The Guardian gets it wrong

[[email protected]]

In message <[email protected]>
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> But why a pedestrian would choose to walk along
> a wide cyclelane when there's a separate footway alongside is beyond
> me.

I can only assume that they are confused because so few of us use
them?

Stirling Walk, Surbiton, Friday am some poor soul just did not know
why I was ringing the feeble bell as he wandered aimlessly in the
cycle lane.

8mph is fast when approaching such a hazard.

--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:32:42 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> Using Back roads I cycled to Woolwich, though I could easily have used
>> the traffic free Thames Path. From the Woolwich Ferry I cycled east
>> along Factory Road to Silvertown. From there I went north through
>> Becton Park and hooked up with The Greenway [TQ420823]. From memory,
>> there were two toucan crossings on the Greenway,
>
>There more crossings than that, though the stretches between them are quite
>long.
>
>> which changed to
>> green almost immediately after I pressed the button. At one point the
>> Greenway was cordened off by police and I had to make a large
>> diversion. Two bikes were down, and I heard that someone called Joe
>> had stabbed another lad.
>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/P2104694
>> The Greeway is close to pencil straight, and is whisked me the four
>> miles from North Becton [TQ420823], past the Stratford Olympic site to
>> Old Ford [TQ373838] in no time, despite the diversion and chat with
>> local Bobbies.
>
>Why mention the Greenway? To give the impression that's what cycling all
>over London could be like? That would be misleading.

It's only because that is where I cycled today. I specifically said
that I didn't think that the Mayor was proposing Greenway type routes,
but the crossings over roads provide clues as to how cyclists could be
catered for at road junctions.

However, there are wonderful opportunities for segregated cycling in
London. Yesterday I followed the Lee Valley cycle route, NCN1, from
Greenwich to Cheshunt, and barely touched roads.
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/greentoches

In April I plan to lead a party of 12 ten year olds along a similar
route to stay at the Lee Valley Youth Hostel.

>The vast majority of new paths would have to be far less straight and flat,
>and far more broken up with crossings - unless they were built over or under
>ground.

Yes. I expect the new paths will follow major arterial roads.

>The Greenway - unique in London - is overground and built on top of a
>massive sewer. How much would it cost to build just *one* more of these -
>even if it was possible at all? I would guess more than £500m.

Indeed, but it is *possible* to segregate cycle lanes from roads at
major junctions. I've always enjoyed cycling the Vauxhall Gyratory
system, but only because it's such a cycling challenge. But with
proper road design it must surely be able to make it easier for
cyclists.

>I agree it's a pleasant path to cycle - depite the occasional stink! And
>look out for the old Abbey Mills Pumping station - an extraordinary example
>of Victorian architecture, considering it's what it was built for.

There's also the unique Three Mills tidal mill.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Tom Crispin wrote:

>> Why mention the Greenway? To give the impression that's what
>> cycling all over London could be like? That would be misleading.
>
> It's only because that is where I cycled today. I specifically said
> that I didn't think that the Mayor was proposing Greenway type routes,
> but the crossings over roads provide clues as to how cyclists could be
> catered for at road junctions.

They are just pedestrian style crossings. They're fine on The Greenway
because there are so few of them and the crossing roads are very narrow and
quiet. On many more typical new cycle paths, though, there would have to be
more crossings and longer waits. I would find that more of a pain than
cycling on the roads normally.

I do agree that cyclists could be helped by really good cycle facilites at
large major nasty junctions like the Vauxhall gyratory system (and they
should help encourage more people to take up cycling too) - but this could
be done without a major network of off/beside-road cycle paths, etc, wich I
predict would encourage the banning of cycling from nearby roads.

~PB

 

[[email protected]]

In message <[email protected]>
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've always enjoyed cycling the Vauxhall Gyratory
> system, but only because it's such a cycling challenge.

Not the favourite place to be on a windy wet night when you KNOW the
motorists are blind.

--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:16:03 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I do agree that cyclists could be helped by really good cycle facilites at
>large major nasty junctions like the Vauxhall gyratory system (and they
>should help encourage more people to take up cycling too) - but this could
>be done without a major network of off/beside-road cycle paths, etc, wich I
>predict would encourage the banning of cycling from nearby roads.

The only roads with sufficient width to take wide cycle lanes on
either side are major arterial roads.

If I had to guess the 12 roads into central London earmarked for wide
cycle lanes, they would be...

A13 - Commercial Road
A11 - Mile End Road
A10 - Bishopsgate
A5 - Edgware
A404 - Harrow Road
A315 - Kensington Hight Street
A3217 - Kings' Road
A3205 - Battersea Park Road
A3 - Clapham Road
A215 - Walworth Road
A2 - Old Kent Road
A200 - Lower Road

 

[Pete Biggs]

Jim Harvest wrote:

> Different lane colours, having so many different types of signs and
> lanes etc are unneccesary and likely to lead to chaos and confusion.

There is a physical aspect of coloured lanes as well. They tend to use
rougher tarmac that significantly increases tyre rolling resistance. It's
ironic that what is supposed to help cyclists actually slows us down.

~PB

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:15:46 +0000, Jim Harvest
<[email protected]> wrote:

>x-no-archive:Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a good read if you want to know how things may be...
>> www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/lcds_chapter2.pdf
>
>Thank you for the link.
>
>The complexity of the proposals are quite damning (cf figure 2.3 on page
>19 for anyone who does not wish to read it all).

Quote 2.7.1 is excellent.

Cycling is an inherently healthy activity. In overall terms, the
accident risk of cycling is many times outweighed by the health
benefits. In this respect, it could be said that the only thing more
dangerous than cycling is not cycling.

 

[Jim Harvest]

x-no-archiveete Biggs wrote:
>
> There is a physical aspect of coloured lanes as well. They tend to use
> rougher tarmac that significantly increases tyre rolling resistance. It's
> ironic that what is supposed to help cyclists actually slows us down.
>
> ~PB
>
>

Yes, and paint marks (such as the pretty painted bicycles in cycle
lanes) can be slippery too.

 

[Jim Harvest]

x-no-archive:Tom Crispin wrote:

> Quote 2.7.1 is excellent.
>
> Cycling is an inherently healthy activity. In overall terms, the
> accident risk of cycling is many times outweighed by the health
> benefits. In this respect, it could be said that the only thing more
> dangerous than cycling is not cycling.

Yes, I liked that. When I try to make that point to worried parents who
won't let their (sometimes grown up)children cycle on 'dangerous' (ie
all)roads, they are of course unable to respond.

I suspect, but you will know better given your profession, that there is
an element of selfishness in parents not allowing their children to take
part in activities incurring minor risks, because they do not want the
feeling of stress from worrying about them whilst they are participating
in the activity.

Do you think that is true?

 

[Andy Morris]

Jim Harvest wrote:
>
> I suspect, but you will know better given your profession, that there is
> an element of selfishness in parents not allowing their children to take
> part in activities incurring minor risks, because they do not want the
> feeling of stress from worrying about them whilst they are participating
> in the activity.
>
> Do you think that is true?

I am a parent and I do allow my kids to take risks some people would
witter at me about, such as nag riding, cycling on roads, using public
transport, playing out, walking out of my sight, communicating with
people I've never heard of (ie friends), by email or other electronic media.

Partly I allow this because I'm to idle to sit and watch them all the
time, but also because their not daft and have to grow up sometime.

On a very selfish level there always the feeling that if something
happened to them while doing any of the above, people would blame me. If
on the other hand stuck to I keeping them indoors and in properly
supervised leisure activities so that got fat lazy and repulsive that
would be society's fault.

Last Wednesday I was cycling with my daughter to her school, when she
got forced off the road by a BMW driver in an overtake, "bugger theirs
something coming", pull in, "what's that noise" then look, sort of
manoeuvre.

After my initials reactions of check daughter was OK, reassure her it
was not her fault and then drag driver out of car and ask her what the
f*** she was doing, my main anxiety was that everyone would berate me
for putting her at risk in such a reckless way.

No one did, everyone was really nice, other parents, the school, the
police (yes I reported it), my better half (who doesn't cycle), but I
had a big "waiting for the grown ups to find out" feeling.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:20:11 +0000, Jim Harvest
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I suspect, but you will know better given your profession, that there is
>an element of selfishness in parents not allowing their children to take
>part in activities incurring minor risks, because they do not want the
>feeling of stress from worrying about them whilst they are participating
>in the activity.
>
>Do you think that is true?

Recently I have come in for some criticism from other training
providers for allowing children to take too many risks.

When teaching children to look-position-look-signal-look-manoeuvre
most Bikeability providers use a closely supervised L shape drill.

Trainees cycle down a side road, turning left into a major road. They
then do a supervised U turn, return along the major road turning right
into the side road.

Then another drill. Cycling along a side road they turn right onto a
major road, complete a supervised U turn, then turn left into the side
road.

I find this to be unrealistic and let children cycle around a four
junction circuit, turning left at each junction. I do the same for
right turns. If I have one other instructor with me it means that two
junctions are unsupervised. Sometimes I have parent volunteers with
me, and they will supervise the other junctions. I have been told
that I am exposing the trainees to unnecessary risk, and they might be
kidnapped or something.

What boloney I say. If the purpose of the training is to prepare
trainees for independent cycling journeys, such as a trip to see
friends, or the journey to school, it is right to progessively allow
them more independence with their cycling, and to allow them to make
decisions without outside influence. Otherwise all they will be doing
is acting to 'get it right' for the instructor - not for themselves.

Hell! If children today are anything like I was at that age, as soon
as they are allowed to cycle to their Saturday morning football match
with a friend, they'll be breaking all the rules in the book.
Practising cycling with no hands down the middle of the road; pulling
wheelies as they ride along; cutting corners at road junctions;
cycling over mini roundabouts, etc... But I would hope that as soon
as they hit other traffic they will have the sense and know how to
behave safely.

 

[Jim Harvest]

x-no-archive:Andy Morris wrote:
>
>
> I am a parent and I do allow my kids to take risks some people would
> witter at me about, such as nag riding, cycling on roads, using public
> transport, playing out, walking out of my sight, communicating with
> people I've never heard of (ie friends), by email or other electronic
> media.
>
> Partly I allow this because I'm to idle to sit and watch them all the
> time, but also because their not daft and have to grow up sometime.
>
> On a very selfish level there always the feeling that if something
> happened to them while doing any of the above, people would blame me. If
> on the other hand stuck to I keeping them indoors and in properly
> supervised leisure activities so that got fat lazy and repulsive that
> would be society's fault.
>
> Last Wednesday I was cycling with my daughter to her school, when she
> got forced off the road by a BMW driver in an overtake, "bugger theirs
> something coming", pull in, "what's that noise" then look, sort of
> manoeuvre.
>
> After my initials reactions of check daughter was OK, reassure her it
> was not her fault and then drag driver out of car and ask her what the
> f*** she was doing, my main anxiety was that everyone would berate me
> for putting her at risk in such a reckless way.
>
> No one did, everyone was really nice, other parents, the school, the
> police (yes I reported it), my better half (who doesn't cycle), but I
> had a big "waiting for the grown ups to find out" feeling.
>

That is an interesting summary of the conflicting pressures. I'm glad
your daughter was okay.

 

[Jim Harvest]

x-no-archive:Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>
> Recently I have come in for some criticism from other training
> providers for allowing children to take too many risks.
>
> When teaching children to look-position-look-signal-look-manoeuvre
> most Bikeability providers use a closely supervised L shape drill.
>
> Trainees cycle down a side road, turning left into a major road. They
> then do a supervised U turn, return along the major road turning right
> into the side road.
>
> Then another drill. Cycling along a side road they turn right onto a
> major road, complete a supervised U turn, then turn left into the side
> road.
>
> I find this to be unrealistic and let children cycle around a four
> junction circuit, turning left at each junction. I do the same for
> right turns. If I have one other instructor with me it means that two
> junctions are unsupervised. Sometimes I have parent volunteers with
> me, and they will supervise the other junctions. I have been told
> that I am exposing the trainees to unnecessary risk, and they might be
> kidnapped or something.
>
> What boloney I say. If the purpose of the training is to prepare
> trainees for independent cycling journeys, such as a trip to see
> friends, or the journey to school, it is right to progessively allow
> them more independence with their cycling, and to allow them to make
> decisions without outside influence. Otherwise all they will be doing
> is acting to 'get it right' for the instructor - not for themselves.
>
>

Everything you say makes sense. It would have been so helpful if someone
had taught to me to turn right (properly) and ride around roundabouts
when I started cycling on the road (at 5 or 6) or in subsequent years.
In fact, it took me until I was motorcycling in my 20s before I figured
it out for myself.

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 9:39 pm, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:16:03 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I do agree that cyclists could be helped by really good cycle facilites at
> >large major nasty junctions like the Vauxhall gyratory system (and they
> >should help encourage more people to take up cycling too) - but this could
> >be done without a major network of off/beside-road cycle paths, etc, wich I
> >predict would encourage the banning of cycling from nearby roads.
>
> The only roads with sufficient width to take wide cycle lanes on
> either side are major arterial roads.
>
> If I had to guess the 12 roads into central London earmarked for wide
> cycle lanes, they would be...
>
> A13 - Commercial Road
> A11 - Mile End Road
> A10 - Bishopsgate
> A5 - Edgware
> A404 - Harrow Road
> A315 - Kensington Hight Street
> A3217 - Kings' Road
> A3205 - Battersea Park Road
> A3 - Clapham Road
> A215 - Walworth Road
> A2 - Old Kent Road
> A200 - Lower Road

If the A5 can have a (bus width) cycle lane and the road surface can
be improved to the point where it's safe to do more than 15mph and
vans/lorries/cars etc can be prevented from parking(unloading) in it
between 6am and 8pm then I might start using it to cycle to work. I
have cycled the A5 from the A41 down to the Euston Road (or whatever
it's called at that point - Marylebone Road?) exactly once. I was on
the Windcheetah, which makes it harder to avoid the potholes, and I
ended up with bruises all down my back because of the appalling
surface

The A41 has an ideal surface for me to commute to work. It's also
(almost) door to door. Unfortuately the speed of traffic and number of
high speed junctions means that I won't consider using it except on
Sundays (and I don't go to work very often on Sundays)

Given that the A41 has a purpose build road to take motor traffic
travelling almost the length of my commute we don't need a purpose
build cycle lane to get the cyclists off the road. We need a 30mph
speed limit along the length (from J5 to J2 of the M1 at least) that
is rigourously enforced to encourage the cars to use the M1 instead.

Tim.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:37:22 +0000 someone who may be Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I've just completed a 23 mile mostly traffic free circuit around
>London's East End.

That is impossible, because you were part of the traffic.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Martin Dann]

In message <[email protected]>
Jim Harvest <[email protected]> wrote:

> x-no-archive:Tom Crispin wrote:

> > What boloney I say. If the purpose of the training is to prepare
> > trainees for independent cycling journeys, such as a trip to see
> > friends, or the journey to school, it is right to progessively allow
> > them more independence with their cycling, and to allow them to make
> > decisions without outside influence. Otherwise all they will be doing
> > is acting to 'get it right' for the instructor - not for themselves.
> >
> >
>
> Everything you say makes sense. It would have been so helpful if someone
> had taught to me to turn right (properly) and ride around roundabouts
> when I started cycling on the road (at 5 or 6) or in subsequent years.
> In fact, it took me until I was motorcycling in my 20s before I figured
> it out for myself.

I agree. It is only a few years ago that I learnt to block motorised
traffic[1],
and have the confidence to do it, when negotiating many roads and juctions.
I now cringe when I see other cyclists cycling along the white lines
between two lanes, and remember that I sometimes used to do the same thing.
Reading this group has taught me a lot about cycling safely.

[1] When I need to of course, I am not some kind of one man critical mass.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:51:57 +0000, Jim Harvest
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> Unwanted by whom?
>By me and others who are concerned about maintaining our right of way on
>the roads and are concerned that the money could be spent better elsewhere.

Well, yes, but on the other hand a lot of people who are
non-cyclists, occasional cyclists or lapsed cyclists have said many
times that this is what they want.

So obviously we have to allow that maybe there is no one value of
"right" here; indeed, if there were a continuous route of the
quality seen in some German cities and running from the City to
Canary Wharf, I would be one of those riding along it. The
alternatives now are unattractive.

I agree that we need to be wary of feeding the motorist view that
bikes have no right to be on the roads. I also know (because I
know the people involved) that CTC will be hammering that very same
point.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:19:30 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 10, 9:39 pm, Tom Crispin
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:16:03 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >I do agree that cyclists could be helped by really good cycle facilites at
>> >large major nasty junctions like the Vauxhall gyratory system (and they
>> >should help encourage more people to take up cycling too) - but this could
>> >be done without a major network of off/beside-road cycle paths, etc, wich I
>> >predict would encourage the banning of cycling from nearby roads.
>>
>> The only roads with sufficient width to take wide cycle lanes on
>> either side are major arterial roads.
>>
>> If I had to guess the 12 roads into central London earmarked for wide
>> cycle lanes, they would be...
>>
>> A13 - Commercial Road
>> A11 - Mile End Road
>> A10 - Bishopsgate
>> A5 - Edgware
>> A404 - Harrow Road
>> A315 - Kensington Hight Street
>> A3217 - Kings' Road
>> A3205 - Battersea Park Road
>> A3 - Clapham Road
>> A215 - Walworth Road
>> A2 - Old Kent Road
>> A200 - Lower Road
>
>If the A5 can have a (bus width) cycle lane and the road surface can
>be improved to the point where it's safe to do more than 15mph and
>vans/lorries/cars etc can be prevented from parking(unloading) in it
>between 6am and 8pm then I might start using it to cycle to work. I
>have cycled the A5 from the A41 down to the Euston Road (or whatever
>it's called at that point - Marylebone Road?) exactly once. I was on
>the Windcheetah, which makes it harder to avoid the potholes, and I
>ended up with bruises all down my back because of the appalling
>surface
>
>The A41 has an ideal surface for me to commute to work. It's also
>(almost) door to door. Unfortuately the speed of traffic and number of
>high speed junctions means that I won't consider using it except on
>Sundays (and I don't go to work very often on Sundays)
>
>Given that the A41 has a purpose build road to take motor traffic
>travelling almost the length of my commute we don't need a purpose
>build cycle lane to get the cyclists off the road. We need a 30mph
>speed limit along the length (from J5 to J2 of the M1 at least) that
>is rigourously enforced to encourage the cars to use the M1 instead.

I think that part of the proposal is to limit the motor traffic on
these roads to 20mph, but I don't suppose that will apply to main
roads well outside the centre of London.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:58:13 +0000, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:37:22 +0000 someone who may be Tom Crispin
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>I've just completed a 23 mile mostly traffic free circuit around
>>London's East End.
>
>That is impossible, because you were part of the traffic.

You are, of course, correct. The route was mostly *motor* traffic
free.

 

[Pete Biggs]

[from The Greenway in east London]

>> look out for the old Abbey Mills Pumping station

I've posted a photo of this if anyone's interested to see it:

ww.pbase.com/iceblinker/image/92827741

Tom Crispin wrote:
> There's also the unique Three Mills tidal mill.

I will look out for that, thanks.

~PB