The BBC is doing a series of news reports on cycling. Today's focuses on New York. I wrote a post a couple of years back on how New York was starting to invest in cycling, and it attracted one comment that New York was still crap and dangerous. Well, judging by the BBC's report, it is certainly getting less crap, and that is because the NY Mayor is in a position to actually get things done. He doesn't have to negotiate with boroughs like Westminster, or the City of London. No-one it seems can slow the New York mayor down if he sets his mind to do something.
Early in the report, we had the City of London's Michael Welbank saying of the proposed new East-West and North-South Cycle Superhighways:
"Cycling in towns is here to stay,and is going to grown, and we don't resist that, we try to accommodate it...but normally...major infrastructure, you really want years to get everybody on-side...not just one group, you want everybody on side".
So I am not sure how that works. Cyclists have never, ever been "got on-side" in any London roads project I can think of, including many run by the City of London (see http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/ for plenty of examples). So the idea that normally we get everybody on-side doesn't stand up to even the most casual scrutiny. In fact, cycling and to a large extent walking have been pushed off-side systematically over recent decades, and what is happening here is cycling is (belatedly and by degrees) being brought on-side. That is the whole point of the project - it is to bring some semblance of proportionality into the allocation of roadspace. This is not a new cake that needs to be divided up fairly between all groups - the whole existing cake is in possession of a limo-driving royal family and a small piece of it is being given to the starved masses. Quoted in The Guardian 2 months ago, Welbank said:
"All road users should have equal opportunities. At the moment [with these plans] we believe the cyclists are having priority to the disadvantage of other users."
That's a bit like saying that in South Africa in 1994, black people were having priority to the disadvantage of whites.
Now, what you should know about Welbank and his fellow City Corporation representatives is they are not democratically elected. At least, the City is not a democracy in the sense that you or I would recognize it - while there are elections, it is largely corporations (banks and financial companies in the main) that appoint the voters - and the rank-and-file employees within the companies don't get a say. Be in no doubt - this is a quango.
So why, in a 21st century liberal democracy, do we face a situation where a democratically-elected mayor pursuing a mandated policy (decent cycle infrastructure) can be obstructed by an undemocratic quango? To that extent, why is it that Westminster (with 150,000 electors) can obstruct the Mayor's cycling policies that serve his constituency of 6 million electors?
It seems to us here at Cycalogical that with the Scottish Referendum bringing up the question of local devolution and accountability, now is a good time to think about how London is run. There are some issues that are unique to local conditions, and need to be decided locally. But there are plenty of other services, like refuse collection, that are pretty much commoditized. Currently services are managed in theory by each of the 33 councils. That means London has 33 different organizations doing what is a very similar job...except in fact they don't anymore: some councils have already figured out there is a lot of cost and not a lot of point in this duplication and have set up organizations such as the South London Waste Partnership, which manages your old newspapers and tin cans if you live in Sutton, Merton, Croydon or Kingston. But the problem with this of course is there is no overall accountability - if you live in Merton and you think your rubbish service is -er - rubbish, your local council has only limited influence and control over the service being provided. So there is a democratic deficit, caused by the fact that London's democratic structure is out-of-date with the realities of how an increasing number of services are provided.
Transport is of course a different matter. We already have Transport for London, controlled by the Mayor, which is in charge of London's transport, only of course it is not. TfL only controls the major roads, and all others fall under local borough control. Except the royal parks and some commons, which have their own little organizations looking after paths and access...oh and of course central government, which has put in place over the years lots of primary legislation that makes it much more difficult and expensive to get perfectly reasonable transport measures in place. Another danger is that left to lots of local boroughs, there is no consistency or coherency to policy. If one borough tries to reduce traffic by restricting parking, drivers can just go to a neighboring borough that enables parking to try to revive its ailing high street.
Transport is by its very nature a cross-borough issue. It makes no sense to have great bus or cycle routes in Sutton, which stop as soon as you get into Croydon or Merton. And it is cycling that is the biggest victim of our current multi-layered approach to government: there are formidable obstacles set up by the labyrinthine bureaucracy comprised of the various bodies that have to be involved, consulted and brought "on-side" if the London Mayor wants to construct a meaningful network of cycle routes fit for purpose and worthy of a first-world city. What is most toxic about the current set-up is that local boroughs now (with the Health and Social Care Act 2012)
have responsibility for public health. And the easiest way to improve public health is to get people doing more active travel - which is very difficult to do at a borough level. If you want people cycling to work and to school, you need a city-wide network of cycle routes.
Surely the most sensible arrangement for London is to have more powers for the Mayor. Mrs Thatcher abolished the GLC, leaving London without leadership. Labour then set up a Mayor who is little more than a glorified transport commissioner who is not even in full control of transport and is not properly accountable, with an assembly that is just a talking shop. We can and must do better. This city needs to be an attractive and healthy place to live in. If the Mayor wants to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, and a long list of other common but preventable diseases, thereby saving the health service a sack of cash enabling him to hand back the savings in tax cuts or better services, and reducing traffic congestion, pollution and noise, while making better use of public space, it is not reasonable to ask that he has the power to do this?
[As a footnote: we are not claiming to have the solution for how best to run London or the UK - but we do believe that the current system has all the problems you would expect given that it dates from a time when most people didn't own cars or telephones, the net was something you went fishing with, tuberculosis rather than obesity was the disease of choice, and the NHS didn't exist. We think that a horse-drawn, quill-pen, gas-lit democracy could be a little out of step with the information age. Let alone the City of London Corporation, which dates from an era when gas light (and democracy) was the stuff of science fiction... ]
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Crossrail for Bikes - Dave Hill gets it Wrong ?
Generally we like Dave Hill's insightful and reasonably balanced journalism. But in his piece about the Crossrail for Bikes, we think he's got it a bit wrong.
"A political railroading exercise", is the picture he paints.
He starts by stating:
"some of these concerns [about the east-west cycle route] were aired for the benefit of the policy committee of London Travelwatch, the official watchdog representing all - repeat, all - transport users in the capital."
First, London Travelwatch does not have a good record of representing cyclists in the Capital, in our opinion: they don't really 'get it' and have been laggards in the debate about what place cycling should have in the transport mix.
"[London Chamber of Commerce and Industry's] problem with the superhighway is a 'lack of almost any information at all' about its possible effects on the workings of London’s economy. "
This is a strange point. TfL are not economists and it is not their job to make economic predictions. And in any case, economists don't have a great track record of predicting macro effects, let alone effects on this small-scale level. There are all sorts of changes to traffic patterns happening on a daily basis, caused by all manner of things from events like the Olympics to roadworks and construction projects, but we don't do detailed analysis of possible effects on the economy. It is not the Mayor's job to keep London's businesses in a bubble, sealed from all possible ill effects. It is up to businesses to adapt to changing conditions. More successful businesses will take advantage of opportunities arising for more cycling. Many sectors, from the bike industry to tourism, will benefit. There will be business opportunities for freight consolidation and deliveries by pedal-powered vehicles.
And let us not forget: it is the job of businesses to serve London, not the other way around. There is no way that quality of life in this city should be sacrificed to make life a little bit easier for businesses who can't or won't adapt to what Londoners want from their transport system and street environment.
"London First has also raised the problems the superhighway could cause pedestrians."
This is ridiculous. Problems for pedestrians have been caused by fifty years of motor-centric planning and traffic-flow prioritization, not least by the current Mayor. To suggest that better cycle facilities will cause pedestrians problems is a bit like saying giving chemotherapy to a cancer patient will make them feel unwell. Cycling is a far more efficient use of roadspace than private cars or taxis, so is part of the solution, not part of the problem. And what is more, 'improvements' for pedestrians have often involved endangering cyclists, as carriageways are narrowed while no attempt is made to provide for cyclists, to control traffic speeds or volumes, or enforce against dangerous driving.
"[City of London's] Michael Welbank has described the superhighway plans as 'too narrowly focussed on the needs of cyclists' "
Well, it is a cycle scheme. And set against a background where virtually every single change to London's road system in recent history has ignored the needs of cyclists. So to take this scheme in isolation is to skip by the fact that London has an enormous amount of catching up to do in terms of cycling provision. To draw a causal link between lack of priority for pedestrians and this scheme is bogus.
" The superhighway, [Iain Simmons] thinks, could add another 20 or 30 seconds to these [pedestrian crossing wait] times."
The presence of cycle superhighways doesn't determine anything. With or without cycle superhighways, it is up to TfL how signals prioritize pedestrians- they didn't start to relegate pedestrians down the pecking order with this project, and there is no reason why they should continue to do so. The fundamental problem is that TfL have tried to squeeze far too much traffic into London's narrow streets. During the Olympics, we had reallocation of roadspace and a massive reduction of traffic. Did London's economy collapse as a result? Not that you'd notice. Which puts the lie to the idea that every journey made today is absolutely necessary. Other cities cope well with less traffic. And we certainly don't see anyone arguing that the city would be better off with more traffic - and more pollution, more congestion, noise and degradation to the street scene and urban environment.
"The common theme is that all concerned want cyclists’ lot improved, but worry that Johnson’s plans are being pushed through far too hurriedly. "
Are you sure about that, Dave? Are you sure there isn't a hidden agenda? We've spent a long time getting to the point where the debate about cycle infrastructure is settled. It is now the consensus that more cycling won't happen without decent segregated routes. So if you are against this project, you are against cycling. Period. But it isn't politically expedient anymore for organizations and lobbyists to directly oppose the plans, as to do so would associate them with continued death and injury to cyclists, so their only weapons are delay, procrastination and obfuscation. And it is not really credible for people to claim that the building of segreagated routes is a surpise. Dutch-style routes were in the Mayor's manifesto, and supported by all major parties. Businesses have had years to think through the implications, and do economic analysis if they so chose.
"Pushed through far too hurriedly?" Why not slow down a bit and let more cyclists die, you mean?
But here is the real point: London voted for this. It would be an affront to democracy for plans for decent segregated routes to be degraded into...well, the kind of crap that has hitherto been the calling card of cycling 'investment'. What's more, it would be a gross waste of taxpayers' money - the benefits - economic, public health, pollution, environment, liveability etc. etc., only come if ordinary non-lycra-clad people start cycling - and we know they won't if the routes aren't up to a consistent standard throughout.
"Arranging this triumph is the mission of his part-time cycling adviser Andrew Gilligan, a pushy media chum with no experience in transport planning."
We've had decades of transport planners making a total mess of cycling in the UK. It's not up to Gilligan to design or plan the routes - that's the job of the engineers - it is up to him to make them happen. And frankly, being 'pushy' is a required attribute, as is understanding communication and the media. At least Gilligan rides a bike, which makes him a lot more qualified than a lot of people at TfL. He is doing what he was hired to do - and the general impression is, he is doing a half-decent job.
Sorry, Dave. We think that better cycling provision will be good for London, for its people, its economy, its businesses, its health and its environment. And there is plenty of evidence for this. It is up to businesses to adapt to the changes and opportunities this positive change will throw up. Sure, there are details that need to be worked out, but the fact is that roadspace must be reallocated to cycling, and there will be consequences (both positive and negative) to that. For example, on the plus side of the ledger, Victoria Embankment will go from being an urban motorway to having the cycle track as a buffer between the riverside pavement and the motor traffic. The riverside will go from being an unwelcoming, unattractive, noisy and polluted place to somewhere people might actually want to linger. Yes, some journeys may take longer. On the other hand, a whole new transport mode, cycling, will be opened up to people who currently aren't prepared to mix it on a bike with heavy traffic. People might take a Boris Bike rather than a taxi, and their journey could well be quicker. Don't forget that taxis are responsible for a lot (about 30%) of central London pollution (according to Darren Johnson based on TfL figures).
"The 'Crossrail for bikes', is scheduled to be complete just before the mayor’s second term is due to end in May, 2016. It would be hailed as the crowning glory of his much-trumpeted “cycling revolution”....TfL would like the time to do its job with the thoroughness this ambitious project merits. That, though, might clash with the career interests of the mayor - and they, of course, must always come first".
Again, this project can't come quickly enough. The idea that the Mayor shouldn't push ahead with a great scheme because that might be perceived as good for his career prospects is completely illogical. There are very few projects that wouldn't benefit from a bit more time and a bit more money, but in case you hadn't noticed, we have a public health emergency in this country. The consequences of sedentary lifestyles is threatening to bankrupt the NHS. Decent cycle infrastructure can't come soon enough, and making Boris look good is surely a price worth paying.
"A political railroading exercise", is the picture he paints.
He starts by stating:
"some of these concerns [about the east-west cycle route] were aired for the benefit of the policy committee of London Travelwatch, the official watchdog representing all - repeat, all - transport users in the capital."
First, London Travelwatch does not have a good record of representing cyclists in the Capital, in our opinion: they don't really 'get it' and have been laggards in the debate about what place cycling should have in the transport mix.
"[London Chamber of Commerce and Industry's] problem with the superhighway is a 'lack of almost any information at all' about its possible effects on the workings of London’s economy. "
This is a strange point. TfL are not economists and it is not their job to make economic predictions. And in any case, economists don't have a great track record of predicting macro effects, let alone effects on this small-scale level. There are all sorts of changes to traffic patterns happening on a daily basis, caused by all manner of things from events like the Olympics to roadworks and construction projects, but we don't do detailed analysis of possible effects on the economy. It is not the Mayor's job to keep London's businesses in a bubble, sealed from all possible ill effects. It is up to businesses to adapt to changing conditions. More successful businesses will take advantage of opportunities arising for more cycling. Many sectors, from the bike industry to tourism, will benefit. There will be business opportunities for freight consolidation and deliveries by pedal-powered vehicles.
And let us not forget: it is the job of businesses to serve London, not the other way around. There is no way that quality of life in this city should be sacrificed to make life a little bit easier for businesses who can't or won't adapt to what Londoners want from their transport system and street environment.
"London First has also raised the problems the superhighway could cause pedestrians."
This is ridiculous. Problems for pedestrians have been caused by fifty years of motor-centric planning and traffic-flow prioritization, not least by the current Mayor. To suggest that better cycle facilities will cause pedestrians problems is a bit like saying giving chemotherapy to a cancer patient will make them feel unwell. Cycling is a far more efficient use of roadspace than private cars or taxis, so is part of the solution, not part of the problem. And what is more, 'improvements' for pedestrians have often involved endangering cyclists, as carriageways are narrowed while no attempt is made to provide for cyclists, to control traffic speeds or volumes, or enforce against dangerous driving.
"[City of London's] Michael Welbank has described the superhighway plans as 'too narrowly focussed on the needs of cyclists' "
Well, it is a cycle scheme. And set against a background where virtually every single change to London's road system in recent history has ignored the needs of cyclists. So to take this scheme in isolation is to skip by the fact that London has an enormous amount of catching up to do in terms of cycling provision. To draw a causal link between lack of priority for pedestrians and this scheme is bogus.
" The superhighway, [Iain Simmons] thinks, could add another 20 or 30 seconds to these [pedestrian crossing wait] times."
The presence of cycle superhighways doesn't determine anything. With or without cycle superhighways, it is up to TfL how signals prioritize pedestrians- they didn't start to relegate pedestrians down the pecking order with this project, and there is no reason why they should continue to do so. The fundamental problem is that TfL have tried to squeeze far too much traffic into London's narrow streets. During the Olympics, we had reallocation of roadspace and a massive reduction of traffic. Did London's economy collapse as a result? Not that you'd notice. Which puts the lie to the idea that every journey made today is absolutely necessary. Other cities cope well with less traffic. And we certainly don't see anyone arguing that the city would be better off with more traffic - and more pollution, more congestion, noise and degradation to the street scene and urban environment.
"The common theme is that all concerned want cyclists’ lot improved, but worry that Johnson’s plans are being pushed through far too hurriedly. "
Are you sure about that, Dave? Are you sure there isn't a hidden agenda? We've spent a long time getting to the point where the debate about cycle infrastructure is settled. It is now the consensus that more cycling won't happen without decent segregated routes. So if you are against this project, you are against cycling. Period. But it isn't politically expedient anymore for organizations and lobbyists to directly oppose the plans, as to do so would associate them with continued death and injury to cyclists, so their only weapons are delay, procrastination and obfuscation. And it is not really credible for people to claim that the building of segreagated routes is a surpise. Dutch-style routes were in the Mayor's manifesto, and supported by all major parties. Businesses have had years to think through the implications, and do economic analysis if they so chose.
"Pushed through far too hurriedly?" Why not slow down a bit and let more cyclists die, you mean?
But here is the real point: London voted for this. It would be an affront to democracy for plans for decent segregated routes to be degraded into...well, the kind of crap that has hitherto been the calling card of cycling 'investment'. What's more, it would be a gross waste of taxpayers' money - the benefits - economic, public health, pollution, environment, liveability etc. etc., only come if ordinary non-lycra-clad people start cycling - and we know they won't if the routes aren't up to a consistent standard throughout.
"Arranging this triumph is the mission of his part-time cycling adviser Andrew Gilligan, a pushy media chum with no experience in transport planning."
We've had decades of transport planners making a total mess of cycling in the UK. It's not up to Gilligan to design or plan the routes - that's the job of the engineers - it is up to him to make them happen. And frankly, being 'pushy' is a required attribute, as is understanding communication and the media. At least Gilligan rides a bike, which makes him a lot more qualified than a lot of people at TfL. He is doing what he was hired to do - and the general impression is, he is doing a half-decent job.
Sorry, Dave. We think that better cycling provision will be good for London, for its people, its economy, its businesses, its health and its environment. And there is plenty of evidence for this. It is up to businesses to adapt to the changes and opportunities this positive change will throw up. Sure, there are details that need to be worked out, but the fact is that roadspace must be reallocated to cycling, and there will be consequences (both positive and negative) to that. For example, on the plus side of the ledger, Victoria Embankment will go from being an urban motorway to having the cycle track as a buffer between the riverside pavement and the motor traffic. The riverside will go from being an unwelcoming, unattractive, noisy and polluted place to somewhere people might actually want to linger. Yes, some journeys may take longer. On the other hand, a whole new transport mode, cycling, will be opened up to people who currently aren't prepared to mix it on a bike with heavy traffic. People might take a Boris Bike rather than a taxi, and their journey could well be quicker. Don't forget that taxis are responsible for a lot (about 30%) of central London pollution (according to Darren Johnson based on TfL figures).
"The 'Crossrail for bikes', is scheduled to be complete just before the mayor’s second term is due to end in May, 2016. It would be hailed as the crowning glory of his much-trumpeted “cycling revolution”....TfL would like the time to do its job with the thoroughness this ambitious project merits. That, though, might clash with the career interests of the mayor - and they, of course, must always come first".
Again, this project can't come quickly enough. The idea that the Mayor shouldn't push ahead with a great scheme because that might be perceived as good for his career prospects is completely illogical. There are very few projects that wouldn't benefit from a bit more time and a bit more money, but in case you hadn't noticed, we have a public health emergency in this country. The consequences of sedentary lifestyles is threatening to bankrupt the NHS. Decent cycle infrastructure can't come soon enough, and making Boris look good is surely a price worth paying.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Brazil - Developing World Cycling Infrastructure?
Brazil isn't all about football. With the blanket coverage of the World Cup, on some of the on-beach punditry footage in Rio de Janiero, you may have been able to see in the background some half-decent cycling infrastructure:
Above: cycle crossing at Av. Atlantica
Above: Semi-segregated lane on Rua Figueiredo de Magalhaes
Above: Segregated beachfront track, Copacapana Beach (Av. Atlantica)
You can even get from an airport to downtown on a segregated path.
According to riouncovered: "There is a decent network of bike lanes connecting the various neighbourhoods. The Mayor’s office has been keen to highlight Rio’s green credentials before the World Cup and the Olympics so new cycle lanes have been sprouting up all over the place. They are all pretty well connected and are strategically placed to enjoy some of the most famous locations and spectacular scenery."
Of course Rio is not Amsterdam - much of it is traffic-choked, hostile and dangerous if you're on a bike. But there seems to be a will to change this, although there is the usual lineup of motorized opponents.
In London, we can only aspire to have developing-world cycling infrastructure. Head over to voleospeed for a summary of London's almost complete lack of cycle infrastructure that is our Olympic legacy.
Above: cycle crossing at Av. Atlantica
Above: Semi-segregated lane on Rua Figueiredo de Magalhaes
Above: Segregated beachfront track, Copacapana Beach (Av. Atlantica)
You can even get from an airport to downtown on a segregated path.
According to riouncovered: "There is a decent network of bike lanes connecting the various neighbourhoods. The Mayor’s office has been keen to highlight Rio’s green credentials before the World Cup and the Olympics so new cycle lanes have been sprouting up all over the place. They are all pretty well connected and are strategically placed to enjoy some of the most famous locations and spectacular scenery."
Of course Rio is not Amsterdam - much of it is traffic-choked, hostile and dangerous if you're on a bike. But there seems to be a will to change this, although there is the usual lineup of motorized opponents.
In London, we can only aspire to have developing-world cycling infrastructure. Head over to voleospeed for a summary of London's almost complete lack of cycle infrastructure that is our Olympic legacy.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Traffic Signs Consultation
I was feeling a bit bad about not posting on this blog for a while. But then I thought about how long it takes UK governments to get even simple cycle-related issues resolved, and then I didn't feel so guilty.
Lastly, and potentially the highlight:
"We will be taking forward the opportunity to trial the 'Cycle Streets' concept within the revised TSRGD. This is a bold initiative, which is being considered by some of the Cycle Cities and London, possibly including a ban on overtaking on lightly trafficked roads where cycle flows are high. Subject to any scheme trial, this prohibition could be accompanied by an advisory speed limit of 15 mph"
The problem with this is it is all a bit wishy-washy: "possibly including...could be accompanied by an advisory speed limit..." What on earth is an advisory speed limit? Is it the same as an unenforceable speed limit that no-one will take notice of? And the problem with applying an overtaking ban only on "lightly trafficked roads where cycle flows are high", is that cycle flows are generally not high because dangerous overtaking of cyclists is endemic - and that of course leads to high motor traffic levels as would-be cyclists retire to the safety of their cars even for short journeys. It could be argued that we need overtaking bans anywhere dangerous overtakes are happening.
This government has taken 4 years to come up with this document. 4 years? It looks like it should have taken 4 months maximum, even if you had a 3 month break in the middle. There is nothing innovative; nothing that hasn't been done elsewhere, and usually better, already. And worst of all, this is just a document. Given this government is fond of leaving it up to local authorities to decide to promote cycling (something they are generally ill-qualified and ill-motivated to do), it could be many years before any of the more significant measures make it onto highways.
It seems that while in time the Rockies may tumble, Gibraltar may crumble, but crap cycling is here to stay. You've been a lovely audience, thank you, and goodnight.
A traffic signs policy review was first launched under the previous government, back in 2008. Getting rid of traffic sign clutter along with some of the
sillier regulations around road signage (no shortage of those) and the associated red tape has
been an ambition of the current government. So, in 2011 a Policy Paper was released by the then minister, Norman Baker. But it's taken until May 2014 for the publication of a draft "Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions". You will notice - this is still just a consultation document. You'll have to wait even longer before the new regulations actually see the light of day.
Given that it's taken this long, you'd expect all the stupidity that prevents decent cycling infrastructure to be swept away in one go. So what exactly are the changes that favour cycling proposed by the document ?
Given that it's taken this long, you'd expect all the stupidity that prevents decent cycling infrastructure to be swept away in one go. So what exactly are the changes that favour cycling proposed by the document ?
- 'Trixi' mirrors
- 'No Entry Except Cycles' signing
- Cycle filter signals
- Use of a red cycle aspect on cycle-only traffic lights
- Cycle route branding - for example, wider national use of Transport for London's Cycle Superhighways branding, and the new 'Quietways' signing
- 7.5m deep Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs), to provide more capacity for cyclists
- New road markings to help indicate cycle routes through junctions
- Wider cycle lane markings
- The use of the square white 'elephant's footprints' markings to indicate the route for cyclists through a traffic signal controlled junction
- Greater flexibility in designing 20mph zones and limits
- Advanced Stop Lines covering only part of the width of the road - for example, across one lane only
- The removal of the requirement for a lead-in lane or gate at ASLs. This will permit cyclists to cross the first stop line at any point, allowing them to position themselves where they feel it is most appropriate
- ASLs at crossings as well as at junctions
- Removing the requirement for signs indicating off-road cycle routes to be lit
- Allowing smaller signs for off-road cycle routes
- Allowing zig-zag markings at pedestrian crossings to be offset from the kerb by up to 2m, to allow cycle lanes to continue through the controlled area
- Where pedestrian zone signs include the “no motor vehicles” sign, the zone will now be referred to as a “pedestrian and cycle zone”. This will help people's understanding of the difference between the “no vehicles” and “no motor vehicles” signs
- Remove the need for a traffic order from various cycle facilities where possible. These could include with-flow and contra-flow cycle lanes and exemptions for cyclists where an existing restriction is in place (e.g. adding 'except cycles' to an existing 'no entry' restriction).
Not exactly earth-shattering, is it?
Some of these changes are already being used, but it is safe to say that none of the above represent any more than tinkering with discredited approaches or slowly adopting measures that have been common on the Continent for a decade or more. ASLs, for example, are no longer regarded as good practice in European countries with high levels of cycling. To give you an idea how far behind the game the UK is, 'No Entry Except Cycles' signs are everywhere in Brussels, which is near the bottom of the international cycling league table with 2.5% modal share.
Some of these changes are already being used, but it is safe to say that none of the above represent any more than tinkering with discredited approaches or slowly adopting measures that have been common on the Continent for a decade or more. ASLs, for example, are no longer regarded as good practice in European countries with high levels of cycling. To give you an idea how far behind the game the UK is, 'No Entry Except Cycles' signs are everywhere in Brussels, which is near the bottom of the international cycling league table with 2.5% modal share.
Before you get too despondant and try to hang yourself with an old inner tube, there are a couple of more promising changes:
- Shared-use pedestrian/cyclist crossing...a new form of crossing, similar to a zebra crossing, which would allow cyclists to ride across it.
Unfortunately, the design doesn't look very good - the zebra stripes only cover the pedestrian part of the crossing, not the cycle part, so you can imagine dozy motorists failing to stop at the intended stop line. But it does follow a Continental pattern, so maybe it'll work.
However, the regulations still seem to require belisha beacons. This makes such crossings expensive to install; in France and elsewhere crossings do not require expensive electrical work. Plus, the zig-zag markings clutter the street and displace the crossing from where people actually want to cross. The document really should have got rid of zig-zags altogether - which is a pretty damning indictment of the lack of vision or ambition displayed. (For a detailed survey of what is wrong with British zebra crossings, head to AsEasyAsRidingABike). The document later states, confusingly: "zig-zag controlled areas will still be a requirement...however, the requirements for zig-zag layouts at crossings will be simplified where possible". What that means in practice is anybody's guess, and it doesn't change the fact that Europe seems to do crossings that work just fine without zig-zags.
And finally - almost unbelievably - the document states "we have been unable to authorise a trial of such a [shared-use] crossing". Is it really that hard to trial what has worked on the Continent for many years? And why is it even necessary? This is the familiar "not invented here" attitude that seems to pervade highway engineering in this country.
Next up, we have low-level lights for cyclists. "The off-street trials carried out last year proved the concept and gave us sufficient evidence to agree to authorise a limited on-street trial". Again, why is it necessary to waste taxpayers' money trialling something that is already commonplace in Europe, thus delaying the introduction of potentially lifesaving improvements?
Lastly, and potentially the highlight:
"We will be taking forward the opportunity to trial the 'Cycle Streets' concept within the revised TSRGD. This is a bold initiative, which is being considered by some of the Cycle Cities and London, possibly including a ban on overtaking on lightly trafficked roads where cycle flows are high. Subject to any scheme trial, this prohibition could be accompanied by an advisory speed limit of 15 mph"
The problem with this is it is all a bit wishy-washy: "possibly including...could be accompanied by an advisory speed limit..." What on earth is an advisory speed limit? Is it the same as an unenforceable speed limit that no-one will take notice of? And the problem with applying an overtaking ban only on "lightly trafficked roads where cycle flows are high", is that cycle flows are generally not high because dangerous overtaking of cyclists is endemic - and that of course leads to high motor traffic levels as would-be cyclists retire to the safety of their cars even for short journeys. It could be argued that we need overtaking bans anywhere dangerous overtakes are happening.
This government has taken 4 years to come up with this document. 4 years? It looks like it should have taken 4 months maximum, even if you had a 3 month break in the middle. There is nothing innovative; nothing that hasn't been done elsewhere, and usually better, already. And worst of all, this is just a document. Given this government is fond of leaving it up to local authorities to decide to promote cycling (something they are generally ill-qualified and ill-motivated to do), it could be many years before any of the more significant measures make it onto highways.
It seems that while in time the Rockies may tumble, Gibraltar may crumble, but crap cycling is here to stay. You've been a lovely audience, thank you, and goodnight.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Burghley Road Ballsup - How Not to Do Traffic Calming
Burghley Road in the affluent Wimbledon Common area of Merton is usually a quiet road. There is some through traffic but generally speaking it's as quiet as most of the surrounding streets, which is pretty quiet. It's usually a nice peaceful neighborhood in which to ride your bike. However, word has it that at school run rush hour time, it gets a lot busier with local parents dropping their straw-boater-clad Jocastas and Ptolemys off at the local prep schools. Some drivers are a little, shall we say, enthusiastic, with the 85th centile average speed at a scarcely-credible 39MPH.
So Merton have put in some pinch-points to try to restrict "excessive traffic speeds and safety".
At the top of the hill at the Wimbledon Common end, there is a reasonably well-constructed sinusoidal road hump. This is a good, cycle-friendly start. The road slopes downhill with a considerable although not Alpine gradient.
Above: Near the bottom of the hill, there is a pinch-point with a cycle bypass. Motor traffic must give way to oncoming traffic approaching the camera's viewpoint. Nothing too much wrong with this at first glance, you might think. Now look closer at that cycle bypass.
You'll notice that it's already starting to accumulate a lot of debris, but let's look even closer and see what's under that particularly dense accumulation of crud:
Yes, it's a cast-iron rainwater drain, the kind that will throw you off if you ride over it with your front brake on in the wet. And your brakes will almost certainly be on, given that you've just come down a steep hill. What is less obvious from the picture is that at the edge of the drain is a fairly wide groove that could also play havoc. So the safe area to the right of the drain is only about 2 1/2 feet (750mm) wide. The separating island by contrast is a generous 6 feet (2m) or so. There's also a significant camber in the narrow cycle lane to complicate the rider's life still further.
This arrangement has introduced another potentially lethal hazard. Above you see the end of the cycle lane and on the right, the junction with Calonne Road. If you're planning to turn right into Calonne Road, the site of the pinch point (whether the camera is positioned) is about where you'd be signalling and moving into the centre of the lane to position yourself to make the turn. Which, by the way, is a tricky manoeuvre, because of the adverse camber: take it too fast in the wet and you could end up unstuck. But anyway, because the pinch point forces you left at exactly the wrong point, you now have to signal, do a rear observation, slow down and position right, all in a distance that really doesn't allow for it. The alternative of course is to take the lane early, exactly at the point where motorists will be expecting you to take the cycle lane, which puts you at risk of a rear hit from a yummy mummy in a Range Rover. There's a lot of them round here.
Now onto the final hazard.
Ignore the pool of water, that's not relevant. Look instead at the buildout of the left pavement, which narrows the pinch point to a width making it impossible for a car to safely pass a cyclist. But of course that won't stop some drivers from trying. And that is exactly what happened when I was taking these photos. A motorist in a large BMW SUV approached two cyclists from behind just as they entered the pinch-point. Luckily one of them had the presence of mind to take the lane in time, forcing the driver to brake, and probably avoiding a dangerously-close pass. While many drivers will react to the traffic calming in the way the designers intended, there is a small but significant number who won't be able to cope with the combination of road humps, give-ways and their own impatience, and will simply put their foot down to try to beat an oncoming driver to the pinch-point, then realize (too late) that there's a road hump in the middle of it and brake unexpectedly. And cyclists are by design forced into conflict with this kind of driver.
So, once again in Merton we have engineers who have spent a lot of money trying to control motor traffic, but because of their lack of understanding of the dynamics of cycling, they've unwittingly created new hazards for cyclists. It doesn't fill you with confidence in Merton's competence to create a Mini-Holland, should the borough win funding for their bid.
So Merton have put in some pinch-points to try to restrict "excessive traffic speeds and safety".
At the top of the hill at the Wimbledon Common end, there is a reasonably well-constructed sinusoidal road hump. This is a good, cycle-friendly start. The road slopes downhill with a considerable although not Alpine gradient.
You'll notice that it's already starting to accumulate a lot of debris, but let's look even closer and see what's under that particularly dense accumulation of crud:
Yes, it's a cast-iron rainwater drain, the kind that will throw you off if you ride over it with your front brake on in the wet. And your brakes will almost certainly be on, given that you've just come down a steep hill. What is less obvious from the picture is that at the edge of the drain is a fairly wide groove that could also play havoc. So the safe area to the right of the drain is only about 2 1/2 feet (750mm) wide. The separating island by contrast is a generous 6 feet (2m) or so. There's also a significant camber in the narrow cycle lane to complicate the rider's life still further.
This arrangement has introduced another potentially lethal hazard. Above you see the end of the cycle lane and on the right, the junction with Calonne Road. If you're planning to turn right into Calonne Road, the site of the pinch point (whether the camera is positioned) is about where you'd be signalling and moving into the centre of the lane to position yourself to make the turn. Which, by the way, is a tricky manoeuvre, because of the adverse camber: take it too fast in the wet and you could end up unstuck. But anyway, because the pinch point forces you left at exactly the wrong point, you now have to signal, do a rear observation, slow down and position right, all in a distance that really doesn't allow for it. The alternative of course is to take the lane early, exactly at the point where motorists will be expecting you to take the cycle lane, which puts you at risk of a rear hit from a yummy mummy in a Range Rover. There's a lot of them round here.
Now onto the final hazard.
Ignore the pool of water, that's not relevant. Look instead at the buildout of the left pavement, which narrows the pinch point to a width making it impossible for a car to safely pass a cyclist. But of course that won't stop some drivers from trying. And that is exactly what happened when I was taking these photos. A motorist in a large BMW SUV approached two cyclists from behind just as they entered the pinch-point. Luckily one of them had the presence of mind to take the lane in time, forcing the driver to brake, and probably avoiding a dangerously-close pass. While many drivers will react to the traffic calming in the way the designers intended, there is a small but significant number who won't be able to cope with the combination of road humps, give-ways and their own impatience, and will simply put their foot down to try to beat an oncoming driver to the pinch-point, then realize (too late) that there's a road hump in the middle of it and brake unexpectedly. And cyclists are by design forced into conflict with this kind of driver.
So, once again in Merton we have engineers who have spent a lot of money trying to control motor traffic, but because of their lack of understanding of the dynamics of cycling, they've unwittingly created new hazards for cyclists. It doesn't fill you with confidence in Merton's competence to create a Mini-Holland, should the borough win funding for their bid.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
How to Fix the Northern Line
I have a friend John (not his real name) who has a bike (or had, until it got nicked a few months back). He's talked in the past about cycling to work but never quite got round to it.
John lives in Tooting. A couple of weeks back, he was walking back from the tube station, and happened upon the aftermath of a cycle collision, on CSH#7. An ambulance was in attendance. "The guy wasn't moving", he told me. "It didn't look good".
John is exactly the kind of person TfL are desperately trying to encourage to get on a bike to relieve congestion on the Northern Line. The BBC reported "Travellers are being asked to avoid getting on the Northern Line between Tooting Bec and Clapham North between 0800 GMT and 0845." They are advised to walk or cycle instead.
Unfortunately for TfL, their advice to cycle might be heeded more if they hadn't made such a mess of implementing CSH#7 - which closely follows the Northern Line for much of its route. CSH#7 is exactly the wrong way to encourage anyone to cycle: almost everyone I know who uses CSH#7 has witnessed a collision on it.
CSH#7 follows the same basic design principles as the first phase of CSH#2, recently described "as an accident waiting to happen". Those principles can be summed up as follows. "Paint a blue stripe, and don't worry too much about major or minor junction safety, and don't do anything that might impact car parking or traffic flow. (Motor traffic,of course, is there any other kind?)"
The cheapest way to increase Northern Line capacity is to get people off it and onto other transport modes. Unfortunately, the most obvious alternative - buses - are already creaking at the seams. Val Shawcross wrote in the Guardian:
"Over the past 10 years, London's population grew by 80,000 a year and the number of bus kilometres by 109m. But over the coming decade, the population is forecast to grow by 100,000 a year while bus kilometres covered will increase by just 20m. This means more overcrowding on buses, and more people left behind at bus stops. London's buses are already frequently overcrowded. A quarter of those responding to our passenger survey said their bus was overcrowded and yet TfL has no plans to significantly increase services."
The underlying problems are twofold:
1. Failure to manage road congestion. Congestion slows down buses, making them an unattractive, slow, unreliable option, and forcing people to take the tube.
2. Failure to prioritize cycle safety. Failure to prioritize cycle safety ensures that most people don't consider cycling as a transport option.
What this all boils down to is that on the roads, TfL treats every road journey with equal priority: the least necessary journeys and the least efficient transport modes in terms of passengers per square metre of roadspace (private cars and taxis) have the same priority as the most important journeys and the most efficient modes. In the congestion charge zone the incentives are a little more logical but the fact that taxis and private hire vehicles are exempt from the congestion charge means that those vehicles are prevalent, and congestion is still widespread.
TfL also treats every road user as if they had equal safety requirements. TfL behave as if there were no such thing as a vulnerable road user, and as a result would-be cyclists are scared off the roads. (And it's not cycle campaigners or bloggers scaring people off cycling: surveys have been listing fear of traffic as the #1 reason people don't cycle for many years.)
So if people felt safe cycling, how many bikes could you accommodate on roads if you actually tried? Studies show the saturation flow for a single 1-m (3.3 ft) to 1.2-m (4-ft) bicycle lane appears to be between 1,500 and 5,000 bicycles/hr with a majority of the observations falling between 2,000 and 3,500 bicycles/hr. So for two-way flows based on a 10-hr day at maximum capacity, that works out at about 18M journeys per year. The London Underground Major Regeneration Scheme aims to add capacity of 500M extra journeys per year, at a cost of £39bn (2008). The pro-rata cost of 18M journeys per year (our nominal numbers for a 2-way cycle lane) works out at about £1.5bn. The segregated CSH#2 extension cost £2M/mile, and the refurbished, segregated CSH#2 about £20M. CSH#2 currently only carries about 400 cyclists/hour at peak times, which works out at maybe 1M journeys/year, but that's because it's currently unsegregated and therefore reflects the London-wide 2% cycling modal share. Continental infrastructure should bring Continental levels of riders: 2% modal share could turn into 20%, so you can see how levels of 10M journeys/year are not out of reach on CSH#2. And at costs per journey getting on for 2 orders of magnitude lower than the tube upgrade. As a side benefit, more people would use London's under-used cycle hire scheme, bringing more revenue to TfL.
Now, you'll notice that the above numbers are very rough indeed, but even if you water the assumptions down to very conservative levels, they still indicate that cycling capital investment is incredibly cheap compared with upgrading train capacity. They also indicate the opportunity cost associated with the lack of investment in cycling in London. The Mayor is proposing to spend £913M over the next 10 years on cycling, averaging £91M/year. That is nowhere near enough to built a significant amount of infrastructure to the standard required to actually attract significant numbers of users, and as a result, London will have to spend far more accommodating those users on other forms of transport. Additionally, health experts recently told a parliamentary enquiry that "the NHS spent about £5 billion a year on obesity-related conditions...health services could make £4 of savings for every £1 invested in cycling".
Instead of forecast numbers, lets instead consider some real ones. Since 2006 Seville has increased the number of daily cycling journeys from 5000 to 72,000, bringing modal share from 0.5% to around 7%. The cycle network cost €32m. Compare that with the city's underground system which cost €600 million and carries 40,000 people daily. It's interesting that Seville appears to have spent so little ( €400K/mile) building 80 miles of decent-quality infrastructure in so little time (the first 50 miles built in less than a year), compared with the CSH cost of £2M-£4M per mile, for what can charitably be described as dangerous crap.
If ever there was a cast-iron business case, it is to invest in cycling. Unlike the shaky, wildly-optimistic and naive economic cases that are used to justify road and rail investments. On the plus side, Boris seems now to understand that segregated, decent-quality, Continental-style infrastructure (as opposed to blue paint) is needed to get cycling modal share out of the doldrums, and is finally proposing and planning such routes. Unfortunately, London government (and here the blame falls partly on local government and City Hall, but mainly on central government) have not collectively realized that the massive benefits to be had from cycling - including health-related savings, air pollution reduction, displacement from far more expensive transport alternatives, a more liveable city - cannot be done on a shoestring. Until they realize this, we'll instead be spending far more on massive taxpayer subsidy of public transport that also has some of the highest fares in the world.
John lives in Tooting. A couple of weeks back, he was walking back from the tube station, and happened upon the aftermath of a cycle collision, on CSH#7. An ambulance was in attendance. "The guy wasn't moving", he told me. "It didn't look good".
John is exactly the kind of person TfL are desperately trying to encourage to get on a bike to relieve congestion on the Northern Line. The BBC reported "Travellers are being asked to avoid getting on the Northern Line between Tooting Bec and Clapham North between 0800 GMT and 0845." They are advised to walk or cycle instead.
Unfortunately for TfL, their advice to cycle might be heeded more if they hadn't made such a mess of implementing CSH#7 - which closely follows the Northern Line for much of its route. CSH#7 is exactly the wrong way to encourage anyone to cycle: almost everyone I know who uses CSH#7 has witnessed a collision on it.
CSH#7 follows the same basic design principles as the first phase of CSH#2, recently described "as an accident waiting to happen". Those principles can be summed up as follows. "Paint a blue stripe, and don't worry too much about major or minor junction safety, and don't do anything that might impact car parking or traffic flow. (Motor traffic,of course, is there any other kind?)"
The cheapest way to increase Northern Line capacity is to get people off it and onto other transport modes. Unfortunately, the most obvious alternative - buses - are already creaking at the seams. Val Shawcross wrote in the Guardian:
"Over the past 10 years, London's population grew by 80,000 a year and the number of bus kilometres by 109m. But over the coming decade, the population is forecast to grow by 100,000 a year while bus kilometres covered will increase by just 20m. This means more overcrowding on buses, and more people left behind at bus stops. London's buses are already frequently overcrowded. A quarter of those responding to our passenger survey said their bus was overcrowded and yet TfL has no plans to significantly increase services."
The underlying problems are twofold:
1. Failure to manage road congestion. Congestion slows down buses, making them an unattractive, slow, unreliable option, and forcing people to take the tube.
2. Failure to prioritize cycle safety. Failure to prioritize cycle safety ensures that most people don't consider cycling as a transport option.
What this all boils down to is that on the roads, TfL treats every road journey with equal priority: the least necessary journeys and the least efficient transport modes in terms of passengers per square metre of roadspace (private cars and taxis) have the same priority as the most important journeys and the most efficient modes. In the congestion charge zone the incentives are a little more logical but the fact that taxis and private hire vehicles are exempt from the congestion charge means that those vehicles are prevalent, and congestion is still widespread.
TfL also treats every road user as if they had equal safety requirements. TfL behave as if there were no such thing as a vulnerable road user, and as a result would-be cyclists are scared off the roads. (And it's not cycle campaigners or bloggers scaring people off cycling: surveys have been listing fear of traffic as the #1 reason people don't cycle for many years.)
So if people felt safe cycling, how many bikes could you accommodate on roads if you actually tried? Studies show the saturation flow for a single 1-m (3.3 ft) to 1.2-m (4-ft) bicycle lane appears to be between 1,500 and 5,000 bicycles/hr with a majority of the observations falling between 2,000 and 3,500 bicycles/hr. So for two-way flows based on a 10-hr day at maximum capacity, that works out at about 18M journeys per year. The London Underground Major Regeneration Scheme aims to add capacity of 500M extra journeys per year, at a cost of £39bn (2008). The pro-rata cost of 18M journeys per year (our nominal numbers for a 2-way cycle lane) works out at about £1.5bn. The segregated CSH#2 extension cost £2M/mile, and the refurbished, segregated CSH#2 about £20M. CSH#2 currently only carries about 400 cyclists/hour at peak times, which works out at maybe 1M journeys/year, but that's because it's currently unsegregated and therefore reflects the London-wide 2% cycling modal share. Continental infrastructure should bring Continental levels of riders: 2% modal share could turn into 20%, so you can see how levels of 10M journeys/year are not out of reach on CSH#2. And at costs per journey getting on for 2 orders of magnitude lower than the tube upgrade. As a side benefit, more people would use London's under-used cycle hire scheme, bringing more revenue to TfL.
Now, you'll notice that the above numbers are very rough indeed, but even if you water the assumptions down to very conservative levels, they still indicate that cycling capital investment is incredibly cheap compared with upgrading train capacity. They also indicate the opportunity cost associated with the lack of investment in cycling in London. The Mayor is proposing to spend £913M over the next 10 years on cycling, averaging £91M/year. That is nowhere near enough to built a significant amount of infrastructure to the standard required to actually attract significant numbers of users, and as a result, London will have to spend far more accommodating those users on other forms of transport. Additionally, health experts recently told a parliamentary enquiry that "the NHS spent about £5 billion a year on obesity-related conditions...health services could make £4 of savings for every £1 invested in cycling".
Instead of forecast numbers, lets instead consider some real ones. Since 2006 Seville has increased the number of daily cycling journeys from 5000 to 72,000, bringing modal share from 0.5% to around 7%. The cycle network cost €32m. Compare that with the city's underground system which cost €600 million and carries 40,000 people daily. It's interesting that Seville appears to have spent so little ( €400K/mile) building 80 miles of decent-quality infrastructure in so little time (the first 50 miles built in less than a year), compared with the CSH cost of £2M-£4M per mile, for what can charitably be described as dangerous crap.
If ever there was a cast-iron business case, it is to invest in cycling. Unlike the shaky, wildly-optimistic and naive economic cases that are used to justify road and rail investments. On the plus side, Boris seems now to understand that segregated, decent-quality, Continental-style infrastructure (as opposed to blue paint) is needed to get cycling modal share out of the doldrums, and is finally proposing and planning such routes. Unfortunately, London government (and here the blame falls partly on local government and City Hall, but mainly on central government) have not collectively realized that the massive benefits to be had from cycling - including health-related savings, air pollution reduction, displacement from far more expensive transport alternatives, a more liveable city - cannot be done on a shoestring. Until they realize this, we'll instead be spending far more on massive taxpayer subsidy of public transport that also has some of the highest fares in the world.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Operation Safeway - Waste of Money ?
In the wake of the recent cluster of cycling fatalities the Met Police - accountable to Mayor Boris Johnson - has launched Operation Safeway, which involves the deployment of up to 2500 officers at the capital's most dangerous junctions (not supermarkets, despite the name). It will be reviewed at Christmas.
When I see a bunch of public servants standing around not doing much, which is what I've witnessed so far during this "safety" operation, my first instinct is to wonder to what benefit my road tax is being put. Oh I forgot - I'm a cyclist, so I don't pay road tax. Except I do because I have a car. But it's a low emission car so I don't pay much more than it costs the Government to collect it. Oh, but the Met isn't paid for out of road tax, it's council tax and I do pay a lot of that. Well, anyway...paying highly-skilled crime-fighters to hang around on street corners like a bunch of high-visibility hookers doesn't strike me as a particularly good use of public funds.
Apparently, they've dished out 2000 fines in three days, which is a bit less than 700 a day. That is less than 1 ticket a day per officer. If the intent is to deter, this operation is clearly failing. But maybe finding lawbreaking road users is harder than we expect. To test this theory yesterday, I went for my usual lunchtime stroll around the West End, and in 15 minutes I saw 2 drivers entering an advance stop box illegally, 3 drivers using handheld mobile phones, and one cyclist on the pavement. So maybe my comparison with hookers was a bit unfair - there's clearly plenty of business out there to be done, but the police are unaccountably shy. According to some reports, they've been acting a bit like Gok Wan, advising people on what not to wear.
The Met budget is £4bn/year, and employs around 32000 sworn police officers. So the cost of 2500 officers half-time for 4 weeks works out at around £13M. They don't seem to be doing this full-time, but even for 2 hours in the morning, another 2 hours in the evening, plus the logistics of getting them to and from the relevant locations still adds up to a good chunk of a working day. The Met claim the operation isn't costing extra money, but that's false economics - if they weren't doing this, they would be doing other things, which presumably do have value. The question is, whether this operation has significant value. In my opinion it doesn't, because it is starting from the position that the main cause of cyclist casualties is lawbreaking, which is a false premise. There is nothing uniquely lawless about British drivers or cyclists. People have an equal tendancy to break road laws in other European countries, but the Continental approach has been to build quality cycling infrastructure - infrastructure that removes incentives for cyclists to break the law, and keeps them away from lawbreaking drivers. If all drivers and cyclists respected the law all the time and never made mistakes, the roads would be safer, but I cannot see how a short, localized operation with little deterrent effect is going to reverse the effects of decades of complacent tolerance of motoring offences. With the exception of drink-driving, we simply don't regard traffic violations as "real crime". According to the RAC, 21% of drivers admit to using mobile phones at the wheel, 65% break the motorway speed limit, 36% break 20MPH limits, yet 92% of us consider ourselves to be law abiding drivers!
So I doubt very much if this operation will have any lasting effect. There is clearly no real appetite at any level of government to permanently ensure better compliance with traffic laws. Whereas, if you were to spend that £13M cost on decent segregated infrastructure or quality junctions...you would permanently protect cyclists from the consequences of bad driving and cycling.
When I see a bunch of public servants standing around not doing much, which is what I've witnessed so far during this "safety" operation, my first instinct is to wonder to what benefit my road tax is being put. Oh I forgot - I'm a cyclist, so I don't pay road tax. Except I do because I have a car. But it's a low emission car so I don't pay much more than it costs the Government to collect it. Oh, but the Met isn't paid for out of road tax, it's council tax and I do pay a lot of that. Well, anyway...paying highly-skilled crime-fighters to hang around on street corners like a bunch of high-visibility hookers doesn't strike me as a particularly good use of public funds.
Apparently, they've dished out 2000 fines in three days, which is a bit less than 700 a day. That is less than 1 ticket a day per officer. If the intent is to deter, this operation is clearly failing. But maybe finding lawbreaking road users is harder than we expect. To test this theory yesterday, I went for my usual lunchtime stroll around the West End, and in 15 minutes I saw 2 drivers entering an advance stop box illegally, 3 drivers using handheld mobile phones, and one cyclist on the pavement. So maybe my comparison with hookers was a bit unfair - there's clearly plenty of business out there to be done, but the police are unaccountably shy. According to some reports, they've been acting a bit like Gok Wan, advising people on what not to wear.
The Met budget is £4bn/year, and employs around 32000 sworn police officers. So the cost of 2500 officers half-time for 4 weeks works out at around £13M. They don't seem to be doing this full-time, but even for 2 hours in the morning, another 2 hours in the evening, plus the logistics of getting them to and from the relevant locations still adds up to a good chunk of a working day. The Met claim the operation isn't costing extra money, but that's false economics - if they weren't doing this, they would be doing other things, which presumably do have value. The question is, whether this operation has significant value. In my opinion it doesn't, because it is starting from the position that the main cause of cyclist casualties is lawbreaking, which is a false premise. There is nothing uniquely lawless about British drivers or cyclists. People have an equal tendancy to break road laws in other European countries, but the Continental approach has been to build quality cycling infrastructure - infrastructure that removes incentives for cyclists to break the law, and keeps them away from lawbreaking drivers. If all drivers and cyclists respected the law all the time and never made mistakes, the roads would be safer, but I cannot see how a short, localized operation with little deterrent effect is going to reverse the effects of decades of complacent tolerance of motoring offences. With the exception of drink-driving, we simply don't regard traffic violations as "real crime". According to the RAC, 21% of drivers admit to using mobile phones at the wheel, 65% break the motorway speed limit, 36% break 20MPH limits, yet 92% of us consider ourselves to be law abiding drivers!
So I doubt very much if this operation will have any lasting effect. There is clearly no real appetite at any level of government to permanently ensure better compliance with traffic laws. Whereas, if you were to spend that £13M cost on decent segregated infrastructure or quality junctions...you would permanently protect cyclists from the consequences of bad driving and cycling.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Vauxhall St Lane Blocked - Lambeth Fail Yet Again
Yes, another story in my Lambeth Fail series. Sorry to other London boroughs for favouring Lambeth again, you'll just have to try less hard.
Now, you really couldn't make this one up. Up until recently, the contraflow lane on Vauxhall St (which is one of the few examples in London of that critically endangered species, the segregated cycle facility) was blocked along with the pavement, and there was a "pedestrians please use other footpath" sign.
At that time, my fearless and redoubtable fellow-blogger Charlie (Kennington People on Bikes) sent a pic of the blocked lane to Lambeth's cycling officer. who responded thusly:
I have been sent the attached photos of Vauxhall Street. They show that the contraflow cycle lane is completely fenced off, forcing people on bikes into the narrow lane of oncoming traffic. Not only is it dangerous, especially to children using the route, it is also inconvenient and increases journey times for people cycling.
Given our road user hierarchy, our approach in this situation should be to maintain the pedestrian and cycle routes and close the road to motor vehicles except for access to the supermarket and estate.
We've been criticised in the past for our lack of consideration of cyclists at roadworks (Akerman Road; Baylis Road; Greyhound Lane) but I thought we had begun to remedy that. There are lots of examples of good practise regarding cycling at roadworks across London which we could learn from, for example recently on Union Street outside Palestra.
Will you look into this urgently? It is important that we sort it out quickly as the current situation is unacceptable and I expect we will receive many more complaints.
A week later, the lane's still blocked, and - get this - a "cyclists dismount" sign has been added. So, Lambeth's idea of remedying danger and inconvenience to people cycling is...to stop them cycling. Perfect. No doubt soon they'll have a police officer ticketing cyclists having the temerity to ignore the dismount sign and ride around the obstruction.
Now, you really couldn't make this one up. Up until recently, the contraflow lane on Vauxhall St (which is one of the few examples in London of that critically endangered species, the segregated cycle facility) was blocked along with the pavement, and there was a "pedestrians please use other footpath" sign.
At that time, my fearless and redoubtable fellow-blogger Charlie (Kennington People on Bikes) sent a pic of the blocked lane to Lambeth's cycling officer. who responded thusly:
I have been sent the attached photos of Vauxhall Street. They show that the contraflow cycle lane is completely fenced off, forcing people on bikes into the narrow lane of oncoming traffic. Not only is it dangerous, especially to children using the route, it is also inconvenient and increases journey times for people cycling.
Given our road user hierarchy, our approach in this situation should be to maintain the pedestrian and cycle routes and close the road to motor vehicles except for access to the supermarket and estate.
We've been criticised in the past for our lack of consideration of cyclists at roadworks (Akerman Road; Baylis Road; Greyhound Lane) but I thought we had begun to remedy that. There are lots of examples of good practise regarding cycling at roadworks across London which we could learn from, for example recently on Union Street outside Palestra.
Will you look into this urgently? It is important that we sort it out quickly as the current situation is unacceptable and I expect we will receive many more complaints.
A week later, the lane's still blocked, and - get this - a "cyclists dismount" sign has been added. So, Lambeth's idea of remedying danger and inconvenience to people cycling is...to stop them cycling. Perfect. No doubt soon they'll have a police officer ticketing cyclists having the temerity to ignore the dismount sign and ride around the obstruction.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Roads Crackdown - If Only...
The head of traffic enforcement for London's police defended an operation in which officers have been stopping dozens of highway engineers and politicians to advise them on safety, in the wake of a recent cluster of cyclist casualties.
"If I'm truly honest, what we're trying to do here is our best to save lives and keep people safe, both from serious and more minor injuries. Quite honestly, some of these traffic engineers haven't got a clue. They have no idea how to design safely. It's high time they were registered and made to take a test. "
"Some of the cases that we've seen in the last few days really make your heart bleed because you can see that politicians have taken decisions that really did put road users' lives in danger. While deaths are not always the designer's fault, if they don't follow the rules there's no amount of good behaviour by cyclists that is going to save people's lives".
In the operation, 2,500 officers are being deployed to enforce good road and junction design in the capital's most notorious accident blackspots.
There is evidence of a high level of offending by highways engineers in terms of design defects. In one previous operation, 99% of designs were found to have at least one serious defect, including the failure to separate HGVs from cyclists.
Politicians are also being warned not to wear headphones. "This kind of behaviour can only isolate you from the reality of the road environment in a dangerous way...Call me illiberal, but it makes me absolutely terrified to see them bowling along completely unaware of Continental good practice and disconnected from reality."
"If I'm truly honest, what we're trying to do here is our best to save lives and keep people safe, both from serious and more minor injuries. Quite honestly, some of these traffic engineers haven't got a clue. They have no idea how to design safely. It's high time they were registered and made to take a test. "
"Some of the cases that we've seen in the last few days really make your heart bleed because you can see that politicians have taken decisions that really did put road users' lives in danger. While deaths are not always the designer's fault, if they don't follow the rules there's no amount of good behaviour by cyclists that is going to save people's lives".
In the operation, 2,500 officers are being deployed to enforce good road and junction design in the capital's most notorious accident blackspots.
There is evidence of a high level of offending by highways engineers in terms of design defects. In one previous operation, 99% of designs were found to have at least one serious defect, including the failure to separate HGVs from cyclists.
Politicians are also being warned not to wear headphones. "This kind of behaviour can only isolate you from the reality of the road environment in a dangerous way...Call me illiberal, but it makes me absolutely terrified to see them bowling along completely unaware of Continental good practice and disconnected from reality."
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Oval Barriers - Lambeth Succeed - Sort Of
Well, yesterday evening, the controversial new anti-cycling barriers at the Oval, lambasted in my previous post, were gone.
So thanks are due to whoever acted swiftly to get rid of them.
I dare say Lambeth taxpayers won't be so grateful when they realize they've paid for barriers to be erected and then taken down again, but it's one way of stimulating the economy.
Unfortunately this minor victory is massively overshadowed by the fact that 4 cyclists have been killed in the last 8 days in London. If only those in charge would act to prevent the carnage from continuing with a similar degree of alacrity to Lambeth's action on these barriers...
So thanks are due to whoever acted swiftly to get rid of them.
I dare say Lambeth taxpayers won't be so grateful when they realize they've paid for barriers to be erected and then taken down again, but it's one way of stimulating the economy.
Unfortunately this minor victory is massively overshadowed by the fact that 4 cyclists have been killed in the last 8 days in London. If only those in charge would act to prevent the carnage from continuing with a similar degree of alacrity to Lambeth's action on these barriers...
Friday, November 8, 2013
Cycle Hire - Is it Safe, Really?
Sir Peter Hendy, recently-knighted Transport for London big cheese, has suggested that Boris Bikes are super-safe because they are big, slow, and have flashing lights.
Firstly, are they actually that safe? Well, the first year produced 6M journeys and 100 collisions. That works out at a rate of slightly less than 17 collisions per million journeys, compared with a rate of a bit more than 20 collisions per million journeys for general cycling in London in the same year. So the safety of the Boris Bikes appears a bit better than the background numbers, but not spectacularly so, and the difference could be explained by many factors, such as user demographics, journey time of day, routes, the hire journeys being shorter and concentrated in the central London area. Another possible explanation is that drivers assume you are clueless if you're on one and make allowances.
It is certainly a stretch to say that a big slow bike is safe. While riding slower may help you avoid some types of collision, it will make you more vulnerable to others. When pulling out into a stream of traffic, you are best advised to accelerate to the speed of the other road users, which is difficult on an under-geared bike weighing 23kg. Riding slowly makes you more vulnerable to left-hooks and badly-timed overtakes by impatient motorists.
The other factor Hendy won't be telling you about is the brakes on the blue barges are crap. Dangerously so in some cases, in my experience.
As for flashing lights, most riders in London use such lights after dark. The lights on the Boris Bikes are quite low-powered and mounted low down at the back. They are better than nothing for sure, but of very limited benefit in daylight, and a lot worse than a well-positioned modern high-powered set-up at night.
The one fatality involving a cycle-hire bike was on TfL's CSH#2, recently branded "an accident waiting to happen". And that fact pretty much sums up cycling safety in London. It really matters very little what kind of bike you ride, when the roads are as woefully dangerous as they are. London cyclist KSIs rose by 18% last year, a number that clearly indicates TfL is not doing its job properly. To suggest that it's the fault of cyclists not using lights is a bit of an insult really. Ironically, the one solitary factor that likely has benefitted cycle safety over the past 15 years is the invention of the high-intensity LED light, but the failure of TfL and London boroughs to implement safe cycle routes, the cynical prioritization of traffic flow over safety, and the failure to police the roads properly has more than offset any benefit and meant that KSIs have resumed an upward trajectory.
Firstly, are they actually that safe? Well, the first year produced 6M journeys and 100 collisions. That works out at a rate of slightly less than 17 collisions per million journeys, compared with a rate of a bit more than 20 collisions per million journeys for general cycling in London in the same year. So the safety of the Boris Bikes appears a bit better than the background numbers, but not spectacularly so, and the difference could be explained by many factors, such as user demographics, journey time of day, routes, the hire journeys being shorter and concentrated in the central London area. Another possible explanation is that drivers assume you are clueless if you're on one and make allowances.
It is certainly a stretch to say that a big slow bike is safe. While riding slower may help you avoid some types of collision, it will make you more vulnerable to others. When pulling out into a stream of traffic, you are best advised to accelerate to the speed of the other road users, which is difficult on an under-geared bike weighing 23kg. Riding slowly makes you more vulnerable to left-hooks and badly-timed overtakes by impatient motorists.
The other factor Hendy won't be telling you about is the brakes on the blue barges are crap. Dangerously so in some cases, in my experience.
As for flashing lights, most riders in London use such lights after dark. The lights on the Boris Bikes are quite low-powered and mounted low down at the back. They are better than nothing for sure, but of very limited benefit in daylight, and a lot worse than a well-positioned modern high-powered set-up at night.
The one fatality involving a cycle-hire bike was on TfL's CSH#2, recently branded "an accident waiting to happen". And that fact pretty much sums up cycling safety in London. It really matters very little what kind of bike you ride, when the roads are as woefully dangerous as they are. London cyclist KSIs rose by 18% last year, a number that clearly indicates TfL is not doing its job properly. To suggest that it's the fault of cyclists not using lights is a bit of an insult really. Ironically, the one solitary factor that likely has benefitted cycle safety over the past 15 years is the invention of the high-intensity LED light, but the failure of TfL and London boroughs to implement safe cycle routes, the cynical prioritization of traffic flow over safety, and the failure to police the roads properly has more than offset any benefit and meant that KSIs have resumed an upward trajectory.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Oval - Lambeth Fail Again
I promise you this blog doesn't have a vendetta against Lambeth. It just seems at the moment Lambeth, in contrast to the claims in their Cycling Strategy, has a vendetta against cyclists.
The latest piece of nonsense is the installation of a chicane barrier at the junction of Meadow Road LCN3 route and Kennington Oval.
The last thing that is needed on this bit of cycle route is a barrier. There is considerable cycle and pedestrian traffic at peak times here and a significant problem is the already-inadequate amount of space. So you'd have to be completely nuts to want to compress all that traffic between two metal barriers thus:
Another unfortunate consequence of this is cyclists will emerge on the right-hand side of the crossing, which is the wrong side given that most will be turning left. So they will be turning across the path of pedestrians - resulting in conflict. Altogether more sinister still is the 'return journey' turning right off the Oval towards the camera in the above picture. This is a very dangerous turn where sight-lines for drivers are impaired, and it is not safe to wait in the carriageway to turn right. With the barrier in place, the right-turning cyclist's options in terms of speed and direction are reduced, making a dangerous situation even worse.
I have no idea why Lambeth have spent what must be a considerable amount of taxpayers' money on this crap. Maybe there was some minor, or possibly major incident, the response to which is, via some unfathomable logic, to increase the amount of unnecessary street clutter, reduce the amount of usable space, increase potential conflict, and make cycling just a little less safe and pleasant. This small area of Harleyford Road around the Oval is dangerous, inadequate for both cyclists and pedestrians, and Lambeth have now made it just a little bit worse.
Nice job.
(It is worth noting that Kennington Oval will be on the route of CSH#5, which hopefully will sort out some of the problems at this junction, but it's not going to be helped by the complete lack of joined-up thinking that is manifest here. More evidence then, as if any were needed, that London's processes for providing cycling infrastructure are broken by design.)
The latest piece of nonsense is the installation of a chicane barrier at the junction of Meadow Road LCN3 route and Kennington Oval.
The last thing that is needed on this bit of cycle route is a barrier. There is considerable cycle and pedestrian traffic at peak times here and a significant problem is the already-inadequate amount of space. So you'd have to be completely nuts to want to compress all that traffic between two metal barriers thus:
Another unfortunate consequence of this is cyclists will emerge on the right-hand side of the crossing, which is the wrong side given that most will be turning left. So they will be turning across the path of pedestrians - resulting in conflict. Altogether more sinister still is the 'return journey' turning right off the Oval towards the camera in the above picture. This is a very dangerous turn where sight-lines for drivers are impaired, and it is not safe to wait in the carriageway to turn right. With the barrier in place, the right-turning cyclist's options in terms of speed and direction are reduced, making a dangerous situation even worse.
I have no idea why Lambeth have spent what must be a considerable amount of taxpayers' money on this crap. Maybe there was some minor, or possibly major incident, the response to which is, via some unfathomable logic, to increase the amount of unnecessary street clutter, reduce the amount of usable space, increase potential conflict, and make cycling just a little less safe and pleasant. This small area of Harleyford Road around the Oval is dangerous, inadequate for both cyclists and pedestrians, and Lambeth have now made it just a little bit worse.
Nice job.
(It is worth noting that Kennington Oval will be on the route of CSH#5, which hopefully will sort out some of the problems at this junction, but it's not going to be helped by the complete lack of joined-up thinking that is manifest here. More evidence then, as if any were needed, that London's processes for providing cycling infrastructure are broken by design.)
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Turret Grove, Clapham - Lambeth Fail
Lambeth have finally got around to resurfacing Turret Grove. This residential street has been a patchwork of potholes for some years now, so cyclists will be looking forward to a nice, smooth ride on billard-table-like tarmac.
Unfortunately, they will be disappointed.
The road surface itself is smooth enough, but they've put new road humps (above) that are even more severe than the ones they replace. They are so upright the effect is like hitting a kerbstone, and the impact at any speed is likely to dislodge your lights, luggage etc.
A cycling-friendly council would have used sinusoidal profile humps, which are effective at limiting motor vehicle speeds but much more comfortable to cycle over.
They also could, and should have taken the opportunity to change the priority at the Rozel Road junction (below).
Rozel Road is a very quiet road but as it currently has priority over the cycle route, you have to slow down and be prepared to give way. I can't see any issues with changing the priority to favour the cycle route.
Above: at the junction with Rectory Grove, if you're turning right into Turret Grove (towards the camera) you have to execute a very sharp right turn to go left of the island into the narrow cycle bypass. This is dangerous because you have to slow down, risking a rear hit as the sight lines at this point are poor. The logical thing to do would be to remove the island. But they didn't
You might remember back in June there was a lot of noise about Lambeth's new Cycling Strategy. In it, they claim: "Work has already been done to change the formula for road resurfacing to give extra priority to roads used by cyclists." That is welcome, but what's happened here is they've resurfaced the road but, almost unbelievably, actually made it worse for cyclists.
Unfortunately, they will be disappointed.
The road surface itself is smooth enough, but they've put new road humps (above) that are even more severe than the ones they replace. They are so upright the effect is like hitting a kerbstone, and the impact at any speed is likely to dislodge your lights, luggage etc.
A cycling-friendly council would have used sinusoidal profile humps, which are effective at limiting motor vehicle speeds but much more comfortable to cycle over.
They also could, and should have taken the opportunity to change the priority at the Rozel Road junction (below).
You might remember back in June there was a lot of noise about Lambeth's new Cycling Strategy. In it, they claim: "Work has already been done to change the formula for road resurfacing to give extra priority to roads used by cyclists." That is welcome, but what's happened here is they've resurfaced the road but, almost unbelievably, actually made it worse for cyclists.
So what went wrong? It looks like Lambeth is still a typical council, where cycling is the responsibility of (if you're lucky) one or two under-resourced individuals very low down the slippery pole of the management hierarchy. For everyone else in Highways, cycling is an unwelcome distraction from the day job of getting proper motorized vehicles moving efficiently. Cycling is only something considered on the rare occasions when there's a "Cycle Scheme"; at all other times (road resurfacing, new parking spaces etc.) it's ignored.
If Lambeth councillors are serious about putting the warm and encouraging words in their Cycling Strategy into action, they have got to make cycling a responsibility of every officer in Transport and Streets.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Advance Stop Lines
One of the very, very few commonplace cycle infrastructure features in the UK is the advance stop line.
The principle behind it is as follows. Cyclists are enabled to get to the front of a queue of traffic at a light-controlled junction, and wait in a box in front of the queue, where you're visible to motorists, instead of getting in the blind spots of HGVs, which, as we all know, isn't such a terribly good idea. Simple eh? Not to the UK justice system, which conspires to make it both complex and crap.
It wasn't so bad in the old days when the police didn't bother enforcing them. If there were vehicles in the advance stop box, which there usually were, you would just go ahead over the stop line and wait in front of them. Not that big a deal. Against the letter of the law, yes, but the whole point of ASLs is to enable you to be seen and get a head start rather than be mixed up in HGV blind spots. Your personal safety is a greater moral imperative than a technical breach of the rules, especially bearing in mind that you're forced into this minor infringement (usually) by the motorist breaking the law in the first place.
Unfortunately, such moral considerations seem to butter no parsnips with the Met Police, who ticketed a London cyclist for just such an offence. Unsurprisingly, fellow riders have rushed to contribute to a defence fund to mount a legal challenge.
When you drive a car, you will almost always stay safe if you stick to the letter of the law. That's because the law, and the roads, are designed with you in mind. On a bike, the situation is rather different. You continually have to make potentially life-or-death decisions that balance your safety and your speed against staying legal. You have to think about road positioning, your visibility to other road users, parked vehicles, and of course what other moving road users are doing, or might do, or what might happen if they don't do what they appear to be intending. You have to think ahead and analyze every possible move of every road user in a complex, continuous game of chess. You have to look at every approaching vehicle and try to figure out if they are about to overtake you or turn across you, and whether you are better off taking an assertive position to discourage a dangerous manoeuvre, or just let them get on with it. You also have to consider whether they are actually aware of you, or texting their mate instead.
Now, you might say that breaking the law to expedite your journey is not acceptable, but the fact is that being stationary or slowing down can often put you in considerable danger of a rear hit or a left or right hook. Loss of momentum can be fatal. So cutting a corner or going the wrong side of a bollard can be a better option than waiting in the middle of the road, trusting that drivers in front and behind are paying attention, driving cautiously and aware of the fact that there might be a cyclist in front that they can't yet see.
On this blog, we don't condone stupid cycling that endangers other road users, but we also don't condone stupid laws that endanger cyclists, and the fact is the ASL is governed by an embarrassingly badly-drafted, Friday afternoon-after-a-liquid-lunch piece of legislation. Logic would tell you that the advance stop box should behave like a yellow box junction, but it doesn't: it's legal for a vehicle to wait in the ASL if it crossed the first stop-line when the light was green, which makes it very difficult to enforce. There's also considerable confusion about when and how a cyclist can enter the box. According to the CTC:
"the legal position of ASLs has not been clear in the past, either through legislation or case law. So far, ASL layouts have required an approach cycle lane, long enough for cyclists to bypass the traffic queue (though what that meant was not entirely clear). When the lights are red, cyclists may only enter the reservoir via the cycle lane, not by crossing the stop line.
This legislation raised a question over the legality of not having a cycle lane - without one, it has been technically illegal for a cyclist to enter the ASL box in the absence of a green light. Several authorities sought to overcome this by leaving a 1.2m break at the nearside end of the main stop line, possibly with a token length of cycle lane, or tapered feeder lane. The legality of this approach, however, has been unclear (see also 3.c. ‘Omitting feeder lanes’ below).
A question also arose over whether the regulations were too prescriptive on how cyclists are expected to use ASLs with, say, a single feeder lane but two traffic lanes. For example, if a central feeder lane is provided between two lanes of traffic, the legislation requires left turning cyclists to use that lane to access the ASL, even if there is space for them to filter past traffic in the nearside lane, with obvious dangers if the lights change before they get there. "
The principle behind it is as follows. Cyclists are enabled to get to the front of a queue of traffic at a light-controlled junction, and wait in a box in front of the queue, where you're visible to motorists, instead of getting in the blind spots of HGVs, which, as we all know, isn't such a terribly good idea. Simple eh? Not to the UK justice system, which conspires to make it both complex and crap.
It wasn't so bad in the old days when the police didn't bother enforcing them. If there were vehicles in the advance stop box, which there usually were, you would just go ahead over the stop line and wait in front of them. Not that big a deal. Against the letter of the law, yes, but the whole point of ASLs is to enable you to be seen and get a head start rather than be mixed up in HGV blind spots. Your personal safety is a greater moral imperative than a technical breach of the rules, especially bearing in mind that you're forced into this minor infringement (usually) by the motorist breaking the law in the first place.
Unfortunately, such moral considerations seem to butter no parsnips with the Met Police, who ticketed a London cyclist for just such an offence. Unsurprisingly, fellow riders have rushed to contribute to a defence fund to mount a legal challenge.
When you drive a car, you will almost always stay safe if you stick to the letter of the law. That's because the law, and the roads, are designed with you in mind. On a bike, the situation is rather different. You continually have to make potentially life-or-death decisions that balance your safety and your speed against staying legal. You have to think about road positioning, your visibility to other road users, parked vehicles, and of course what other moving road users are doing, or might do, or what might happen if they don't do what they appear to be intending. You have to think ahead and analyze every possible move of every road user in a complex, continuous game of chess. You have to look at every approaching vehicle and try to figure out if they are about to overtake you or turn across you, and whether you are better off taking an assertive position to discourage a dangerous manoeuvre, or just let them get on with it. You also have to consider whether they are actually aware of you, or texting their mate instead.
Now, you might say that breaking the law to expedite your journey is not acceptable, but the fact is that being stationary or slowing down can often put you in considerable danger of a rear hit or a left or right hook. Loss of momentum can be fatal. So cutting a corner or going the wrong side of a bollard can be a better option than waiting in the middle of the road, trusting that drivers in front and behind are paying attention, driving cautiously and aware of the fact that there might be a cyclist in front that they can't yet see.
On this blog, we don't condone stupid cycling that endangers other road users, but we also don't condone stupid laws that endanger cyclists, and the fact is the ASL is governed by an embarrassingly badly-drafted, Friday afternoon-after-a-liquid-lunch piece of legislation. Logic would tell you that the advance stop box should behave like a yellow box junction, but it doesn't: it's legal for a vehicle to wait in the ASL if it crossed the first stop-line when the light was green, which makes it very difficult to enforce. There's also considerable confusion about when and how a cyclist can enter the box. According to the CTC:
"the legal position of ASLs has not been clear in the past, either through legislation or case law. So far, ASL layouts have required an approach cycle lane, long enough for cyclists to bypass the traffic queue (though what that meant was not entirely clear). When the lights are red, cyclists may only enter the reservoir via the cycle lane, not by crossing the stop line.
This legislation raised a question over the legality of not having a cycle lane - without one, it has been technically illegal for a cyclist to enter the ASL box in the absence of a green light. Several authorities sought to overcome this by leaving a 1.2m break at the nearside end of the main stop line, possibly with a token length of cycle lane, or tapered feeder lane. The legality of this approach, however, has been unclear (see also 3.c. ‘Omitting feeder lanes’ below).
A question also arose over whether the regulations were too prescriptive on how cyclists are expected to use ASLs with, say, a single feeder lane but two traffic lanes. For example, if a central feeder lane is provided between two lanes of traffic, the legislation requires left turning cyclists to use that lane to access the ASL, even if there is space for them to filter past traffic in the nearside lane, with obvious dangers if the lights change before they get there. "
It seems there should be a fix for this in the upcoming revision of "Traffic Signs and General Direction Regulations" in 2014, but that almost certainly won't fix the problem of what a cyclist is supposed to do if the advance stop box is occupied.
The fundamental problem is with the whole Highway Code, which lumps cyclists in with all other traffic and subjects them mostly to the same laws and regulations. Yet most of the highway code is advisory, so many of the most dangerous driving behaviours are committed on a daily basis with no fear of prosecution. As a result, dangerous driving has become the accepted norm for many: A TRL survey of drivers convicted of careless driving revealed "57% claimed they were driving how they often or normally drove at the time of the incident, and 75% said they were surprised to be convicted". Furthermore, we have a legal system in which it is very difficult to get a meaningful punishment or even a successful prosecution for dangerous driving (drivers can plead 'momentary inattention'/pressed the wrong pedal/uncharacteristic error/didn't-see-you, etc. etc.), yet very easy to prosecute a cyclist who acts to preserve his/her own safety, endangering nobody else, but happens to contravene the letter of a car-centric law.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Merton High Street
Merton Council have been busy putting cycle facilities on Merton High Street.
Let's see what they've been up to. A word of warning first: don't get your hopes up.
Above, looking east just before the Savacentre, you can see it's not so much cycle lanes as car parking. Why not make the lanes mandatory? Because, as on the CSH7 which starts a little bit further on at Colliers Wood, car parking is deemed more important, so the lanes are only any use for a few hours on weekdays. (Now it is worth pointing out that this is not necessarily all Merton's fault, because this is a TfL route and changes to parking restrictions would be subject to a traffic order and signed off by them. So TfL have some responsibility as do the Coalition for not abolishing this red tape. But ultimately this is Merton's scheme, so in my view the buck stops with them.)
Moving a little further east, just behind the grey car in the first picture there is the bus stop for Savacentre, pictured above. Here, the westbound cycle lane disappears.
East of the Savacentre, at the approach to the dangerous junction at Colliers Wood, there are no cycle lanes at all in either direction. This is actually where you most need them.
Things improve a little at the Haydons Road junction westbound. Here there is an advisory lane that leads into a lane on the pavement and it seems this will enable you to bypass the lights. This is the highlight in an otherwise pretty useless scheme.
Above, on the eastbound side of the same junction though, there is nothing. The twin traffic lanes are retained, and you'll notice there's a guaranteed left-hook if you stay to the left. There's an ASL but no lead-in lane, which is pretty useless.
At Nelson Road, you'll need the courage of the great admiral because the cycle lane swerves around some parking spaces, and the lane is right in the dooring zone so you're best advised 'taking the lane', where you'll no doubt get honked at by motorists who can't figure out why you're not in the perfectly good cycle lane paid for by their taxes.
On the other side, at Pincott Road, the pavement lane gives way to a side street: after all, motor traffic is more important so must get priority.
Above, the pavement lane continues past a crossing. You'll notice the pavement is obstructed here by some street furniture so there's potential for conflict with pedestrians.
Above, a little further west the pavement lane ends, well before the dangerous South Wimbledon junction, requiring you to merge into two lanes of westbound traffic. This really hasn't been thought through.
On the opposite side there is a lane, but it is narrow and alongside car parking, so unless you fancy a 'dooring' you're best off in the main carriageway.
So in summary, there is clearly not much joined-up thinking going on at Merton Council. This scatty, ill-conceived scheme might have been par for the course a decade ago, but given that Merton is bidding for the 'Mini Holland' cash, it simply isn't good enough. Narrow, intermittent, part-time advisory lanes right alongside car parking endangers cyclists and does not help them. Segregated paths are great, but not when they give way to side streets and spit you out into fast-moving traffic.
The only thing to be said for this scheme is the lanes do something to help keep space free for cyclists to pass on the left of the congestion which is commonplace on this road. But it won't attract any new cyclists, or do anything to improve the safety of the junctions. So as such this scheme is a waste of money. Money that could instead have been spent on Dutch-style infrastructure that people will actually use. Instead we've got something from the palette of discredited solutions that is out-of-date as soon as it's been built. Something that doesn't speak well of Merton's understanding of cycling and will do it no favours with the judges of the Mini-Holland bids.
Let's see what they've been up to. A word of warning first: don't get your hopes up.
East of the Savacentre, at the approach to the dangerous junction at Colliers Wood, there are no cycle lanes at all in either direction. This is actually where you most need them.
Things improve a little at the Haydons Road junction westbound. Here there is an advisory lane that leads into a lane on the pavement and it seems this will enable you to bypass the lights. This is the highlight in an otherwise pretty useless scheme.
Above, on the eastbound side of the same junction though, there is nothing. The twin traffic lanes are retained, and you'll notice there's a guaranteed left-hook if you stay to the left. There's an ASL but no lead-in lane, which is pretty useless.
At Nelson Road, you'll need the courage of the great admiral because the cycle lane swerves around some parking spaces, and the lane is right in the dooring zone so you're best advised 'taking the lane', where you'll no doubt get honked at by motorists who can't figure out why you're not in the perfectly good cycle lane paid for by their taxes.
Above, the pavement lane continues past a crossing. You'll notice the pavement is obstructed here by some street furniture so there's potential for conflict with pedestrians.
Above, a little further west the pavement lane ends, well before the dangerous South Wimbledon junction, requiring you to merge into two lanes of westbound traffic. This really hasn't been thought through.
On the opposite side there is a lane, but it is narrow and alongside car parking, so unless you fancy a 'dooring' you're best off in the main carriageway.
So in summary, there is clearly not much joined-up thinking going on at Merton Council. This scatty, ill-conceived scheme might have been par for the course a decade ago, but given that Merton is bidding for the 'Mini Holland' cash, it simply isn't good enough. Narrow, intermittent, part-time advisory lanes right alongside car parking endangers cyclists and does not help them. Segregated paths are great, but not when they give way to side streets and spit you out into fast-moving traffic.
The only thing to be said for this scheme is the lanes do something to help keep space free for cyclists to pass on the left of the congestion which is commonplace on this road. But it won't attract any new cyclists, or do anything to improve the safety of the junctions. So as such this scheme is a waste of money. Money that could instead have been spent on Dutch-style infrastructure that people will actually use. Instead we've got something from the palette of discredited solutions that is out-of-date as soon as it's been built. Something that doesn't speak well of Merton's understanding of cycling and will do it no favours with the judges of the Mini-Holland bids.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Sir Chris Hoy Fails
Reported in The Times, the government have turned down Sir Chris Hoy's offer to become a national cycling tzar.
A government spokesman commented, "Sir Chris is completely unsuitable as he has a long track record of delivery and success at a world-class level, and this is not aligned with our ambitions for cycling".
A government spokesman commented, "Sir Chris is completely unsuitable as he has a long track record of delivery and success at a world-class level, and this is not aligned with our ambitions for cycling".
Friday, September 13, 2013
A Tale of Two Collisions
An interesting juxtaposition of stories in the Standard today.
First one: Nicole Kidman beeing "KO'd by a pavement cyclist" in New York. By which they mean knocked down - Kidman is not reported as sustaining any injury. She is reported as being "shaken up" by the experience. A 19-year-old cyclist had been issued with "three summonses for riding a bike on the sidewalk, riding a bike with no helmet and reckless endangerment".
Second one: Cyclist Chrishan Mathias, 28, was hit by a minicab. He "was pulled under the vehicle and had one of its wheels run over his head when it shot across a junction and veered into his path as he cycled home from work." He suffered suffered a dislocated ankle, broken sternum and ribs, bruised lung and lacerated liver, spent 5 weeks off work and is still undergoing physiotherapy. But for his helmet, which was broken in two in the collision, he might well have died. The report says (now get this), "police are due to decide in the New Year whether the minicab driver should be charged with a driving offence." The incident does not seem to have been reported at the time it happened in March, and it appears that it has been picked up by the Standard after being revealed by the London air ambulance team, who attended the stricken rider.
You might want to sign this.
UPDATE: Since I wrote this, it has been reported that the 'cyclist' in the Kidman story was actually a paparazzo photographer. Which makes the predictable anti-cyclist rants in the Standard troll-comments section seem a bit lame.
First one: Nicole Kidman beeing "KO'd by a pavement cyclist" in New York. By which they mean knocked down - Kidman is not reported as sustaining any injury. She is reported as being "shaken up" by the experience. A 19-year-old cyclist had been issued with "three summonses for riding a bike on the sidewalk, riding a bike with no helmet and reckless endangerment".
Second one: Cyclist Chrishan Mathias, 28, was hit by a minicab. He "was pulled under the vehicle and had one of its wheels run over his head when it shot across a junction and veered into his path as he cycled home from work." He suffered suffered a dislocated ankle, broken sternum and ribs, bruised lung and lacerated liver, spent 5 weeks off work and is still undergoing physiotherapy. But for his helmet, which was broken in two in the collision, he might well have died. The report says (now get this), "police are due to decide in the New Year whether the minicab driver should be charged with a driving offence." The incident does not seem to have been reported at the time it happened in March, and it appears that it has been picked up by the Standard after being revealed by the London air ambulance team, who attended the stricken rider.
You might want to sign this.
UPDATE: Since I wrote this, it has been reported that the 'cyclist' in the Kidman story was actually a paparazzo photographer. Which makes the predictable anti-cyclist rants in the Standard troll-comments section seem a bit lame.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Speed Does Not Cause Accidents
This is the bombshell headline reported by the BBC in its report on this debate on the Today progamme between Prof. Stephen Glaister of the RAC Foundation, a respected transport research organization, and Claire Armstrong, who does not represent a respected transport research organization - at least, not if your definition of "respected transport research organization" includes the willingness to subject your research to peer review by others in the field or get it published by relevant academic journals. She represents "Safe Speed", who are, it appears, an organization representing people who simply don't want to believe that speed causes road collisions, makes them more likely and makes the consequences of them worse. According to George Monbiot, it is a "a lobby group claiming to stand for one thing [road safety], but in reality standing for its opposite [the removal of both speed limits and their means of enforcement]"
Such people, it seems, are prepared to indulge in all manner of cherry-picking of evidence and bad science to "prove" that "speed does not cause accidents", when there is a positive tsunami of evidence not just from this country but from all around the world that the opposite is the case. In the debate, Armstrong parroted "regression to the mean" as if this alone means that 2+2 actually equals 3. Glaister pointed out that the RAC's report does take account of regression to the mean (as you'd expect from any statistical analysis worth its salt).
Armstrong also suggested that speed was a factor in only 6% of accidents. The Transport Research Laboratory dispute this, according to this source:
"The factors involved [in collisions] include, as TRL have pointed out to ABD and others on numerous occasions, more than one causation which would relate to speed. For example, Loss of control of vehicle, Failed to avoid vehicle/object in carriageway, the top two 'precipitating factors', will both be strongly influenced by speed."
I deconstructed Safe Speed's website a couple of years ago in a series of posts:
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-1-deaths.html
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-2.html
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-3.html
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-4-attitude.html
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-5.html
If anyone at the BBC is reading this I suggest you take a look before you invite these people onto your programmes and give them equal billing with someone who has any more credibility on the subject of road safety than Donald Duck. How much is the license fee again?
Such people, it seems, are prepared to indulge in all manner of cherry-picking of evidence and bad science to "prove" that "speed does not cause accidents", when there is a positive tsunami of evidence not just from this country but from all around the world that the opposite is the case. In the debate, Armstrong parroted "regression to the mean" as if this alone means that 2+2 actually equals 3. Glaister pointed out that the RAC's report does take account of regression to the mean (as you'd expect from any statistical analysis worth its salt).
Armstrong also suggested that speed was a factor in only 6% of accidents. The Transport Research Laboratory dispute this, according to this source:
"The factors involved [in collisions] include, as TRL have pointed out to ABD and others on numerous occasions, more than one causation which would relate to speed. For example, Loss of control of vehicle, Failed to avoid vehicle/object in carriageway, the top two 'precipitating factors', will both be strongly influenced by speed."
I deconstructed Safe Speed's website a couple of years ago in a series of posts:
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-1-deaths.html
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-2.html
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-3.html
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-4-attitude.html
http://cycalogical.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/anti-speed-camera-arguments-5.html
If anyone at the BBC is reading this I suggest you take a look before you invite these people onto your programmes and give them equal billing with someone who has any more credibility on the subject of road safety than Donald Duck. How much is the license fee again?
Friday, August 9, 2013
60MPH Rural Tracks
Joe Wilkins was a family man, a firefighter, a father of two, and by all accounts a universally well-liked man.
He was killed on his bike, by a Ford Focus travelling at 60MPH, on an unrestricted (60MPH) road, Eaton Road, near Appleton in Oxfordshire.
Here is an image of the road:
View Larger Map
As you can see this is a narrow country road. The collision happened at 9:20PM on May 24th 2012. Sunset would have been at 9PM, so there would likely still have been some natural light. It appears Wilkins' bike had no lights or reflectors. The exact point the collision occurred isn't stated in the reports I've seen.
At 60MPH, things happen pretty quickly. You do not have much time to see and react to any hazards, such as pedestrians or cyclists, who may be hidden temporarily from view. For example, in the image above, there is a slight right-hand deviation in the road that limits visibility. It is roughly 350 feet from the speed limit sign to the limit of visibility. The stopping distance for a car in the dry from 60MPH is 240 feet. So that leaves 110 feet - that's just over a second at 60MPH - spare. With a typical flashing cycle light, it will probably take a couple of flashes for even an alert driver to register the presence of a cyclist, so there really is very little margin for error, even under ideal conditions. Now consider that these figures may be optimistic. If a cyclist is travelling towards the driver at 20MPH, not unlikely with a fit rider on a level road, the distance in which a driver would have to react and stop is significantly reduced.
It seems pretty clear to me that driving at 60MPH on this type of road even on a well-lit day is not safe. At night, while eating a sandwich, that's got to qualify as dangerous, doesn't it? Well, in the UK justice system, apparently not.
In 2010, 49% of UK road deaths took place on single-carriageway rural roads with a 60MPH limit. According to Ralph Smyth, chair of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, "It seems strange that you've got minor roads, often that are just tarmaced tracks, that have a speed limit of 60mph - just 10mph less than the motorways."
We agree.
He was killed on his bike, by a Ford Focus travelling at 60MPH, on an unrestricted (60MPH) road, Eaton Road, near Appleton in Oxfordshire.
Here is an image of the road:
View Larger Map
As you can see this is a narrow country road. The collision happened at 9:20PM on May 24th 2012. Sunset would have been at 9PM, so there would likely still have been some natural light. It appears Wilkins' bike had no lights or reflectors. The exact point the collision occurred isn't stated in the reports I've seen.
At 60MPH, things happen pretty quickly. You do not have much time to see and react to any hazards, such as pedestrians or cyclists, who may be hidden temporarily from view. For example, in the image above, there is a slight right-hand deviation in the road that limits visibility. It is roughly 350 feet from the speed limit sign to the limit of visibility. The stopping distance for a car in the dry from 60MPH is 240 feet. So that leaves 110 feet - that's just over a second at 60MPH - spare. With a typical flashing cycle light, it will probably take a couple of flashes for even an alert driver to register the presence of a cyclist, so there really is very little margin for error, even under ideal conditions. Now consider that these figures may be optimistic. If a cyclist is travelling towards the driver at 20MPH, not unlikely with a fit rider on a level road, the distance in which a driver would have to react and stop is significantly reduced.
It seems pretty clear to me that driving at 60MPH on this type of road even on a well-lit day is not safe. At night, while eating a sandwich, that's got to qualify as dangerous, doesn't it? Well, in the UK justice system, apparently not.
In 2010, 49% of UK road deaths took place on single-carriageway rural roads with a 60MPH limit. According to Ralph Smyth, chair of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, "It seems strange that you've got minor roads, often that are just tarmaced tracks, that have a speed limit of 60mph - just 10mph less than the motorways."
We agree.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Half of Londoners say Roads are Too Dangerous
According to a survey for London Councils reported by London24, half of Londoners would cycle more if road safety were improved.
In other news, bears crap in the woods, the Pope is a Catholic, and Eric Pickles enjoys the occasional pie.
In other news, bears crap in the woods, the Pope is a Catholic, and Eric Pickles enjoys the occasional pie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)