Proposed cycle superhighway to run down Lordship Lane

[Medley]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The Cycle Superhighways are as good as TfL will

> fund and where council roads as the council

> insists.

No real idea what this means but the cycle superhighways are monstrously expensive, often badly designed and at the expense of the existing, far wider network.

> The only Cycle Superhighway in Southwark so far is

> around E&C and then Southwark Bridge Road. As part

> of this Southwark Bridge Road will become 20mph

> and that principle will make it even more

> attractive.

Not really - it'll make that bit of it more attractive. But that's hardly much use if 20mph limits stop either side of the bridge, is it?

> I believe the biggest road safety problem in South

> London is the number of uninsured, untaxed, un

> MOT'd vehicles.

Definitely a massive problem that everyone - taxpayers, other drivers through higher insurance premiums etc - pays for.

> The next biggest problem is speeding by people passing through who start and

> end their journeys outside Southwark - around half

> of all the vehciles you see.

I've been trying to get someone interested in speed control on my stretch of Forest Hill Road, but no luck so far.

> Then again air pollution largely caused by motor

> vehicels prematurely kils many Southwark residnts

> every year.

Hmmm. Don't forget the planes groaning over our heads. And I should think it's the lorries, vans, buses and taxis which cause most - lots of nasty particulates in that diesel. Some of them visibly spew out God knows what. Contribution by private cars, diesel or petrol, has got to be relatively minor compared to that. Almost all of London's goods are surely transported by diesel road vehicles. And the lack of tube and train services means we've got a lot of buses here.

[binary_star]

DulwichMoan Wrote:

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

> You Don't Pay Road Tax, But You All Think You

> Deserve Your Own Cycle Lane? You Like Too Go

> Through Red Lights, But If We Motorist Hit You Its

> Our Fault? I Think Cyclist's Are The Biggest

> Accident On Our Roads.

I actually think insurance for cyclists is a good idea, which is why myself and my partner are both insured. I've NEVER damaged anyone's car though, but I did once get offered to claim on an East London bus company's insurance when I got into an accident that was the bus driver's fault.

Anyway, that's beside the point - the 'Road Tax' for cyclists is a nonsense because if you pay income tax and council tax you already pay for the upkeep of the roads, see James Barber's post for more details. Road tax (VED) doesn't even get spent on local roads so it's a bit like saying smokers and alcoholics should get priority NHS treatment because they pay more tax on the booze and the fags....completely illogical. If people don't know where their taxes go, that's their problem I'm not paying for their ignorance.

Also, since vehicle excise duty is now worked out through emissions, even if it were compulsory for cyclists to be tax disc holders they would be in band A which applies to all vehicles with CO2 emissions less than 100 g/km so they would have to pay, exactly ?0. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea, not a waste of money at all!!

[tomchance]

Medley Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The Cycle Superhighways are as good as TfL will

> > fund and where council roads as the council

> > insists.

>

> No real idea what this means but the cycle

> superhighways are monstrously expensive, often

> badly designed and at the expense of the existing,

> far wider network.

Cycle Superhighways are paid for by TfL out of a separate budget to money that goes to councils to pay for their Local Implementation Plans. The wider network (the London Cycle Network) is these days paid for exclusively out of those LIP budgets. TfL used to give councils money specifically for the LCN, but Boris scrapped that when he got into City Hall.

So from the Boris moment onwards, Cycle Superhighways are not at the expense of the other cycle infrastructure. Southwark council pays for that separately, and they shouldn't be diverting LCN money into CSH schemes.

On the expense, they're not that much more pricey than any other cycle route. It's expensive to re-engineer road junctions to improve things for cyclists, full stop.

[Medley]

Interesting post Tom Chance - thanks.

Although it's now presumably up to each local authority to spend or not spend on the LCN?

And I don't mean that the cycle superhighways were particularly expensive compared to something similar on the same scale - just that they'd cost an awful lot. And at lots of points they don't seem to me to 'improve things for cyclists' at all.

[tomchance]

Yes, it's up to Southwark if they spend money on the LCN. I'd expect that over the next few years as their transport money from TfL is cut by 25%, cycle spending will go way down.

I'm with you on the CSHs, they're better than not having them but they're nothing like the original idea dreamed up by the London Cycling Campaign and Jenny Jones AM, and they're not very well implemented in places.

[James Barber]

The proposed cycle superhighway route 6 will open 2015:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/15832.aspx

[Miacis]

Any ideas when the consultation will start and what it will mean for llane? Can't see how they can fit it in without removing all the parking. Oh joy.

[James Barber]

I've requested a GLA Assembly Member ask questions about this.

Amazing some council traffic officers are unaware its even proposed - and said no proposals for the area.

[davidh]

there cannot be any sensible argument against ALL cyclists being tested and licensed, being insured and well lit after dark. discuss

[richardblack]

davidh Wrote:

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

> there cannot be any sensible argument against ALL

> cyclists being tested and licensed, being insured

> and well lit after dark. discuss

Well given that I routinely stop to indicate politely to various drivers the light defects on their car, van, bus perhaps we could admit that within each and every group that there are good and poor road users. But that is what we all are...ROAD USERS and as such should be prepared to judge our 'own' as harshly as others and to cut a little slack where possible. Personally I would have the police enforce the use of lights after dark and the agressive fast cycling on the pavements, however like so many rules they don't enforce it at all even when asked directly one to one and so frankly I'd feel like if you might start doing cyclists for lack of lights you should equally do drivers for stopping in the green cyclist box. Sadly it's just a vicious circle.

[Applespider]

davidh - possibly worth a separate thread. But here are two... cost/process of implementation (do you license the cyclist or the bike and since virtually everything on a bike is nickable, how do you force display etc?) Secondly, forceable testing/licensing/insurance still doesn't work with cars... those who are law-abiding do it, those who aren't don't. Suspect you'll find that most law-abiding cyclists are those who already have driving licenses, have insurance via household cover or via LCC/British Cycling and have lights because not to have them is stupid. That will still leave the idiots on the road.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I really don't understand the level of vitriol aimed at cyclists. There must be some psychological mechanisms worth studying here. Any Institute of Psychiatry EDsters fancy looking into the irrational level of cyclophobia out there? It can't all be down to gullible Clarksonphiles.

[loobylou]

I am a cyclist and a driver...I recently saw a cyclist going through a red light whilst on the phone and not holding the handlebars....so wrong on so many levels...however it was daylight so I don't know if he had lights....

[healey]

CP road is a car park, so I'm not sure you'd ever see your blue cycling lane unless there were parking restrictions. Putting parking restrictions along its entire length would cause a riot!

Do they ever put the lanes on the outside of parking areas?

karter Wrote:

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

> James is talking sense at last, put a speed sensor

> or camera on Lordship lane instead of filling it

> with crossings so that he can get his kids across

> the street in one piece. Also, a blue cycle route

> from the Plough and down Crystal Palace rd through

> Bellenden and Peckham and avoiding the hill and

> into town makes sense. Another no brainer. Voter

> Karter please.

[Earl Aelfheah]

loobylou Wrote:

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

> I am a cyclist and a driver...I recently saw a

> cyclist going through a red light whilst on the

> phone and not holding the handlebars....so wrong

> on so many levels...however it was daylight so I

> don't know if he had lights...

I feel much more threatened by the van drivers doing 50 down CPR than the odd suicidal lycra lout. I regularly see cars jumping lights and chatting on the phone. All the evidence suggests that cars, and vans and lorries are responsible for the vast majority of accidents as well as contributing to pollution and congestion, and yet people always want to relay their anecdotes of rogue cyclist. There seems to be a disproportionate / irrational focus on the minority of bad cyclists that I really don't understand.