"John Hearns" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...
> Lights blue touchpaper. Stands well back.
>
> I saw this on the C+ forum.
> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cycles/company/standards.shtml
I've downloaded it, and in spite of having 20 pages of comment on my
web site about the previous edition, I'm having trouble getting
interested enough to read this edition.
I haven't found any mention of "Cycle-friendly Infrastructure",
which is about to be replaced by an entirely different
"Cycle-friendly Infrastructure". Section 1.5.8 says that there are
no such things as national design standards. The USA has had
standards for more than a quarter of a century, and Britain first
tried to write some in, I think,1978. I wonder what went wrong.
1.4.8 talks about sections of the London cycle network (LCN) "of
variable standard". I have many complaints about the LCN, but its
having a "variable standard" is the one complaint I have never made,
nor heard anyone else make. The standard is remarkably consistent.
Not only are the 34 authorities within London consistent, the whole
country is consistent.
The idea of courier bike routes (1.4.12) is interesting, even
somewhat mind boggling
There's the usual picture of a cyclist with a box round him, showing
how much room he needs. As usual, the authors seem unaware that,
when going round a curve, cyclists lean over.
2.3.9 says that cycling organizations are stakeholders. It does not
say that cyclists are stakeholders. That's truer than they know.
The bureaucrats get terribly upset if confronted with a situation
where there is not complete unanimity among cyclists. They regard it
as "unhelpful"
There's a whole chapter on "plain links", without any special bike
facilities. It says that such things are ok, so long as the speed
limit does not reach the value of 30 mph (see 3.1.4)
3.1.4 talks about avoiding undue risk to cyclists by design bike
lanes "with care". What on earth does that mean in an engineering
document? The road to hell is paved with good intentions, the bike
lane to hell is designed with care.
3.2.4 says "Authorities are required to review all pedestianised town
centres served by LCN+ routes, with a view to encouraging cycling."
If it's an LCN+ route, I would be satisfied with their just
legalising cycling. And doing the same at places which are not LCN+
routes.
That's just a sample from flicking through the first part of the
document
Nearly fifty years ago Professor Sir Colin Buchanan wrote in his
book "Mixed Blessing, The Motor in Britain"
"The meagre efforts to separate cyclists from motor traffic have
failed, tracks are inadequate, the problem of treating them at
junctions and intersections is completely unsolved, and the attitude
of cyclists themselves to these admittedly unsatisfactory tracks has
not been as helpful as it might have been."
Nothing changes
Jeremy Parker
