Blackfriars Bridge update

Foound an article on the Evening Standard website:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/12157482?source=Evening%20Standard

John Hearns said:

Foound an article on the Evening Standard website:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/12157482?source=Evening%20Standard

"But TfL insists that most cyclists heading north over the bridge go
straight into the City and not left along the Embankment, so it is safer
to put cyclists in the middle of the road where they can head across the
junction rather than on the left, forcing them to pull out in front of
traffic to get to the City."

I agree with this - up to a point. The problem is not so much the
position of the cycle lane as the fact that motorists cross over it from
one lane to the other with no regard for any cyclists that may be using
it - not to mention complete disregard for the solid white line that
segregates the inside of the cycle lane with the left-hand lane. If TfL
put a line of bollards along the solid white line then maybe motorists
would get the message to get in the proper sodding lane when they are
given the opportunity, ie at the start of the bridge, before the cycle
lane starts.

d.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:04:30 +0100, John Hearns <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I just heard on London Today that the bus river
has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

Would that be the river of busses which flow over Blackfriars Bridge.

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

Quoted message said:

I agree with this - up to a point. The problem is not so much the
position of the cycle lane as the fact that motorists cross over it from
one lane to the other with no regard for any cyclists that may be using
it - not to mention complete disregard for the solid white line that
segregates the inside of the cycle lane with the left-hand lane. If TfL
put a line of bollards along the solid white line then maybe motorists
would get the message to get in the proper sodding lane when they are
given the opportunity, ie at the start of the bridge, before the cycle
lane starts.

Bollarding off a lane is going to stop traffic overtaking cyclists in the left
hand lane, meaning cyclists getting hassled when they hold up faster traffic (like
you get in contraflows at roadworks)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:38:52 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be davek
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I agree with this - up to a point. The problem is not so much the
position of the cycle lane as the fact that motorists cross over it from
one lane to the other with no regard for any cyclists that may be using
it - not to mention complete disregard for the solid white line that
segregates the inside of the cycle lane with the left-hand lane. If TfL
put a line of bollards along the solid white line then maybe motorists
would get the message to get in the proper sodding lane when they are
given the opportunity, ie at the start of the bridge, before the cycle
lane starts.

They need to reduce the number of general traffic lanes by one if
they are to provide a cycle lane. Otherwise cyclists should be
claiming the appropriate general traffic lane.

--
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.

Adrian Boliston said:

Bollarding off a lane is going to stop traffic overtaking cyclists in the left
hand lane, meaning cyclists getting hassled when they hold up faster traffic (like
you get in contraflows at roadworks)

If it's a choice between being "hassled" or being flattened by a bus, I
know which I'd choose.

d.

quote='davek'John Hearns said:

Foound an article on the Evening Standard website:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/12157482?source=Evening%20Standard

"But TfL insists that most cyclists heading north over the bridge go
straight into the City and not left along the Embankment, so it is safer
to put cyclists in the middle of the road where they can head across the
junction rather than on the left, forcing them to pull out in front of
traffic to get to the City."

I agree with this - up to a point. The problem is not so much the
position of the cycle lane as the fact that motorists cross over it from
one lane to the other with no regard for any cyclists that may be using
it - not to mention complete disregard for the solid white line that
segregates the inside of the cycle lane with the left-hand lane. If TfL
put a line of bollards along the solid white line then maybe motorists
would get the message to get in the proper sodding lane when they are
given the opportunity, ie at the start of the bridge, before the cycle
lane starts.

d.[/QUOTE]

I think you've hit the nail on the head - the present lane is dangerous because drivers can make their decision to change lanes over the whole length of the bridge. I was wondering whether a physical obstruction along the cycle lane would help. Without one, I can't see how cyclists keeping close to the left-hand kerb (if you imagine for a while that the cycle lane wasn't there) and who want to go straight on along New Bridge Street can avoid having to cross the path of fast-moving left-turning traffic at some stage. The only other thing I can think of (which would never happen in a million years) would be to do away with the far left-hand lane altogether (extend the pavement?) so that cyclists reaching the north end of the bridge can "take the lane" and go straight ahead the same way they do on London Bridge. But sadly I don't think Blackfriars is going to get safer any time soon.

John Hearns said:

I just heard on London Today that the bus river
has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

I note that he is apparently a resident of Edmonton. This explains a great
deal.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

The cycle lane should be scrapped altogether.

Cyclists are better off using the inside lane, before crossing over to the
next lane before the junction at the north end if they are going straight
on. The cyclist should start looking behind well before the junction to
spot a gap in the traffic to be ready to make a manoeuvre when it is safe
to do so. If no decent gap comes in time then either stop and wait until
there is a gap or walk the bike on the pavement and use the crossings as a
pedestrian.

It's interesting that the Standard article mentions the junction being
like the kind of thing you get on fast roads. Well, yes it is, so you
should do the same thing as you would on a 70 mph trunk A road--what I've
described above. Not cycle the whole bloody thing in no-mans land!

~PB

Dave Larrington said:

John Hearns said:

I just heard on London Today that the bus river
has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

I note that he is apparently a resident of Edmonton. This explains a great
deal.

Tired from commuting in every day from Canada?

--
Keith Willoughby
Welcome to the police state - http://tinyurl.com/3cptb

Pete Biggs said:

The cycle lane should be scrapped altogether.
Cyclists are better off using the inside lane, before crossing over to the
next lane before the junction at the north end if they are going straight
on. The cyclist should start looking behind well before the junction to
spot a gap in the traffic to be ready to make a manoeuvre when it is safe
to do so.

I was with you up to this point.

Quoted message said:

If no decent gap comes in time then either stop and wait until
there is a gap or walk the bike on the pavement and use the crossings as a
pedestrian.

No. Hang the right arm out, repeatedly looking behind, and if still
no-one gives way, make threatening little wobbles to the right until
someone does.

Stopping is absolute last resort, but might happen occasionally if
none of the above works. The above has always worked for me, up to
now, on Hanger Lane A406 (with 2 lanes to get across).

Quoted message said:

It's interesting that the Standard article mentions the junction being
like the kind of thing you get on fast roads. Well, yes it is, so you
should do the same thing as you would on a 70 mph trunk A road--what I've
described above. Not cycle the whole bloody thing in no-mans land!

Yes. You generally need to be taking a lane in these situations, and
the left one gives drivers fewer ways to get past. If there's a cycle
lane between 2 general lanes, I'd want 2.5m width - which is wide
enough for another general lane.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:04:30 +0100, John Hearns <[email hidden]>
wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

I just heard on London Today that the bus river
has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

I wonder if this means

a) they're lowering the bar for being able to charge dangerous driving
in this instance, based on the notoriety of the case

b) they're lowering the bar for being able to charge dangerous driving
in this instance, based on the fact the driver was using what's now
accepted as a systemically flawed traffic layout

c) they're just generally lowering the bar on dangerous driving, so as
to tackle motor vehicle operators tendency to excuse their fatalities
by 'SMIDSY'[1]

d) the driver was actually driving as hugely dangerously as one
traditionally needs to drive to be charged with dangerous driving in
cases involving a motor vehicle killing a non-motorised road-user.

To be consistent, it would have to be d).

My hope is for c).

My fear is a) or b).

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Gawnsoft said:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:04:30 +0100, John Hearns <[email hidden]>
wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

I just heard on London Today that the bus river
has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

I wonder if this means

a) they're lowering the bar for being able to charge dangerous driving
in this instance, based on the notoriety of the case

b) they're lowering the bar for being able to charge dangerous driving
in this instance, based on the fact the driver was using what's now
accepted as a systemically flawed traffic layout

c) they're just generally lowering the bar on dangerous driving, so as
to tackle motor vehicle operators tendency to excuse their fatalities
by 'SMIDSY'[1]

d) the driver was actually driving as hugely dangerously as one
traditionally needs to drive to be charged with dangerous driving in
cases involving a motor vehicle killing a non-motorised road-user.

To be consistent, it would have to be d).

My hope is for c).

My fear is a) or b).

As is my fear. Who do you think we write to in this instance to
protest this point?

A

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

Quoted message said:

John Hearns said:

I just heard on London Today that the bus river
has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

I note that he is apparently a resident of Edmonton. This explains a great
deal.

Oi, mush! (Edmontonspeak for "Excuse me".) I spent my first 9 years
growing up there, and was educated at Edmonton County School. Come to
think of it, so were Norman Tebbitt and Kriss Akabusi. Maybe that
explains a lot too.

--
Dave...

When I was kidnapped, my parents snapped into action. They rented out
my room. — Woody Allen

On 27 Jul 2004 11:44:21 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Gawnsoft said:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:04:30 +0100, John Hearns <[email hidden]>
wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

I just heard on London Today that the bus river
has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

I wonder if this means

a) they're lowering the bar for being able to charge dangerous driving
in this instance, based on the notoriety of the case

b) they're lowering the bar for being able to charge dangerous driving
in this instance, based on the fact the driver was using what's now
accepted as a systemically flawed traffic layout

c) they're just generally lowering the bar on dangerous driving, so as
to tackle motor vehicle operators tendency to excuse their fatalities
by 'SMIDSY'[1]

d) the driver was actually driving as hugely dangerously as one
traditionally needs to drive to be charged with dangerous driving in
cases involving a motor vehicle killing a non-motorised road-user.

To be consistent, it would have to be d).

My hope is for c).

My fear is a) or b).

As is my fear. Who do you think we write to in this instance to
protest this point?

I'm tempted to write to my local MP - A. Darling.

I'm trying to frame it so that it can legitimately have applicability
to our constituency.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Dave Kahn said:

Oi, mush! (Edmontonspeak for "Excuse me".) I spent my first 9 years
growing up there, and was educated at Edmonton County School. Come to
think of it, so were Norman Tebbitt and Kriss Akabusi. Maybe that
explains a lot too.

My chum Mr. Sunshine, a north London chap to the tips of his extensive
collection of offensive weapons, always refers to Edmonton as "the death of
the soul", just as Murdock refers to Basingstoke as "the experimental
inbreeding centre".

C'est la vie. Or something.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================