Speeding cyclist

[LadyNorwood]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> Wow LadyNorwood

>

> You either are very unlucky or you should write a

> book about your life

Maybe I am and maybe I should! Things just seem to happen to me.....

[Penguin68]

I have just come back from Copenhagen, a very cyclist friendly city ? BUT I noted

(1) The main streets combine 6 lanes (3 each way) for traffic for cars etc., two wide cyclist lanes (wide enough for 2 cycles side-by-side) and pedestrian pavements. There is thus no contention for space. Even in (generally much wider) side streets the layout is sensitive to all 3 classes of road user.

(2) The bikes used (including ?Boris? bikes) are all high and sturdy ?sit up and beg? slightly old fashioned bikes, heavy and comparatively slow.

(3) Less than 10% of cyclists (possibly less than 5%) wore helmets, but then they cycled slowly and safely and (mainly) insulated from other vehicles.

(4) 0% of cyclists that I observed wore either Lycra or any specialist cycling gear.

I draw from this that London streets are not designed (or are capable of retrofitting) for this style of mixed transport economy and that cyclists in London approach cycling itself in a very different way from Copenhageners.

[Jeremy]

Yep, London has much narrower streets, it's never going to be a Copenhagen-like experience for cyclists. Not without some large scale demolition!

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I draw from this that London streets are not

> designed (or are capable of retrofitting) for this

> style of mixed transport economy and that cyclists

> in London approach cycling itself in a very

> different way from Copenhageners.

Agreed, Copenhagen is a very different case, but it's worth noting that Copenhagen is to an extent a "retrofit" - the length of available segregated cycle tracks has doubled since the 1980s. It will take an immense effort and much ingenuity to "retrofit" London but the east-west and north-south superhighways, and also the splendid first Quietway, show that it can be done. It may mean losing some capacity for cars but given the carnage (not being melodramatic, 10,000 premature deaths per annum) traffic accidents and pollution impose on our city that is not necessarily a bad thing.

The difference in attitude between London's and Copenhagen's cyclists is very much chicken and egg: as previously mentioned, if one wants to ride on the road in large parts of London it's necessary to be able to keep up a quite respectable pace if one doesn't want to suffer aggression from frustrated drivers - which requires a decent bike and probably a change of clothes when you get to work. If there were a network of cycle lanes where pottering safely was possible, you'd see a lot more of it - slower bikes and less lycra reflect the opportunities available rather than a diametrically opposed attitude.

[first mate]

I've read mobility scooters also use cycle lanes in Copenhagen.

[rendelharris]

first mate Wrote:

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

> I've read mobility scooters also use cycle lanes

> in Copenhagen.

Still on this FM? Tell you what, give us what they have in Copenhagen - 400+KM of fully segregated cycle lanes, with a minimum width of 1.7m, crucially all one way running on both sides of the street, and there will plenty of room for mobility scooters. With what we have at the moment, there isn't; it would be dangerous for cyclists and dangerous for mobility scooter users. It's funny that the minute there's a small amount of provision for cyclists in London people immediately start saying we should share it with other vehicles - many of them the same people who holler "foul" when it's suggested the almighty car should give up any of its provision for anyone!

Next time you go up Blackfriar's Bridge Road, check out the pavements on both sides, at least a dozen feet across and a very good surface, that's the safe place for 4MPH mobility scooters, not sharing something specifically designed for 15MPH cyclists.

[Jim1234]

Whilst cycling, I am often overtaken dangerously by idiots. Whilst I'm driving I'm often undertaken by suicidal idiot cyclists. There are bad road users all over London, regardless of transport method.

[first mate]

RH,

just an observation, and I don't think it is really surprising that where significant changes are mooted for transport routes abd infrastructure that questions are asked as to who will benefit and who might be further excluded.

[rendelharris]

first mate Wrote:

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

> RH,

> just an observation, and I don't think it is

> really surprising that where significant changes

> are mooted for transport routes abd infrastructure

> that questions are asked as to who will benefit

> and who might be further excluded.

Mobility scooters aren't being "further excluded" though, the new cycle lanes took space from cars, they have every bit as much access as before (rather better in a lot of cases actually as the pavements have been relaid at the same time). If there is a necessity at some point (which I frankly don't see at present) for extra provision for mobility scooters then that will have to be looked at, but why should it be taken away from cyclist provision? I haven't noticed when new roads are being built anyone suggesting cars will have to concede space to mobility scooters, but when cyclists finally get some small provision it's immediately suggested we should give up at least half of it (which is what it effectively means) to other users - it's absurd, frankly. As I said before, where the current new cycle lanes are there is more than ample level and fully accessible pavement space for 4mph scooters safely to co-exist with 3-4mph pedestrians, rather than them having to share a lane with cyclists travelling five times or more faster.

[first mate]

You are forgetting 8mph mobility scooters. The phrase "further excluded" is about looking to the future and how change can benefit a broader cross section of society. I accept that in the short term it may not be possible to include mobility scooters on cycle lanes but it should be weighed in the balance in future. BTW there is a view that 4mph scooters on pavements are as risky for pedestrians as are cyclists on pavements. The width of pavement on Blackfriars is unusual.

I note that your argument for limiting cycle lanes to cyclists only seems to be about maintaining a certain speed.. I thought the 15 mph was just about pacifying aggressive and frustrated car drivers on the open road? It doesn't seem like pootling along in dedicated cycle lanes really is an option then.

I am not anti cycle lanes or anti cyclist, but I am concerned that major changes to infrastructure are well thought through and as inclusive as possible.

[rendelharris]

first mate Wrote:

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

> You are forgetting 8mph mobility scooters. The

> phrase "further excluded" is about looking to the

> future and how change can benefit a broader cross

> section of society. I accept that in the short

> term it may not be possible to include mobility

> scooters on cycle lanes but it should be weighed

> in the balance in future. BTW there is a view that

> 4mph scooters on pavements are as risky for

> pedestrians as are cyclists on pavements. The

> width of pavement on Blackfriars is unusual.

>

> I note that your argument for limiting cycle lanes

> to cyclists only seems to be about maintaining a

> certain speed.. I thought the 15 mph was just

> about pacifying aggressive and frustrated car

> drivers on the open road? It doesn't seem like

> pootling along in dedicated cycle lanes really is

> an option then.

>

> I am not anti cycle lanes or anti cyclist, but I

> am concerned that major changes to infrastructure

> are well thought through and as inclusive as

> possible.

Agreed re Blackfriars pavements, though the same applies along Victoria Embankment as well. If/when cycle lanes are put in narrower streets then more consideration may have to be given.

8mph scooters are banned from doing 8mph on the pavement, they have to have a switch to conform to 4mph. Though such is human nature...

No, pootling is more than possible in the cycle lanes, as they're wide enough for 15mph cyclists to overtake 10mph or even 5mph ones, and from my experience, even at rush hour, there's a lot of courtesy shown between cyclists of different speeds (partly because unlike car/cycle interactions, both parties are at risk of damage). They're not wide enough to overtake a mobility scooter taking up the space of three or more cyclists.

[first mate]

Yes, RH very aware that 8mph is banned on pavements. My point is that for the 8mph user( and disabled people might be in a hurry too) a segregated lane is better and safer...just as it is for cyclists. If major change to infrastructure is necessary to make cycling really work, these other users must be carefully considered and included wherever possible. It makes sense and I believe would generate more support.

Are you saying with space on cycle lanes that it would be impossible for a cyclist to pass a mobility scooter at all? Or is it that it would be annoying for someone doing 15mph to have to slow down temporarily to pass? Of course, if as you seem to suggest, you don't see that many mobilty scooters out and about then perhaps they would not have much impact on cycle journeys anyway- that is so long as the scooter is passable at some speed?

[rendelharris]

In the cycle lanes at rush hour there are hundreds of cyclists going in both directions, so it wouldn't be a question of slowing down temporarily to pass, it would cause a total bottleneck. Imagine a 40MPH A road at rush hour where one group of users, driving wide vehicles, never got above 15mph and you'd have some idea of the chaos it would cause.

Anyway, I think we've talked this one to death now, don't you? It's a total red herring anyway, as mobility scooters are banned from cycle lanes and in my opinion altering that status - which you're the first person I've ever heard question - would be as foolhardy as allowing cyclists to ride on the pavement. Let's just agree to disagree shall we?

Cheers,

R

[MarianaTrench]

As a slight side note - I have started cycling to work again after a year off maternity leave. I did cycle for a bit in between child 1 and 2 but not too much, so my last full on proper cycling commute experience dates back from 2013. And I must say (you're not going to like/believe this) but I was surprised that actually MORE cyclists (compared to me cycling in 2013) now STOP for red lights, very civilised! I am impressed.

I am Dutch so used to 'normal' non-lycra cycling but here I of course don my lycra, hey, any excuse. When I commuted in 2013 there were a lot more 'aggressive' cyclists, that thought it necessary to get in to scraps with cars or motorcycles that were in the cycle box at the front of the junction, that made a point of cycling as fast as their skinny legs could. Most cyclists (not just the aggressive ones) would jump red lights if they considered it safe. Now however most cyclists (there are always exceptions of course) stop for red lights and, wait for it, sometimes even let a car go if it's stuck in the middle of the road, trying to cross. I sense that cyclists understand (now) that in order for motorists to be more understanding towards cyclists the cyclists have to show they play by the same rules.

It could be that I just cycle on a route that is only followed by extremely civilised and polite people :-).