Cycle Lane Removal
View Full Version : Cycle Lane Removal
For several weeks now, I have been trying to get some information from Barnet Council and TFL as to
why the cycle lane was not replaced after road re-surfacing on the East Finchley High Road. Nobody
wants to have anything to do with it and it is impossible to pinpoint who has responsibility for
this, I am told I will be called back but it never happens.
This section of road is almost impossible to by-pass by side routes and despite the cycle lane
being on the outside of parked cars, it at least gave me a little bit of reassurance when
cycling on what is a very fast road, especially considering that I am already very nervous here
following a motorcycle accident here three years ago which resulted in horrific and ongoing
injuries. Any advice?
"Catboy" <rabs@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:fcc982b5.0312080331.4cc72c98@posting.google.com...
> For several weeks now, I have been trying to get some information from Barnet Council and TFL as
> to why the cycle lane was not replaced after road re-surfacing on the East Finchley High Road.
> Nobody wants to have anything to do with it and it is impossible to pinpoint who has
> responsibility for this, I am told I will be called back but it never happens.
>
> This section of road is almost impossible to by-pass by side routes and despite the cycle lane
> being on the outside of parked cars, it at least gave me a little bit of reassurance when
> cycling on what is a very fast road, especially considering that I am already very nervous here
> following a motorcycle accident here three years ago which resulted in horrific and ongoing
> injuries. Any advice
Many cycle lanes are just a waste of money. If you want the council to invest in a worth while
cycling feature get them to paint double yellow lines instead.
"Catboy" <rabs@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:fcc982b5.0312080331.4cc72c98@posting.google.com...
> For several weeks now, I have been trying to get some information from Barnet Council and TFL as
> to why the cycle lane was not replaced after road re-surfacing on the East Finchley High Road.
> Nobody wants to have anything to do with it and it is impossible to pinpoint who has
> responsibility for this, I am told I will be called back but it never happens.
>
> This section of road is almost impossible to by-pass by side routes and despite the cycle lane
> being on the outside of parked cars, it at least gave me a little bit of reassurance when
> cycling on what is a very fast road, especially considering that I am already very nervous here
> following a motorcycle accident here three years ago which resulted in horrific and ongoing
> injuries. Any advice?
You don't say if you've written but I feel that the post is becoming a neglected tool in this sort
of situation. I would suggest you write to the Chief Executive of Barnet BC, describe the problem,
ask for your letter to be forwarded to the relevant person and *ask the Chief Executive to tell you
to whom the letter has been forwarded*. You should also ask to be told if the BC isn't responsible
for this matter and who is responsible. If you don't hear from the Chief Executive in a week you
should ring and ask to speak with his/her secretary. Ask this person if your letter has been
received and when you can expect a reply. If the Chief Executive tells you who is dealing with the
matter let them have about a week before ringing and asking when you can expect a reply from them.
If you can't persuade someone to answer your query in this way then write a reminder, suggesting
that you will make an official complaint, ask them to tell you how you should make a complaint and
give a time limit (2 weeks?) for a response. If they don't comply then write to your councillor
and/or MP and complain that you are not receiving replies. (Don't go into the detail of the reason
for your correspondence as this tends only to complicate matters. Your complaint now is that you're
not getting replies, not that the cycle lane has been removed.) This should get things moving. At
all times remain factual and polite.
___
Michael MacClancy
rabs@mailcity.com (Catboy) wrote in message
news:<fcc982b5.0312080331.4cc72c98@posting.google.com>...
> This section of road is almost impossible to by-pass by side routes and despite the cycle lane
> being on the outside of parked cars, it at least gave me a little bit of reassurance when
> cycling on what is a very fast road, especially considering that I am already very nervous here
> following a motorcycle accident here three years ago which resulted in horrific and ongoing
> injuries. Any advice?
Keep quiet and they may forget to replace it.
I'm sorry to hear about your accident, and it is understandable that the cycle lane made you feel
safer. This feeling was almost certainly illusory, however. This particular lane sounds like an
invitation to a dooring.
--
Dave...
rabs@mailcity.com (Catboy)typed
> For several weeks now, I have been trying to get some information from Barnet Council and TFL as
> to why the cycle lane was not replaced after road re-surfacing on the East Finchley High Road.
> Nobody wants to have anything to do with it and it is impossible to pinpoint who has
> responsibility for this, I am told I will be called back but it never happens.
I don't think the road (A1000) is a Trunk Road. Therefore it is the responsibility of the Local
Authority.
Barnet Council have acted 'unusually' recently when resurfacing roads, removing speed humps because
Br**n C*****n doesn't like them.
The local paper has had various road safety features recently. Write a letter to the Hendon &
Finchley Times and ask what has happened to the cycle lane. This might get some officials to crawl
out of the woodwork.
The Barnet section of London Cycling Campaign does not meet again until the end of January.
--
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk Edgware.
"Catboy" <rabs@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:fcc982b5.0312080331.4cc72c98@posting.google.com...
> For several weeks now, I have been trying to get some information from Barnet Council and TFL as
> to why the cycle lane was not replaced after road re-surfacing on the East Finchley High Road.
Is this perhaps Barnet Council policy? IIRC they want to rip up all the speed bumps and have a very
negative attitude towards cycling provision. Quite possibly it's deliberate.
Rich
"Catboy" <rabs@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:fcc982b5.0312080331.4cc72c98@posting.google.com...
> For several weeks now, I have been trying to get some information
from
> Barnet Council and TFL as to why the cycle lane was not replaced
after
> road re-surfacing on the East Finchley High Road.
So have I, and I am London Cycling Campaign Coordinator for Barnet, and CTC Right-to-Ride rep'.
There's not much point really, I think, in talking to the bureaucrats. It's a political decision,
and the Tories are doing about what they promised to do before the last election.
The best thing to do, if you live in Barnet, is to go along to one of your councillors' Saturday
surgeries, and talk to them, especilly if they are tories. Try to keep things civilized - you are
objecting to a policy, not a person - and if you do it right, you can establish yourself as somebody
worth listening to next time, because of your knowledge and civilized behaviour.
This is especially true if you live in Totteridge ward. One of their councillors is Brian Coleman
(ph 020-8349-2024) who is Cabinet Member for the Environment, i.e. roads, and parks, and planning.
He will probably tell you to send him a letter. This is probably worth doing, although only for its
long term effect. Politicians like to develop policies that the public like, and one way of telling
this is by counting letters. An individual letter counts more than just one more copy of an
identical mass porduced letter.
There are sone subsidiary issues.
One thing I don't know about is "Traffic Regulation Orders" (TRO). If there was a mandatory bike
lane the council would have had to pass a TRO to prohibit cars from that lane. Whether that would
have prevented cars from crossing the bike lane to get in and out of the parking places, I don't
know. The council is supposed to publicise TROs, and normally send Barnet LCC and the CTC a letter
when they do so. Presumably it would take another TRO to remove the prohibition. Unless something
somehow slipped by us, I don't think we got any such letter about the E. Finchley High Road.
All that being said, although I object to being kept in the dark, I hated those bike lanes. I am not
alone, either. If you look at the TfL bike map, you will notice that the bike lanes now being
removed are not shown on that map. This is because when the map was being developed, the surveyor
from Cycle City Guides thought the bike lanes were so dangerous that beginners, who might not
recognise the dangers, should not be encouraged to ride in the lanes.
This is one of four places in Barnet where the facilities were omitted from the map for that reason.
Actually, I'm surprised that if Cycle City Guides removed that bit from the map, they kept the bike
route where it crosses the North Circular Road. One quarter of cyclist fatalities in London occur
when cyclists get inside left turning lorries. With the amount of traffic turning off the High Road
onto the N. Circ' those intersections look like killers, although, so far as I know, they haven't
killed anyone yet, and I'm not volunteering.
In other news from Barnet, the council, which cancelled adult bike education a few months ago has
now cancelled children's bike education as well.
A few years ago, because of general dissatisfaction with the quality of bike facilities in London,
the steering committee of the London Cycle network had a mass quality audit of London bike
facilities. Barnet's audit, by consultants Colin Buchanan and partners, was issued in June 2000.
None of the suggestions in the report have been and, apparently, none will be implemented. My prize
for bad locations is where station Road, Edgeware, intersects the Edgeware Rd. Again we get the
turning traffic problem. The straght on bike lane is at the kerb, the left turn only general traffic
lane is to its right.
Jeremy Parker
Barnet LCC Borough Coordinator CTC Right to Ride rep', Barnet
rabs@mailcity.com (Catboy) writes:
> For several weeks now, I have been trying to get some information from Barnet Council and TFL as
> to why the cycle lane was not replaced after road re-surfacing on the East Finchley High Road.
> Nobody wants to have anything to do with it and it is impossible to pinpoint who has
> responsibility for this, I am told I will be called back but it never happens.
>
> This section of road is almost impossible to by-pass by side routes and despite the cycle lane
> being on the outside of parked cars, it at least gave me a little bit of reassurance when
> cycling on what is a very fast road, especially considering that I am already very nervous here
> following a motorcycle accident here three years ago which resulted in horrific and ongoing
> injuries. Any advice?
I know it's counter-intuitive, but those cycle lanes actually increase your risk. Your council are
doing the right thing as far as cycle safety is concerned in removing them. I realise that this
sounds unsympathetic and doesn't help with your confidence problem, but you really are better off
without them.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of the electorate in Scotland
than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.
Richard Goodman wrote:
> Is this perhaps Barnet Council policy? IIRC they want to rip up all the speed bumps and have a
> very negative attitude towards cycling provision. Quite possibly it's deliberate.
TBH I'd like all speed cushions, chicanes, islands and mini-roundabouts removed. None of them are
helpful to cyclists as they increase the risk of us being squashed - drivers are reluctant to give
us any room if there are speed cushions because it would involve hitting the damn things at their
highest point, chicanes are just a stupid fuel-wasting obstruction that actually speed cars up [1],
islands get us crushed between HGVs and the kerb and no form of roundabout is really any good for
bikes. Keep the roads clear and wide, buy more speed cameras and put them in 20mph/30mph zones where
they might save a few lives.
[1] if they don't have priority but can avoid stopping by accelerating slightly to get through the
chicane first, most drivers will do so. It's a natural reaction to avoid having to stop
unnecessarily.
"Zog The Undeniable" <ggg@hhh.net> wrote in message news:br2fh9$dc2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Richard Goodman wrote:
>
> > Is this perhaps Barnet Council policy? IIRC they want to rip up all the speed bumps and have a
> > very negative attitude towards cycling provision. Quite possibly it's deliberate.
>
> TBH I'd like all speed cushions, chicanes, islands and mini-roundabouts removed. None of them are
> helpful to cyclists as they increase the risk of us being squashed - drivers are reluctant to give
> us any room if there are speed cushions because it would involve hitting the damn things at their
> highest point, chicanes are just a stupid fuel-wasting obstruction that actually speed cars up
> [1], islands get us crushed between HGVs and the kerb and no form of roundabout is really any good
> for bikes. Keep the roads clear and wide, buy more speed cameras and put them in 20mph/30mph zones
> where they might save a few lives.
>
Oh me too. I'd be very happy to see all the bumps go in my road and surrounding area. Get rid of the
cycle lanes and just give us more road space. Trouble is, those sentiments are not universally
shared, least of all by the LCC and no doubt other cycling campaign groups which still feels traffic
calming and cycle lanes are the way to get more people on bikes...
Rich
Some of the chicanes round our parts have got a little gap so that cyclists can go streight through
where a veichle would have to give way. It feels like there is enough space to cycle safely. I can't
vouch for motorist behaviour (e.t.c.) though since I don't go through them very often.
Matthew
Zog The Undeniable <ggg@hhh.net> wrote in message news:<br2fh9$dc2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> TBH I'd like all speed cushions, chicanes, islands and mini-roundabouts removed. None of them are
> helpful to cyclists as they increase the risk of us being squashed - drivers are reluctant to give
> us any room if there are speed cushions because it would involve hitting the damn things at their
> highest point, chicanes are just a stupid fuel-wasting obstruction that actually speed cars up
> [1], islands get us crushed between HGVs and the kerb and no form of roundabout is really any good
> for bikes. Keep the roads clear and wide, buy more speed cameras and put them in 20mph/30mph zones
> where they might save a few lives.
"Matthew Shaylor" <newsreply1@shaylor.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f9d94aa6.0312090217.1b61c3a9@posting.google.com...
> Some of the chicanes round our parts have got a little gap so that cyclists can go streight
> through where a veichle would have to give way. It feels like there is enough space to cycle
> safely. I can't vouch for motorist behaviour (e.t.c.) though since I don't go through them
> very often.
>
They are some of those gaps around my way too. They're fine provided they're clean. Otherwise I
think they tend to accumulate glass and other muck.
___
Michael MacClancy
"Jeremy Parker" <JeremyParker@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:<br2a0b$eh0$2$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>...
> So have I, and I am London Cycling Campaign Coordinator for Barnet, and CTC Right-to-Ride rep'.
Doesn't this put you in the contradictory position of being personally opposed to cycle lanes while
campaigning for more of them?
--
Dave...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:34:28 -0000, Michael MacClancy <herzel@REMOVECAPITALSo2.co.uk> wrote:
> "Matthew Shaylor" <newsreply1@shaylor.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f9d94aa6.0312090217.1b61c3a9@posting.google.com...
>> Some of the chicanes round our parts have got a little gap so that cyclists can go streight
>> through where a veichle would have to give way. It feels like there is enough space to cycle
>> safely. I can't vouch for motorist behaviour (e.t.c.) though since I don't go through them
>> very often.
>>
>
> They are some of those gaps around my way too. They're fine provided they're clean. Otherwise I
> think they tend to accumulate glass and other muck.
Clean and clear. The ones I used to come across in Oxford were usually useless because there was
on-road parking between the chicanes. Bicycles using the pass-throughs would usually have to cut
back into the traffic. If a car had parked over the edge of the marked parking area then the angle a
bike would take was no better than taking the chicane itself. And, worst of all, if a house was
being renovated (seemed like there was always one or two) then the skip would normally be put
between the parking area and the island forming the pass-through/chicane[1] creating an effective
cul-de-sac. I got used to not using the pass-thoughs.
Colin 1 I mean, the residents wouldn't want a skip taking up a valuable parking space so stick it on
the double yellows[2]. 2 Is a skip left of a double yellow parked? Is it legally parked?
--
"Dave Kahn" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:57db8bde.0312090337.2b95ab09@posting.google.com...
> > So have I, and I am London Cycling Campaign Coordinator for Barnet, and CTC Right-to-Ride rep'.
> Doesn't this put you in the contradictory position of being personally opposed to cycle lanes
> while campaigning for more of them?
Not aware that the CTC is desperately enamoured of farcilities, is LCC?
--
Guy
===
WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
Dave Kahn wrote:
> Doesn't this put you in the contradictory position of being personally opposed to cycle lanes
> while campaigning for more of them?
Not really. I think many of us are in favour of cycle lanes *where they help* and absolutely against
the ones installed by well meaning fools that make our lives more dangerous and fuel resentment from
others when we refuse to use them. What is needed is for the public's perception (and that of their
elected representatives) that cycle lanes == a Good Thing to be rendered rather more sophisticated,
and this goal can be incorporated into any campaigning.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
"Dave Kahn" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:57db8bde.0312090337.2b95ab09@posting.google.com...
> "Jeremy Parker" <JeremyParker@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:<br2a0b$eh0$2$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
> > So have I, and I am London Cycling Campaign Coordinator for
Barnet,
> > and CTC Right-to-Ride rep'.
>
> Doesn't this put you in the contradictory position of being
personally
> opposed to cycle lanes while campaigning for more of them?
>
> --
> Dave...
The London Cycling Campaign's policy on facilities is that it is in favour of "appropriate
facilities in appropriate places". Any attempt to make the policy more specific has generally been
so contentious that it brings the meeting to a standstill.
I am not in favour of inappropriate facilities.
I am not in favour of facilities in inappropriate places.
I have to admit to not supporting the London Cycle Network. It is my contention that there
already is an 8500 mile or so London Cycle Network, as there has been for more than a century.
Every road and every street in London, except for a couple like the M1 etc. are part of the
London Cycle Network, as are a few supplements like back alley short cuts, paths through parks,
canal towpaths etc.
Any attempt to define normal roads in London as "not the London Cycle Network" is an attack on
cycling and cyclists.
Jeremy Parker
"Matthew Shaylor" <newsreply1@shaylor.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f9d94aa6.0312090217.1b61c3a9@posting.google.com...
> Some of the chicanes round our parts have got a little gap so that cyclists can go streight
> through where a veichle would have to give way. It feels like there is enough space to cycle
> safely. I can't vouch for motorist behaviour (e.t.c.) though since I don't go through them
> very often.
>
> Matthew
Yeah, then someone does something like parking a van half a yard from the exit to the little cycle
cut. The useful cycle faclilities in my area (allowing me through roadblocks, and little shortcut
cycle lanes through pedestrian areas, as a courier the 2 closest facilities to my house and the only
useful ones I see all day) seem to be stricken by all sorts of stupidity. My local council actually
(LB Redbridge www.redbridge.gov.uk) *planted a bin* in a cycle lane under a flyover, which just
gobsmacked me. Dimwits
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com>typed
> "Dave Kahn" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:57db8bde.0312090337.2b95ab09@posting.google.com...
> > > So have I, and I am London Cycling Campaign Coordinator for Barnet, and CTC Right-to-Ride
> > > rep'.
> > Doesn't this put you in the contradictory position of being personally opposed to cycle lanes
> > while campaigning for more of them?
> Not aware that the CTC is desperately enamoured of farcilities, is LCC?
There are huge variations between borough groups in LCC. Camden is pro-facilities but has very high
standards, so that their facilities are actually potentially useful.
--
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk Edgware.
> I know it's counter-intuitive, but those cycle lanes actually increase your risk. Your council are
> doing the right thing as far as cycle safety is concerned in removing them. I realise that this
> sounds unsympathetic and doesn't help with your confidence problem, but you really are better off
> without them. (Simon Brooke)
In fact many cyclists do like cycle lanes and I'm not so sure that we should be so quick to put them
down. I'm personally not that bothered about them - but I do think they make fast commuting a bit
more risky because they sometimes put you in the wrong position. However, I know that there are
roads around me that my children and also my elderly mother-in-law (regular cyclist around 50 years)
simply would not now cycle on without them.
Here in York we've got quite a lot of fairly well designed lanes that often carve out useful space
from fairly narrow congested roads. I've seen the engineering that's gone into them including kerb
re-alignment to create space etc. OTOH some of the lanes I've seen in London seem to condemn you
to a narrow strip on otherwise wide roads so I can see where some of the anti-cycle-lane stuff
comes from.
But when you condemn cycle lanes (+facilities generally), don't forget older people, children,
pregnant women, people with disabilities, people who want to cycle slowly ...and perhaps most
importantly of all people who'd like to cycle but currently don't. I'm prepared to compromise if it
means more people on bikes.
Paul
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
