at 22mph, pull in half way past 'cos they've got no concept you're still there.. then realise they're past the speed limit and jump on the brakes / 5 minutes later you're up their chuff again 'cos it's leveled.. Then you either take your chances on them spotting a deer and stamping on the brakes / putting you through the back window, or back right off, then rinse and repeat with the next car. Besides, 20mph+ is normal on the bike.
I'd rather it was a 30 and they just passed me and toddled off (not that I'm not doing 30+ on occasion, but..)
<rant off>. That wasn't constructive, was it - Sorry!
I don't think the document is about simply forcing cyclists to use cycle lanes.
There is plenty on there about other improvements, cycle storage at stations, ASLs, better training for HGV drivers etc
A big part of it is encouraging those who would not currently consider cycling to switch their mode of transport, and if to start with they would prefer segregated lanes and well-signed quiet street routes, then it can only be a good thing.
"London's streets and spaces will become places where cyclists feel they belong and are safe"
There is plenty on there about other improvements, cycle storage at stations, ASLs, better training for HGV drivers etc
A big part of it is encouraging those who would not currently consider cycling to switch their mode of transport, and if to start with they would prefer segregated lanes and well-signed quiet street routes, then it can only be a good thing.
"London's streets and spaces will become places where cyclists feel they belong and are safe"
upsidedownmark said:
Only skimmed it.. but my general reaction is exasperation.
Am I the only person that thinks cycle paths are NOT the answer - and wishes someone would wake up to the fact that cyclists are not some mary poppins stereotype wobbling along at walking pace? 20mph is a half sensible *average* speed. Meaning travelling substantially faster than 20 a lot of the time.
You can average 20mph... on a hybrid or Boris bike... in a suit?Am I the only person that thinks cycle paths are NOT the answer - and wishes someone would wake up to the fact that cyclists are not some mary poppins stereotype wobbling along at walking pace? 20mph is a half sensible *average* speed. Meaning travelling substantially faster than 20 a lot of the time.
No? Then you're not really who this is aimed at. And for once, I agree with the standard 'road tax' jibes... spending nigh on £1 billion on a small spending of keen, assertive (sometimes aggressive) existing cyclists is silly.
It's aimed at the majority of people don't put that much thought into moving around - their attitude towards cycling will go as far as 'there's a lot of traffic, it looks dangerous' and stop. The people sitting in a traffic jam, sliding gently towards a coronary, whose road awareness is barely better than the semi-mythical lycra lout they're so fond of complaining about.
You know, morons.
I'd love more education but there's only so much you can realistically do. After that it's a choice between morons in cars or morons on bikes. Overall I think I'd prefer the latter, which is why if this could work it's worth trying, despite the fact that I could manage slightly faster on an open road. Not that it necessarily will work, but I can understand the theory.
Fair enough - as I said, I only skimmed, and also a fair point wrt getting folks to cycle.
To put it more simply: 20mph limits bring bikes into more conflict with cars. We don't stop half as well, and when driving, being alongside a bike means dividing your attention between looking where you're going, and what's happening beside you. Better for all if you can get past and get on with it. Honestly, Richmond park on a nice weekend is worse than anything I've experienced elsewhere.
Bike lanes typically aren't safe places to be doing 20+mph for the aforementioned reasons. Therefore I cycle on the road.
For the record I don't ride, motorbike or drive angry (I realised many years ago that was only going to hurt me) - my *opinion* has nothing to do with my attitude
P.S. paranoid_airbag. Compelling point - though it sounds a bit like a challenge (hybrid maybe, boris bike no!) TBH it's the 20 limit I most detest, whichever variety of transport I happen to be indulging, not that I ever take the car into the city.
Rob_T said:
keep up that attitude on your bike and it won't be long before you become a statistic
Really - any specific reason? OK, it was a (slightly tongue in cheek) rant, my core point being that I don't believe 20mph limits, or cycle paths are a great answer to cycling related problems (unfortunately / unrealistically) I believe that lies with more sense, attention and patience from all parties. I guess that's not something you can have a manifesto for, or spend a bunch of money on. To put it more simply: 20mph limits bring bikes into more conflict with cars. We don't stop half as well, and when driving, being alongside a bike means dividing your attention between looking where you're going, and what's happening beside you. Better for all if you can get past and get on with it. Honestly, Richmond park on a nice weekend is worse than anything I've experienced elsewhere.
Bike lanes typically aren't safe places to be doing 20+mph for the aforementioned reasons. Therefore I cycle on the road.
For the record I don't ride, motorbike or drive angry (I realised many years ago that was only going to hurt me) - my *opinion* has nothing to do with my attitude
P.S. paranoid_airbag. Compelling point - though it sounds a bit like a challenge (hybrid maybe, boris bike no!) TBH it's the 20 limit I most detest, whichever variety of transport I happen to be indulging, not that I ever take the car into the city.
Edited by upsidedownmark on Friday 8th March 16:05
upsidedownmark...
to put it simply, just because you can cycle at 20mph it does not mean it is your right to at the sake of all else. the conditions of the roads, volume of traffic, type of traffic, surrounding and influencing factors (stray pedestrians, stampeding deer) etc etc should inform you what is a sensible speed to be going at. if richmond park is frustrating you (as it would do me to be fair) cycle elsewhere. apply a little common sense. remember - in an accident with a car it is only you as the cyclist that will be going off to the trauma ward. or worse.
simples
sermon endeth here... back to topic please... nothing more to see here. move on.
to put it simply, just because you can cycle at 20mph it does not mean it is your right to at the sake of all else. the conditions of the roads, volume of traffic, type of traffic, surrounding and influencing factors (stray pedestrians, stampeding deer) etc etc should inform you what is a sensible speed to be going at. if richmond park is frustrating you (as it would do me to be fair) cycle elsewhere. apply a little common sense. remember - in an accident with a car it is only you as the cyclist that will be going off to the trauma ward. or worse.
simples
sermon endeth here... back to topic please... nothing more to see here. move on.
upsidedownmark said:
Bike lanes typically aren't safe places to be doing 20+mph for the aforementioned reasons. Therefore I cycle on the road.
Have you ever been to Holland, Sweden, or basically any other European country. People cycle because there are paths. Cycling isn't some weird pastime done by men in lycra trying to shave 30 secs off their journey to work, its done by ordinary people wanting to get from a to b.Cycle on the road if you are so fast and let the other 90% cycle on the designated cycle paths. Boris isn't trying to please the semi-pro lycra lot, he's trying to get Melissa from marketing out of her car and onto a bike. To me, his plan sounds like a good idea.
I can picture it now.....the new cycle lane on the westway, just opened, and photos in the papers with not many people using it, and loads of cars squashed into the 2 lanes alongside.
I agree with the sentiment, that it will get some people onto bicycles that otherwise wouldn't....and I can imagine parts of it being used a lot. But the elevated part of the westway? Hmmm, not sure.
OK I'm going to say it.
My name is Hackney and I hate cycling with other cyclists.
It's why I cycle along Euston Road in heavy traffic rather than go through London's glittering west end.
On the occasions when I come back through London the Holborn - Rosebery Avenue - Islington stretch is without doubt the most slow, annoying, badly ridden section of road I have ever ridden along.
So many cyclists who are slower than me but at every light decide they will go past me ( and any traffic controls, lines, bike boxes) and sit in front of me so I have to risk going further out to pass them again.
The sooner "Mary Poppins" cycle lanes are built so the rest of us can go a decent speed along with the rest of London traffic the better.
NB I do like cycling with other cyclists in the country on sportives etc 😀
My name is Hackney and I hate cycling with other cyclists.
It's why I cycle along Euston Road in heavy traffic rather than go through London's glittering west end.
On the occasions when I come back through London the Holborn - Rosebery Avenue - Islington stretch is without doubt the most slow, annoying, badly ridden section of road I have ever ridden along.
So many cyclists who are slower than me but at every light decide they will go past me ( and any traffic controls, lines, bike boxes) and sit in front of me so I have to risk going further out to pass them again.
The sooner "Mary Poppins" cycle lanes are built so the rest of us can go a decent speed along with the rest of London traffic the better.
NB I do like cycling with other cyclists in the country on sportives etc 😀
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff