Blackfriars Bridge cycle lane removed.

On Thu, 27 May 2004 10:01:42 +0100 someone who may be Richard
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

news.bbc.co.uk3751741.stmOpen ↗

I was fascinated by this bit:

Quoted message said:

The cycle lane was put up the middle of the road to allow
traffic to turn left without getting in the way of
cyclists.

The BBC are perpetuating the idea that cyclists are not part
of the traffic.

Still, it did not take three deaths to have the change made.
It does outrage me that the smug git officials putting this
sort of "facility" in place will not listen to people who
know what they are talking about, except when jolted out of
their smugness.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

"Richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

news.bbc.co.uk3751741.stmOpen ↗

It would be nice to see an interview with the supposed
'experts' who designed that. Near me they have widened a
pavement so as to slow down the traffic (!!!? thats what
they said) however the pavement is the same colour as the
road and by the exit from a garage. I've seen several people
turn left out of the garage and start driving along the
pavement (its about 10ft wide) before they realised what was
happening. Chances are they will without thinking veer to
the right and onto the road without looking, so eventually
there will be an accident in the place where they put
measures in place to reduce accidents.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

David Hansen <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 27 May 2004 10:01:42 +0100 someone who may be
Richard <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news.bbc.co.uk3751741.stmOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

I was fascinated by this bit:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The cycle lane was put up the middle of the road to allow
traffic to turn left without getting in the way of
cyclists.

Quoted message said:

The BBC are perpetuating the idea that cyclists are not
part of the traffic.

Quoted message said:

Still, it did not take three deaths to have the change
made. It does outrage me that the smug git officials
putting this sort of "facility" in place will not listen
to people who know what they are talking about, except
when jolted out of their smugness.

The Evening Standard ran fairly cycling-sympathetic articles
about it last night, SHOCK HORROR!

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

David Hansen said:

Still, it did not take three deaths to have the
change made.

In general, sadly, it does. A stark contrast with, eg, the
aviation industry, where "near-misses" are examined closely
and action taken *before* they turn into anything worse.

Helen DV:

Quoted message said:

The Evening Standard ran fairly cycling-sympathetic articles

about it last night, SHOCK HORROR!

Yup - two news pieces and a feature - three pages all told, wasn't it? But even if the Standard's staff are sympathetic[1], the letters page is still always full of the usual anti-cyclist ranting nonsense[2], including one helpful suggestion that cyclists (not bikes, but cyclists) should be taxed like cars.

d.

[1] by coincidence, I'm working at the Standard this week. As in any media environment, the majority of the staff are left-leaning liberals. It's the columnists and senior editorial staff that determine the paper's political stance.

[2] plus some perfectly reasonable anti-pavement-cycling comment ruined by tarring all cyclists with the same brush.

in message <[email hidden]>, Richard

(') said:

news.bbc.co.uk3751741.stmOpen ↗

Result!

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; not so much a refugee from reality, more
a bogus ;; asylum seeker

Interesting to see this in the latest CTC e-mail
newsletter: "Transport for London (TfL) has removed the
controversial cycle lane on Blackfriars Bridge in London in
which cyclist Vicki McCreery died following a collision
with a bus. The cycle lane has been subject of vehement
criticism in the national media, much of it seriously
misguided. Whilst it could doubtless have been better
designed, it was not fundamentally in the wrong place – it
needed to be one lane out from the edge of the road to help
cyclists avoid being cut up by left-filtering traffic. CTC
awaits news of whether TfL will be bringing forward a
better design, or whether the lane will be scrapped
altogether to appease the media frenzy."

From the pictures that I've seen, I'm not convinced that
the lane was not in the wrong place. It looks to me like a
road that would be better without any cycle lane (much like
most roads, in fact).

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my
reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/> "He who
dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

One question and a suggested plan of campaign for them
wots local.

Q: (Not wishing to doubt the unsuitability of the recently
removed cycle lane - But): What was the cycle accident
position on Blackfriars bridge (and alternative routes)
before? I ask this because it might be a case of
_something_ needs to be done urgently even if it isn't
what was done.

Suggested plan of campaign: 1 Find the cost of building 2
Find the cost of removal 3 Campaign for an equal amount to
be spent on free training for cyclists.
NB THIS FINANCIAL YEAR.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the poster business went to the
wall [email hidden]

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Richard

(') said:

news.bbc.co.uk3751741.stmOpen ↗

Result!

I was on Blackfriars bridge on Monday when they were
filming. As I see it the problem seems to be that the cycle
lane was in the middle of the traffic lanes, ie not where
drivers of large vehicles expect to come up upon bikes;
although the removal is welcome as it ws clearly dangerous
it just goes to show how little attention is paid to
cyclists when they share the road. For this reason I avoid
cycle lanes unless they are separate from the road or part
of a bus lane, there does not seem to be the money or space
to design them properly, and until they can it is often
safer not to use them. My 2p.

Tumbleweed said:

"Richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

news.bbc.co.uk3751741.stmOpen ↗

It would be nice to see an interview with the supposed
'experts' who designed that.

I would prefer to see the company/council prosecuted. It
might stop these DIY road planners popping up and designing
mad schemes.

Steve

Danny Colyer said:

Interesting to see this in the latest CTC e-mail
newsletter: "Transport for London (TfL) has removed the
controversial cycle lane on Blackfriars Bridge in London
in which cyclist Vicki McCreery died following a collision
with a bus. The cycle lane has been subject of vehement
criticism in the national media, much of it seriously
misguided. Whilst it could doubtless have been better
designed, it was not fundamentally in the wrong place – it
needed to be one lane out from the edge of the road to
help cyclists avoid being cut up by left-filtering
traffic. CTC awaits news of whether TfL will be bringing
forward a better design, or whether the lane will be
scrapped altogether to appease the media frenzy."

From the pictures that I've seen, I'm not convinced that
the lane was not in the wrong place. It looks to me like
a road that would be better without any cycle lane (much
like most roads, in fact).

This is the bit thats hard to get over to people who arn't
vehiculer cyclists.

The right place for cyclists on that bridge is in lane with
the other traffic, 'taking' the lane until, in the cyclists
judgement, it is safe for motor traffic to pass. If that
means cars are delayed for a few seconds so be it.

The idea that safety for cyclists come from getting out of
the way is deeply engrained in most peoples assumptions.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

in message <[email hidden]>, Danny Colyer

(') said:

From the pictures that I've seen, I'm not convinced that
the lane was not in the wrong place. It looks to me like
a road that would be better without any cycle lane (much
like most roads, in fact).

Couldn't agree more.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; killing [afghan|iraqi] civilians is
not 'justice'

Peter Fox
<[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

One question and a suggested plan of campaign for them
wots local.

Quoted message said:

Q: (Not wishing to doubt the unsuitability of the recently
removed cycle lane - But): What was the cycle accident
position on Blackfriars bridge (and alternative routes)
before? I ask this because it might be a case of
_something_ needs to be done urgently even if it isn't
what was done.

I think there have been quite a few recent fatal collisions
in the area.

Quoted message said:

Suggested plan of campaign: 1 Find the cost of building 2
Find the cost of removal 3 Campaign for an equal amount to
be spent on free training for cyclists.
NB THIS FINANCIAL YEAR.

I don't think cyclist training is really an issue here. In
general, only a streetwise cyclist would tackle it in the
rush hour. There are many conflicting movements[1] and
driver training is possibly more relevant.

There was a rather good photo of a bus moving across the
cycle lane in the Evening Standard, taken when there was
almost no other traffic.

[1] How do you resolve bus stops on the left side of the
road, a left filter lane, buses wanting to go straight
ahead after stopping at bus stop with cyclists wanting
to cycle straight ahead, with or without a strip of red
Kleptonite? Traffic flow is heavy and there are
obviously no 'back street' alternatives over the river.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

"Richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Hansen said:

Still, it did not take three deaths to have the
change made.

In general, sadly, it does. A stark contrast with, eg,
the aviation industry, where "near-misses" are examined
closely and action taken *before* they turn into
anything worse.

Problem is with relating that to road transport is that no-
one reports "near-misses" on the road.

"Richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Hansen said:

Still, it did not take three deaths to have the
change made.

In general, sadly, it does. A stark contrast with, eg, the

aviation

Quoted message said:

industry, where "near-misses" are examined closely and
action taken *before* they turn into anything worse.

For about 25 years now my cynical rule of thumb, arrived at
in the USA, is that it takes two deaths to get any bad bike
facility removed. Only local deaths count. Deaths in similar
locations in other places are, one finds, never in similar
enough locations to be relevant

Jeremy Parker

For this reason I avoid cycle lanes

Quoted message said:

unless they are separate from the road ...

That's not a lane, that's a cycle track, or (US) sidepath.

The people who design these things are confused enough
already. It's vital not to add to the confusion.

People don't like to use the term "cycle track", it's true.
It's become the facility that dare not speak its name,
because it has such a bad reputation, getting ever worse
since the first accident results emerged from London and
Lancashire in about 1937. Cycle tracks are probably much
more dangerous than bike lanes.

Of course, if you don't know what the hazards are, you will
not be able to look out for and avoid them.

Read John Franklin's "Cyclecraft". There's a whole chapter
on such things

Jeremy Parker

"AndyMorris" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

This is the bit thats hard to get over to people who arn't
vehiculer cyclists.

Quoted message said:

The right place for cyclists on that bridge is in lane
with the other traffic, 'taking' the lane until, in the
cyclists judgement, it is safe for motor traffic to pass.
If that means cars are delayed for a few seconds so be it.

Quoted message said:

The idea that safety for cyclists come from getting out of
the way is deeply engrained in most peoples assumptions.

Beautifully put, Andy.

Though I basically agree with you, I suspect Blackfriars
Bridge might be one of those places where the motor traffic
is so heavy and aggressive that the cyclist may have
difficulty holding the lane.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

[1] How do you resolve bus stops on the left side of the
road, a left filter lane, buses wanting to go straight
ahead after stopping at bus stop with cyclists wanting
to cycle straight ahead, with or without a strip of
red Kleptonite? Traffic flow is heavy and there are
obviously no 'back street' alternatives over the
river.

Make the left filter lane the straight on cycle lane
until after the motor traffic has stopped swapping lanes.
On Blackfriars I always stay in the LH lane until after
the solid separator white line then take control of the
lane and merge onto the straight on lane. If you wanted
to make is extra safe as well as specific road
markings/signs indicating that cyclists should do this
you could put a cycle bypass in a kerb separator between
the two lanes so that cycles can cross over at that point
but not motor vehicles.

Tony

AndyMorris said:

Danny Colyer said:

Interesting to see this in the latest CTC e-mail
newsletter: "Transport for London (TfL) has removed the
controversial cycle lane on Blackfriars Bridge in London
... Whilst it could doubtless have been better designed,
it was not fundamentally in the wrong place – it needed to
be one lane out from the edge of the road to help cyclists
avoid being cut up by left-filtering traffic.

If you're going to have a cycle lane, it needs to be where
drivers rarely need to cross it - and use extra care when
they do. This one seems to have required all buses to cross
it every time. It also seems to have been too narrow. With
traffic both sides, I'd want a metre of clearance (within
the lane) both sides. This gives a total width of
2.6m - you might as well put in a general lane at 2.8m
minimum!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From the pictures that I've seen, I'm not convinced that
the lane was not in the wrong place. It looks to me like
a road that would be better without any cycle lane (much
like most roads, in fact).

This is the bit thats hard to get over to people who arn't
vehiculer cyclists.

The right place for cyclists on that bridge is in lane
with the other traffic, 'taking' the lane until, in the
cyclists judgement, it is safe for motor traffic to pass.
If that means cars are delayed for a few seconds so be it.

Agree very much with this. It gets easier if
(3) there are lots of lanes to choose from
(4) drivers stick to the speed limit
(5) the lanes are laid out so that you can stay in one lane
all the way round

Quoted message said:

The idea that safety for cyclists come from getting out of
the way is deeply engrained in most peoples assumptions.

Not least because drivers continually promote it for their
own benefit.

Colin McKenzie

--
Why believe statistics? Ignore them and you can believe the
damned lies instead!