UK and Europe · Public discussion

The Guardian gets it wrong

Started by Tom Crispin · · Last activity · 58 posts · 1,352 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
10 February 2008
Last activity
16 February 2008
Original author
Tom Crispin
Posts
58
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,352
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 58
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The proposals are for £500m to be spent on super cycle routes into the
    city centre, not £400m as reported.

    From Jenny Jones
    Green Party representative on the Greater London Authority.

    ====================

    Many of you may have seen the big article in Saturday's guardian on
    the half billion pounds which will be spent on cycling in the next ten
    years (the Guardian's £400m is actually an understatement). This is an
    amazing announcement and it comes directly from the work that myself
    and my colleague Darren Johnson have done over the last few years. The
    formal launch is on Monday morning, where more of the details of the
    cycling proposals will be outlined, along side the equally substantial
    projects for promoting walking in London.

    One of the little noticed items in last years budget agreement with
    the London Mayor was his promise of a review of how TfL would meet its
    targets for walking/cycling for 2025. The Mayor's announcement comes
    directly from that review which I initiated. I have kept a watching
    brief on the work of the TfL policy team during the last year and I
    welcome the ambition of their recommendations. I also want to formally
    thank those of you who had an input in to this review at the early
    stages, such as members of LCC, CTC and Sustrans.

    We have come a long way since TfL was planning to cut the tiny £8m
    cycling budget in 2001 and LCC members, along with myself, had to
    pressure the Mayor to step in and keep it all going. The key
    acheivement of this new announcement is that cycling and walking are
    now being recognised as part of the transport infrastructure of
    London, with big ideas attracting big budgets. Along with the shift
    towards default speed limits in boroughs and a reassessment of all
    large one way systems, cycling and walking should now have a central
    role in creating a sustainable transport system to go with a
    sustainable city.

    I have issued the following quote in support of tomorrow's launch:

    "These plans for promoting cycling and walking are more ambitious than
    anything which has been tried before in this country, but they are
    exactly what we need to persuade large numbers of Londoners out of
    their cars. Both the bike hire scheme, and the setting up of the
    Legible London guides, are big new initiatives which build on the
    existing projects and complement other proposals, such as 20mph
    default limits and getting rid of big one-way systems. A year ago, I
    asked Transport for London to come up with a plan that would transform
    the experience of cycling, walking and everyday living in London. That
    is what they have delivered"

    ====================

  2. x-no-archive: Both the bike hire scheme, and the setting up of the

    Quoted message said:

    Legible London guides, are big new initiatives which build on the
    existing projects and complement other proposals, such as 20mph
    default limits and getting rid of big one-way systems.

    I like the bit about getting rid of the one-way systems. Perhaps it
    would be better to spend the money facillitating this rather than
    building unwanted cycle paths.

  3. Jim Harvest said:

    x-no-archive: Both the bike hire scheme, and the setting up of the

    Quoted message said:

    Legible London guides, are big new initiatives which build on the
    existing projects and complement other proposals, such as 20mph
    default limits and getting rid of big one-way systems.

    I like the bit about getting rid of the one-way systems. Perhaps it
    would be better to spend the money facillitating this rather than
    building unwanted cycle paths.

    Unwanted by whom? The LCC and CTC, two orgainisations which represent
    a great many leisure and commuter cyclists support the proposals.
    These cycle routes are to be of Amsterdam standards, built by TfL as
    continuous major commuter routes, not local authority routes which are
    of variable standards.

  4. x-no-archive:Tom Crispin said:

    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.

    I accept however that pro cyclist organisations do support more cycling
    paths, but I would argue that they are misguided.

    This argument has probably been done to death on here though.

    The LCC and CTC, two orgainisations which represent

    Quoted message said:

    a great many leisure and commuter cyclists support the proposals.
    These cycle routes are to be of Amsterdam standards, built by TfL as
    continuous major commuter routes, not local authority routes which are
    of variable standards.

  5. Jim Harvest said:
    x-no-archive:Tom Crispin said:

    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.

    What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the building of
    cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way on
    roads.

    Do you think that construction of the new super cycle ways will
    increase or decrease cycling in London.

  6. On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:24:18 +0000 someone who may be Tom Crispin
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the building of
    cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way on
    roads.

    I simply point to the "cycle friendly" City of Edinburgh Council.
    They took over the A90, improved the parallel cycle "facility" to
    its current poor condition and banned cycling on the A90 itself, all
    in the space of something like five years.

    The cycle "facility" is Sustrans route number 1. It was very poor
    and the council improved it so it is only poor. They, the officials
    and Labour Party, implemented the ban despite the well thought out
    objections of most cycling groups and cyclists.

    --
    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

  7. "David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The cycle "facility" is Sustrans route number 1. It was very poor
    and the council improved it so it is only poor.

    I think calling it poor is being unnecessarily generous, imo it's an
    abomination. I've taken to using the Dalmeny estate roads instead, somewhat
    longer and more undulating, but far prettier and considerably wider.

    pOB

  8. In article <[email hidden]>,

    (Tom Crispin) said:

    On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:51:57 +0000, Jim Harvest
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    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.

    What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the building of
    cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way on
    roads.

    Well, it's not a legal restriction, but when I choose to use the road
    rather than a dangerous cycle path such as the Tavistock two-way in
    central London, it seems to annoy motorists who sometimes take the time
    to advise me on what they think my right of way should be.

    I can understand the rationale for cycle paths out of town and alongside
    fast-moving traffic routes but in central London there really should be
    no need to separate cycles from the rest of the traffic.

  9. "Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Jim Harvest said:

    x-no-archive: Both the bike hire scheme, and the setting up of the

    Quoted message said:

    Legible London guides, are big new initiatives which build on the
    existing projects and complement other proposals, such as 20mph
    default limits and getting rid of big one-way systems.

    I like the bit about getting rid of the one-way systems. Perhaps it
    would be better to spend the money facillitating this rather than
    building unwanted cycle paths.

    Unwanted by whom? The LCC and CTC, two orgainisations which represent
    a great many leisure and commuter cyclists support the proposals.
    These cycle routes are to be of Amsterdam standards, built by TfL as
    continuous major commuter routes, not local authority routes which are
    of variable standards.

    I must reply as an outsider living in the sticks -- Northern ones at that

    "Unwanted by whom? The LCC and CTC, two organisations which represent
    a great many leisure and commuter cyclists support the proposals.
    These cycle routes are to be of Amsterdam standards, built by TfL as
    continuous major commuter routes, not local authority routes which are
    of variable standards."

    You are being amazingly altruistic. Quite amazingly so considering your
    employment

    Show us plans, --- properly prepared -- of the routes

    Show us in great detail the intersections where the "cycle motorway" will have
    total priority over the lesser priority "roads"

    Show us where it will be pedestrian free -- motorways are -- and offences are
    treated as seriously as they should be!

    Show us the maintenance budget to ensure that the "cycle motorways" are kept
    up to standard of cycling safety -- glass, debris and pedestrian free.

    I have quite a lot of respect for your work with children
    but.....................

    I cannot say any other than that you are talking pie in the sky when you die!

    Trevor A Panther
    In South Yorkshire,
    England, United Kingdom.
    www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

  10. x-no-archive:Tom Crispin said:


    What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the building of
    cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way on
    roads.

    The Netherlands.

    Quoted message said:

    Do you think that construction of the new super cycle ways will
    increase or decrease cycling in London.

    I don't know. It depends on a number of factors so it could go either
    way. It will probably reduce road cycling and I would also be uneasy
    about accident rates.

  11. On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:45:58 +0000 someone who may be Jim Harvest
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    What evidence is there to support the conjecture that the building of
    cycle paths leads to the restriction of cyclists' right of way on
    roads.

    The Netherlands.

    And Germany. Is there not a third country on the mainland where
    cyclists must use "facilities" if they exist.

    The concept of separate but equal development has rather nasty
    undertones. However, we will have to see what it is they are
    proposing.

    --
    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

  12. On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:37:22 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Though I hope the new routes won't be like this:
    www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclelane

    That has to be the most ludicrous "cycle lane" ever devised!

    --
    Regards
    Alex
    The From address above is a spam-trap.
    The Reply-To address is valid

  13. x-no-archive:Tom Crispin said:

    Now, I don't suppose it is greenway-like routes that the Mayor is
    suggesting. More likely roadside cycle lanes, the width of bus lanes,
    with their own priorities at junctions.

    Do you honestly believe that they will put cycle lanes the width of bus
    lanes in London, and with priorities? Sorry, but I just can't see it
    happening.

    In any case, if there are enough bikes on the road to justify such a use
    of road space, then there will surely be no need to segregate the
    cyclists as they will have reached the critical mass required to control
    road speeds.

    Quoted message said:

    Though I hope the new routes won't be like this:
    www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclelane

    Brilliant. Farcillity of the year perhaps?

  14. Jim Harvest said:
    x-no-archive:Tom Crispin said:

    Now, I don't suppose it is greenway-like routes that the Mayor is
    suggesting. More likely roadside cycle lanes, the width of bus lanes,
    with their own priorities at junctions.

    Do you honestly believe that they will put cycle lanes the width of bus
    lanes in London, and with priorities? Sorry, but I just can't see it
    happening.

    We will have to wait until tomorrow, but it is my understanding that
    wide lanes are the proposal, and that the width will be that of bus
    lanes, certainly in places.

    Quoted message said:

    In any case, if there are enough bikes on the road to justify such a use
    of road space, then there will surely be no need to segregate the
    cyclists as they will have reached the critical mass required to control
    road speeds.

    This is a good read if you want to know how things may be...
    www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/lcds_chapter2.pdf

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Though I hope the new routes won't be like this:
    www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclelane

    Brilliant. Farcillity of the year perhaps?

  15. "Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    I wouldn't want pedestrians banned from them as they are from
    motorways, any more than I'd want cyclists banned from most roads.

    In order for these cycleways to be utilised they would have to be faster,
    safer and more convenient than using the road (like motorways are with
    respect to parallel single carriageway roads). Allowing pedestrians on them
    would destroy all three objectives at once.

  16. Tom Crispin said:

    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.

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    ~PB

  17. I typed:

    Quoted message said:

    The Greenway - unique in London - is overground


    (sort of)

    Quoted message said:

    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.
    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.

    I mean considering *what* it was built for - a housing for machines to pump
    foul water - to put it politely.

    ~PB

  18. Tom Crispin said:

    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

    Not a good advert for secluded paths is it? I feel less worried about my
    personal safety when cycling on well populated roads.

    Often there are few people on the Greenway, and you can be seen by few
    people. Ideal for muggers.

    ~PB

  19. x-no-archive:Tom Crispin said:


    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).

    Different lane colours, having so many different types of signs and
    lanes etc are unneccesary and likely to lead to chaos and confusion.
    This is in addition to our unresolved concerns about segregating
    cyclists. It is also likely to be too restrictive on motor vehicles. All
    this can be bypassed by lower speed limits and a suitable congestion
    charge to restrict traffic flows to the level necessary to keep traffic
    moving slowly and safely, and will save a lot of money.

    I know they are well intentioned, but paradoxically these standards
    actually do more harm to cyclists than if they didn't exist in the first
    place.

  20. On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:29:55 -0000, "Adam Lea" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


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

    Quoted message said:


    I wouldn't want pedestrians banned from them as they are from
    motorways, any more than I'd want cyclists banned from most roads.

    In order for these cycleways to be utilised they would have to be faster,
    safer and more convenient than using the road (like motorways are with
    respect to parallel single carriageway roads). Allowing pedestrians on them
    would destroy all three objectives at once.

    I was asked about a motorway style ban on pedestrians. That I
    wouldn't want to see. But why a pedestrian would choose to walk along
    a wide cyclelane when there's a separate footway alongside is beyond
    me. After all, pedestrians don't usually choose to walk in bus lanes,
    even though they are free to do so.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.