Proposed cycle superhighway to run down Lordship Lane

[benmorg]

Apologies if this topic already posted. Transport for London have proposed creation of a cycle superhighway (painted blue, as the few cycle lanes around London have been painted for the Boris bikes) running from Penge to the City. Judging by the route on the map (here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/Cycling/barclays-cycle-superhighways-map.pdf), the route runs all the way down Lordship Lane, Dog Kennel Hill, Denmark Hill, Camberwell Rd, Walworth Road. I think this is a great thing if it makes cycling into town from ED a bit safer.

[silverfox]

Hawking help us - more traffic chaos (geddit?)

[PeckhamRose]

Nice blue bit of paint on the road, makes all the difference though doesn't it. All this money being wasted on blue paint when cyclists know how to get to places anyway like everyone else does. Maps or Satnavs!

[Bellenden Belle]

I'm surprised you're being so negative Peckhamrose....I doubt few people are going to be using these as a route planner. Instead, I think it will help raise awareness of cyclists and encourage people who perhaps have always been too nervous to cycle on the road to give it a go. It's about creating a legitimate space for cyclists on the roads - surely that's a good thing?

On another note - three cheers for Southwark for giving everyone a chance to have a one-to-one bike lesson.

http://www.cyclinginstructor.com/cyclinginstructor.nsf/%28$Category1%29/6627A293DE39FDCC802571CD0059876B?OpenDocument

I had my lesson on Saturday and it was brilliant.

[DJKillaQueen]

Most of that route already has bus lanes or designated cycle lanes so a complete waste of money imo that will add nothing to cycling safety. The money would perhaps be better spent filling up the countless potholes I have to cycle over....which reminds me.....when on earth is something going to be done about the appalling state of Rye Lane?

[PeckhamRose]

"It's about creating a legitimate space for cyclists on the roads "

We all have the right to legitimately use the roads, but it is up to all of us to drive and ride safely.

Not easy when much of an already narrow and heavily used road is painted blue so the rest of us can't touch it.

I do think it is great there are more cyclists on the roads, I honestly do.

I just don't see why so much money is used on something that costs no money aside from the price of the bike) if you get what I mean.

[Bellenden Belle]

Does that mean it does come down to a certain resentment at cyclists being given space on the road Peckhamrose? Surely, as more vulnerable road users, it's a concession worth making?

DJKQ - I didn't realise that about duplicate routes. Although one could argue that I am a very good example of why this scheme might just have an impact; I don't know about existing cycle lanes, even being told about them I don't know if I'd still feel particularly confident at using them, so yes - paint something a garish colour, re-brand and repackage an old idea for me, and you know what - I might just try it.

Perhaps it's irrational, and demonstrates how gullible I am to marketing, but I suspect there's a few people out there like me and this scheme might just encourage a few of us to get on our bikes.

[Ladymuck]

I think that a proposal which encourages safe cycling has to be encouraged. However, any proposal has to be intelligently thought out. Sometimes it isn't.

Glad you enjoyed your free lesson BB.

[Fuschia]

I don't really see how painting a blue strip down the middle of the road for cyclists and expecting car drivers to squeeze around it is going to be very safe for anybody...

[PeckhamRose]

BellendenBelle I adore you, you know that. And of course I have no resentment towards anyone. I just think it is daft that one group of road users are given space all to themselves on a narrow busy road (as is proposed) at the expense of the rest of the roadusers being unable to then use that bit of road, so we may be at greater risk.

[silverfox]

Bellenden Belle said:

On another note - three cheers for Southwark for giving everyone a chance to have a one-to-one bike lesson.

[www.cyclinginstructor.com]

I've said this before but in my opinion it should be compulsory for cyclists to pass a cycling proficiency test, ie a paid for taught course. Some of the antics of cyclists are frightening and a danger to themselves and the motorists who will get the blame if they're hurt through their own silly actions. Also, in these straitened times an annual road licence for cyclists of say, ?25 a year, would be a good idea with points deducted (and leading to loss of licence) for going down one-way streets, through red lights and pulling out from behind parked cars without looking over their shoulders and no hand signals.

[Bellenden Belle]

I'm not a road user at all....I don't drive and so that probably clouds my judgement or lack of it. But those lanes really don't look that wide to me - have drivers really experienced difficulties with these lines?

[karter]

Have to say i agree with PeckhamRose especially on roads that are already narrow and have bus lanes on them.

[PSJ]

Likes this.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Silverfox, cyclists are allowed to cycle the wrong way down one way streets:

Cycle Contraflow

[DJKillaQueen]

On the propsed route the blue lane would be in the bus lane anyway so I really don't see the point. Also vehicles often stray into cycle lanes and boxes, and they are not fined for it.

PR cycle lanes make very good sense where there are no bus lanes and where the road is wide enough to accomodate the width of a large vehicle and a cycle lane. A road doesn't need anymore width than that. And where I agree that it's up to road users to be considerate and drive/ ride safely (and inded for pedestrians to cross safely) we both know that will never happen.

Interestingly though, most urban cycle accidents don't happen when a cycle is riding along the side of the road....they happen at junctions and when changing lane, which is why putting boxes at the head of lights with feeder lanes was a very good idea.

[AlfieNoakes]

I don't really see the point. It will cause congestion and I don't believe they offer much additional protection for cyclists. Not unless they are bordered by a raised kerb of some sort.

Anyway, there is already a safe, quiet cycle route (No.22) from ED to the City via the back streets of Peckham through to Tower bridge. I use every day now I've started commuting by bike.

It avoids the hill, is mostly on back streets and even has a park section.

[DJKillaQueen]

How does a 50cm wide lane at the side of the road cause congestion? Most vehicles drive that far from the kerb anyway?

Agree about the existing route you use though.

[James Barber]

I have mixed views on this.

A cycle Superhighway would bring lots of money to Lordship Lane and the sourrounding areas to help make them more cycle friendly. I'd also expect average 20mph speed cameras to make Lordship Lane really good for people walking.

Flip side it would send cyclists up and over Dog Kennel Hill which frankly is not a route to encourage cycling. A potentially better route would be via Crystal Palace Road and effectively around the hill.

Greendale would be a brilliant route but when I spoke to TfL last Autumn they were concerned that after dark peopl would be put of from cycling.

What route do you think the cycle superhighway should take that would get you cycling?

[TJ]

What a blue strip will do in the long term is anyones guess, but I suspect it will become grubby, dug up for a new water main and never repainted, ignored and eventually forgotten.

As for the safety in numbers argument for cycles and cycle highways, i am seeing more and more arguments for the opposite. There seems to be a lot of jostling for space and many cyclists are swinging out wildly into bus lanes (bus lanes are shared with motorbikes, buses & taxis). We all need to learn a little civility to get along in this big city, not mark out our boundaries and guard them so aggressively.

[Sue]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've said this before but in my opinion it should

> be compulsory for cyclists to pass a cycling

> proficiency test, ie a paid for taught course.

> Some of the antics of cyclists are frightening and

> a danger to themselves and the motorists who will

> get the blame if they're hurt through their own

> silly actions. Also, in these straitened times an

> annual road licence for cyclists of say, ?25 a

> year, would be a good idea with points deducted

> (and leading to loss of licence) for going down

> one-way streets, through red lights and pulling

> out from behind parked cars without looking over

> their shoulders and no hand signals.

xxxxxxxxx

I agree with all that

[DJKillaQueen]

And how would such a licence work for the under 18's. It's a totally idiotic and unworkable idea and last time I checked a cyclist usually comes off worst in a collision with a vehicle.

I did a cycling proficiency at school and it was FREE. There are also similar schemes today for anyone to do that are FREE.

[kford]

And those blue strips look awful. They'll look even worse with diesel and tyre marks all over them. As Peckham Rose said, those of us who cycle to work know where to go anyway (and the best routes don't include LL).

[DJKillaQueen]

Yes I'd be more inclined to use Crystal Palace Road depending on where I was coming from and going to. It does seem given how many side streets with traffic calming cut throughs there are in the area, that no sane cyclist would be seen on LL.

[louisiana]

James, I agree with all your points.

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have mixed views on this.

> A cycle Superhighway would bring lots of money to

> Lordship Lane and the sourrounding areas to help

> make them more cycle friendly. I'd also expect

> average 20mph speed cameras to make Lordship Lane

> really good for people walking.

As I do a lot of walking, and shop locally, I can see the benefit on this.

> Flip side it would send cyclists up and over Dog

> Kennel Hill which frankly is not a route to

> encourage cycling.

Exactly.

A potentially better route

> would be via Crystal Palace Road and effectively

> around the hill.

That's my route: CP Road, then across ED Road and into the Peckham hinterlands, which is much flatter. We've also had some nasty, nasty accidents for cyclists on DK Hill.

> Greendale would be a brilliant route but when I

> spoke to TfL last Autumn they were concerned that

> after dark peopl would be put of from cycling.

Greendale should be developed as a route.

>

> What route do you think the cycle superhighway

> should take that would get you cycling?

The idea of a superhighway seems to be 'big road with big traffic. The standard routes are all about getting away from the heavy traffic, and that's far more pleasant. But more routes/choices of different types is also potentially good.