Proposed cycle superhighway to run down Lordship Lane

[silverfox]

oops, duplicate post as below

[silverfox]

I sincerely hope you weren't too badly hurt DJKillaQueen.

No, I don't hate anybody but I do get cross with silly cyclists. We sometimes play a game in the car with the children about cyclists to see if they shoot into the outside lane without looking/signalling when they want to go around a parked car. I'd say about 70% of them do. What worries me is that if I hit them if they shoot out in front of me they'll sue me and I could end up losing the house to pay them compensation when it was their fault.

I understand that in Chicago the law is that motorcyclists have to occupy the same space as a car. That means if a car can't fit into that gap then the motorcylist mustn't. It stops all the weaving in and out of cars. I think that should be applied to cyclists to stop them surrounding cars at junctions in front of them and to the right and left of them.

[Applespider]

DJKQ, wasn't me proposing the licensing... I was saying that it wasn't practical or cost effective.

Some accidents/left hooks are caused by cyclists being stupid. I see idiots every day going down the side of cars and vans which are already indicating and with no chance if getting to ASL before traffic moves.

But yes, there are equal idiot drivers too. I was nearly taken out yesterday by a. Mirrisons lorry which gave me the bare minimum in overtaking me and the pulled in too fast so that I had to brake to avoid going under wheels. I was in right place on road and would have been entirely driver's fault

[DJKillaQueen]

Sorry I did realise my mistake Applespider -

Silverfox, it's common sense for a driver to expect a cyclist to pull out around a parked car. I always look over my shoulder but I don't signal every time I pull out around a parked car - there's no need to, usually because I'm in a bus lane and am still in the lane when going round the parked vehicle and/ or because any car is far enough away to accomodate the pull out. No road user in their right mind would move accross the road with out the space or time to do so (that IS when accidents happen) . I've never been knocked off my cycle that way or caused an accident. Good driving is about flowing with traffic...not trying to beat the cyclist to the next parked car when you know they are going to need to pull out to get around it.

If any cyclist pulls out in front or along side of you giving you no time to stop safely then it will never be your fault and the Police won't prosecute (unless you are speeding). That is fact. It exactly the same thing as a pedestrian running out in front of you or the countless other hazards on the road. It is a myth that every time a collision happens with a cyclist that the motorist is automatically held to blame. Indeed there was one case where a boy riding on a country road at night was hit and killed by a speeding vehicle, but the driver could not be prosecuted because the cyclist had no lights on the bicycle. The rules of the road ARE always taken into account.

There's a very good reason why cyclists make their way to the front of junctions - to be seen - and that's why many junctions have boxes for cyclists at the head of them - it's a safety issue. Again use common sense. If you are surrounded by cyclists, motorcyclists at the head of a junction...let them move off first until it is clear and safe for you to do so.

It is not practical to require cyclists to occupy the space of a car. Motorcyclists are advised to do so though, unless overtaking but my experience of that (because I have motorcycled too) is that drivers want to squeeze in alongside you and push you aside - again too many drivers think they should be able to get from A-B as fast as possible without accomodating other types of road user. There is nothing wrong with motorcyclists overtaking through gaps, they can accelerate far quicker than cars and as long as they do safely it helps traffic flow whereas requiring them to occupy a car space in traffic jams would make things far worse.

Driving is a skill and part of that skill is being constantly aware of what's around you. As Apple says, there is no legislation that will ever stop those that deliberately drive/ ride dangerously. Look at thenumber of banned drivers still driving on our roads for example (what else can the law throw at them?).

Instead I think the best option it to find ways to make traffic flow safer and to educate those rogues that make us all so angry when we are on the roads. London is an overcroweded city with narrow streets. We all just have to go slower sometimes.

[DaveR]

"I understand that in Chicago the law is that motorcyclists have to occupy the same space as a car. That means if a car can't fit into that gap then the motorcylist mustn't. It stops all the weaving in and out of cars. I think that should be applied to cyclists to stop them surrounding cars at junctions in front of them and to the right and left of them."

does it also provide that a motorcyclist is entitled to the same space as a car? So when you're driving behind me and I'm on my bike (riding in the middle of the lane, naturally - you can't fit a car in the gutter) you will wait patiently until you can pass me safely as if you were passing another car? No, didn't think so.

There is a clear difference between bad cyclists who, through their own behaviour, largely put themselves at risk, and bad car drivers, who largely put others at risk (cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians). That's why cars and drivers are more heavily regulated (and larger, heavier, more dangerous vehicles even more heavily regulated). Car drivers whinging about cyclists does not alter those basic facts.

That having been said, I am all in favour of encouraging people to take some cycle training before they venture onto the streets, and of an appropriate degree of regulation e.g. taking action against the worst offenders and maybe some words of warning for those who could do better. And great big signs for pedestrians saying 'LOOK BOTH WAYS BEFORE YOU STEP OFF THE KERB, MORON!'

[Applespider]

The tendency for pedestrians to cross any which way at any point along Lordship Lane (and I'm as guilty of it there when on foot as anyone) is probably a one big negative against running the cycle superhighway down it.

Equally, I really don't see how they're going to manage it between the Plough and the police station without requiring all the parking to be removed. It's barely wide enough to get two buses through let alone add a lane for a bike.

From Penge incidentally, wouldn't it make more sense to take it up (literally) to Crystal Palace Parade, down through West Dulwich via Herne Hill and then to Denmark Hill and Camberwell. It does seem like a bit of an overly hilly detour to bring it through ED and an already overly busy road.

[philosophie]

Personally, I'm really pleased about this superhighway! I'm a nervous on-road cyclist and, I know it sounds silly, but a clearly designated strip of road would make me feel much safer (whether it's all in my head or not - it worked a treat when I cycled in Holland).

Then again, I agree that the route they're proposing doesn't seem to be the best and could potentially cause more traffic and queues on the road.

Lastly, I'd also like to big up Southwark's free cycle training. I know you get offered something similar at school but I almost feel that all adults should go through it again...it's amazing how many bad habits you can pick up and not even realise. It also gave me a lot more confidence...

[James Barber]

Hi Otto,

I don't think bike hires are planned to come this far south - but will ask and if yes will report back.

Generally perhaps the route could take LL and divert around the hill from Grove Vale.

Hi Kalamity Kel,

The current Cyclue Superhighways were rushed in hope of completion by Boris before the May elections. I'd hope next phase would be more considered. Lots of supporting measures would be funded for a CS along LL. What they would be is up for grabs.

[DJKillaQueen]

But LL is on steep hill and is very difficult to cycle up at the south end. Barry Road down to Peckham Rye would be a far more cyclist friendly option. Why are are you so sold on LL James when every cyclist on here is telling you it's absolutely the worst route through (not just for traffic but incline)? There are lots of other far more cycle friendly routes either side of LL which are what us cyclists use every day.

Hopefully we can influence any decisions on the blue highway so it gives the best option for us cyclists.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKillaQueen,

I'm not wedded to LL. It just runs right through the middle of East Dulwich.

Also, I personally find Barry Road a real slog as 1 mile of up hill.

The planned route into Southwark is along Lordship Lane so making a Barry Road/Lordship Lane turn is problematic. Equally the money that would come with the Cycle Superhighway could finally resolve all the collission problems on Lordship Lane which has far more than Barry Road.

LL is a destination in its own right so would benefit from more people on bikes going through it. People on bikes tend to shop much more often and cycling along our high street should see trade boosted. I'm boring myself so will stop.

[DJKillaQueen]

Just how would a cycle lane solve any collision problems? (can we have some stats on that) And LL being a destination in it's own right....for local peole yes but not for those passing through....you are overestimating I think any benefit in that respect.

The reason for a blue lane going anywhere is for cyclists, and cycle safety (not for passing trade or any other reason)....and that has to be the primary consideration, not any thing else. Yes Barry Raod is uphill but is is a gentler incline than Lordship Lane. I doubt any cyclist would ever take on the incline of LL uphill when they can (and currently do) circumvent it anyway......so no benefit there to anyone. I would say the same of Dog Kennel Hill.

The most sensible route seems to be that used by existing cyclists, Crystal Palace Road, Bellenden, onto Peckham High Street and to Camberwell. An alternate would be Barry Road, Peckham Rye, Rye Lane, and then either along to Camberwell, or taking the old canal route to Burgess Park and through to Elephant that way. Both are far safer routes (because they have less traffic) and easier to cycle along than LL and DGH (because they are flatter). Those two things are what cyclists care about.....not whether a few cyclists might stop off on route to buy something.

[Applespider]

I am surprised that cyclists shop more. Personally, I shop less when on the bike than when walking or using public transport. Finding safe spots to lock up and then stow and restow shopping between stops make it highly unappealing.

As above, I suspect thus is one CS that will be for the fit only. I'm even thinking about the Penge to Sydenham/Horniman point which is a far more horrendous hill that the fairly gentle Barry Rd incline.

So where do cyclists go to see the proposed route and give our feedback on it

[DJKillaQueen]

So where do cyclists go to see the proposed route and give our feedback on it

I was wondering the same because I think it could benefit from our intput.

I agree that when I cycle I am cycling from point A-B and rarely stop to shop. Sometimes I am cycling to the shops but I don't ever find myself stopping en route. I think that is true of many cyclists so similarly think the notion that a cycle lane will add to local takings a bit of a red herring. And the shopping areas and streets that do best from cyclists are those with docking stations to lock to. Rye Lane has lots. LL does have some too.

[Medley]

Pros of the cycle 'super' highways:

They perhaps encourage cycling (although they're not for the Boris bikes as the OP said - they mainly avoid zone 1, whereas the Boris bikes are only in zone 1)

Cons of the cycle 'super' highways:

That old snag of cr*p design. Some are just repaintings of existing lanes, with all their problems; some are far too narrow; some have hideous 90 degree turn requirements with very little waiting space;

They perpetuate the lack of segregation. I think having more separated cycle lanes would attract more cyclists and be safer than just painting a bit of road and leaving cyclists to contend with bus stops, parked cars, insufficient road width etc. London's a tangled medieval/Victorian muddle so I appreciate only some could be built, but still feel more segregation would be good;

They create yet another road colour for drivers to look out for - the existing London Cycle Network and London Cycle Network Plus are green, bus lanes (in which cyclists can ride) are red, now we have blue;

They're damn expensive;

Although they're a rare example of central planning of cycle facilities, they don't tie in well with the existing cycle network - I've seen mutterings they'll even come at its expense in the sense the London Cycle Network Plus won't be completed.

[peterstorm1985]

I think that choosing the colour blue is madness. The public has got used to the idea of green indicating something for cyclists. To use a new colour simply allows the individual (driver) to be smug in their ignorance of what it's about. It's never a good idea to bring potential confusion and that's all this will do.

[James Barber]

I can't think of any roads in East Dulwich we could put segregated cycle parths along without removing all the car parking and that wont have breaks every few metres for vehicles crossovers which negate the point.

Cycle Superhighways come with lots of supporting changes aroudn the route. So lots of one way streets are having cycel contraflows making cycling more direct and appealing. Lots of cycle parking. When I was Southwarks Cycling Champion we obtained significant changes and improvements from what was orginally proposed.

I would expect whatever final route to have lots of supporting changes that will help people cycling, walking or responsible other road users. Its the ancillary measures that really bring the benefits.

[Medley]

@ James, good to hear improvements were made and I hope that continues to be the case with local knowledge improving central plans.

But saying there are lots of one way streets with cycle contraflows seems exaggerated to me. The best progress on this, to my knowledge, has been made in the City of London and by Camden north of York Way and towards Mornington C - although even there it's hardly the case that one is astounded at the contraflows all over the place.

In any case there's no reason those improvements - best of all would be continued increases in cycle training (the scheme where you can get free bike lessons from your borough is ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC and taught me a huge amount) and cycle parking, which I know are tied to the superhighways - couldn't happen without the fantastic cost (which seems to be c. ?10m per 'super' highway).

Totally agree segregation wouldn't work on vast majority of E D's roads - and it's not really needed on lots of them either. But I don't see that means painting a blue strip down the side of the A3 and sending cyclists merrily off down it is the answer either.

What's needed is a London-wide, centrally planned (so it joins up), locally improved (so the routes make more sense than they might if just designed by someone gazing at a map) network with clear signage, one colour scheme, segregation where possible and sensible. That is far from easy in a city as crowded and convoluted as London - as the 'super' highways show rather well, sadly.

[puzzled]

perhaps cllr barber could explain how a new cycle lane would bring lots of money to lordship lane. I used to live in crystal palace road and I'd have been horrified to have a cycle lane down it it is a residential road and residents, quite reasonably, want to park outside their homes. and why not? we don't all share your bike fixation cllr

[Medley]

fear not puzzled, no cycle lane would impair parking like that.

[James Barber]

Hi puzzled,

One of the earlier posts was that segregated cycle lanes is the answer to get people cycling. I was pointing out that segregated cycle lanes would require around 2m wide barriered seperate bike lane going each way along roads. To achieve this would require lots of the current highways to be reallocated to such segregation. The only thing that could give is to replace car parking with such lanes and frankly that's not a goer in East Dulwich.

Saying segregated cycle lanes ARE NOT feasible or practical in East Dulwich is hardly being fixated.

On the idea of the Cycle Superhighway going along Lordship Lane in the main highway. I've read past research that cyclists tend to shop more often - they don't have a car boot - and shop more locally for the obvious reasons - and having more cyclists using Lordship Lane and the Cycel Superhighways appear to be boosting numbers cycling should have a positive impact for shops along the route. How big is impossible to say.

On cycle parking. Various studies have shown maximum distance cyclsits will use cycle parknig is 20m-50m from the destination. So we do need more cycle parking along Lordship Lane if we're to make it bike friendly which would ease car parking if people switch.

[PeckhamRose]

When we riding / driving behind a car that has a sticker in it "Child In Car", does it make any difference to the way we drive or ride? See my point?

[kford]

peterstorm1985 Wrote:

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

> I think that choosing the colour blue is madness.

> The public has got used to the idea of green

> indicating something for cyclists. To use a new

> colour simply allows the individual (driver) to be

> smug in their ignorance of what it's about. It's

> never a good idea to bring potential confusion and

> that's all this will do.

It's Barclay's Bank blue:

http://group.barclays.com/About-us/Barclays-news/NewsArticle/1231784680193.html

Be thankful they weren't sponsored by Vanish.

http://www.vanish.co.uk/

[Horsebox]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> When we riding / driving behind a car that has a

> sticker in it "Child In Car", does it make any

> difference to the way we drive or ride? See my

> point?

I'm not sure I see your point, PR. The 'Child in Car' / 'Baby on Board' signs are intended to alert the emergency services of a potentially trapped infant, in the event of a collision.

[computedshorty]

May I suggest a Zimmmer Lane on the Pavement for the infirm, that could also be used by those on cruthes,and elderly, a Bye law giving powers that avoid prosecution of users if becoming unwell and causing obstruction, rather than a coloured line a helpful handrail could be placed to segregate cycles, this Handrail would also prevent vehicles mounting and parking on the pavement. There also stratify place seats for a those to rest.

It is hoped that all will reach an old age, and need some consideration given to you in future years.

The nuisance of those slow moving persons who have disabilities may not be obvious to younger people.

Alternatly may I also suggest that a very large Carpet be placed at prominant places where we can be swept under.

[peterstorm1985]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I've read past research that cyclists tend to shop more often -

> they don't have a car boot - and shop more locally

> for the obvious reasons - and having more cyclists

> using Lordship Lane and the Cycel Superhighways

> appear to be boosting numbers cycling should have

> a positive impact for shops along the route. How

> big is impossible to say.

>

In order to stop - to shop - cyclists need somewhere to park their bike. How many new bike stands are planned? At the moment, the stands by the HSBC cash machines are often full. As cyclists only buy small amounts at a time many of their transactions will be in cash, so there will need to be an awful lot more. the trouble is that bike stands get in the way of pedestrians. I notice that there is an Car Club bay, that is always empty, in Ashbourne Grove, which is just by the cash machines (HSBC and Barclays) and a handy place for the majority of shops. How about changing that into a row of on-street bikestands?