According to this report, a petition asking for a law requiring motorists to allow at least 3 feet when overtaking a cyclist has been rejected by 10 Downing Street.
Frankly, I was never overly impressed by this petition. 3 feet is not actually much roadspace. Other countries have laws that require at least 1.5 metres (5 1/2 feet). Also, the context is crucial. I would not like to be overtaken by a 38-tonne truck at 60 MPH that allowed me only 3 feet, or even 5 1/2 feet, but a slowly, carefully-driven car on a narrow lane might be a different matter.
But passing distance is just one of a myriad of different areas where the Highway Code, and the law and justice system in general, fails to protect cyclists and fails to act against bad driving. Why is it (usually) legal to park in a cycle lane? Why is it (usually) legal for a motor to enter a cycle lane? Why is it almost impossible to get a conviction or even a prosecution for dangerous driving, and why are the penalties in many cases so risible? Why is there no general duty of care assumed for motorists?
Downing Street's view is that the Highway Code, and the law, is adequate. Well sorry Gordon but it isn't, which is why 2500+ people die on the roads each year, 95% of them due to driver error. If drivers knew the chances of getting caught for bad driving where higher, or even simply that if caught they would face a lengthy ban, it might focus their minds on the road and away from their mobile phones. Instead, we're stuck with wishy-washy ambiguous laws that do little to protect the public. It is time the Government - and indeed all parties - woke up to the fact that if they are serious about encouraging active modes of travel (walking and cycling) and getting people out of their cars, the law as it stands is woefully inadequate and out of step with the times.
We need another petition. A more ambitious one this time.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
School Travel Grants
Did you know that your school can get a grant of over £5000 in support of a school travel plan? This money can be used to encourage kids to walk or cycle to school. Because we all know the dangers of the school run (obesity, road danger etc.).
The only catch is, the money can ONLY be spent within the school premises. Most schools are not served by quality segregated cycle infrastructure (certainly not in Merton), which is where the real need is, and it is the perceived danger of roads clogged with school mums in a hurry to drop their fat, unfit offspring off at school, that is the main barrier to getting more kids cycling to school.
So WHY is the government (via Sustrans) spending SO MUCH taxpayers cash on ANYTHING BUT fixing the real problem???
If kids had decent cycle paths to take them to school, then more kids would cycle to school. Which means less school-run traffic...hence less road danger, less pollution, less congestion, less obesity...for goodness sakes, it's not rocket science!
The only catch is, the money can ONLY be spent within the school premises. Most schools are not served by quality segregated cycle infrastructure (certainly not in Merton), which is where the real need is, and it is the perceived danger of roads clogged with school mums in a hurry to drop their fat, unfit offspring off at school, that is the main barrier to getting more kids cycling to school.
So WHY is the government (via Sustrans) spending SO MUCH taxpayers cash on ANYTHING BUT fixing the real problem???
If kids had decent cycle paths to take them to school, then more kids would cycle to school. Which means less school-run traffic...hence less road danger, less pollution, less congestion, less obesity...for goodness sakes, it's not rocket science!
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Recluttering - or Barriers to Cycling
Following on from my previous post about 'De-Cluttering', you're probably wondering where all those railings that Merton Council have removed from the Town Centre and Morden Road have gone, right?
Well I've found them. There is a little known clause in the Merton Cycle Design Standards that states:
'if not otherwise obstructed by parked cars, 'Dismount' signs, bollards, bus shelters etc., every cycle path shall have a metal barrier every 100 metres'.
You think I'm joking?
Take a right turn from Dorset Road onto the cycle path leading towards Old Merton Park:
Carry on 20 metres to the tram track.
You can't just cross the tram track; the Council have arranged railings forcing you around a tight, blind corner into the path of whatever foot or cycle traffic is coming your way. You're then badly placed to look both ways to check if there are any trams coming...so far so good, then another couple of tight turns to negotiate...and another 50 metres before you have another metal barrier...
A quick shimmy through some bollards and you're out onto Melbourne Road. Another 100 metres or so and...
...you've guessed it, another barrier, this time a 'triple'. There's yet another one 25 metres further down the path.
Now obviously, these barriers have an extremely important purpose. They force cyclists and pedestrians into a narrow corridor, so they get in each others' way.
No, I'm being cynical. You can't have people cycling at speed approaching a junction, because they might kill a pedestrian. But wait. By that logic, all road junctions would have similar obstacles to restrict car speed. But don't worry, cars aren't anywhere near as dangerous as cycles. Cars only kill 2500 people a year, whereas cycles kill at least 2 people a year. Merton Council needs to get people off their bikes and into cars, so they need to make cycling slow and unpleasant, by putting in as many barriers on cycle paths as they can.
Well I've found them. There is a little known clause in the Merton Cycle Design Standards that states:
'if not otherwise obstructed by parked cars, 'Dismount' signs, bollards, bus shelters etc., every cycle path shall have a metal barrier every 100 metres'.
You think I'm joking?
Take a right turn from Dorset Road onto the cycle path leading towards Old Merton Park:
Carry on 20 metres to the tram track.
You can't just cross the tram track; the Council have arranged railings forcing you around a tight, blind corner into the path of whatever foot or cycle traffic is coming your way. You're then badly placed to look both ways to check if there are any trams coming...so far so good, then another couple of tight turns to negotiate...and another 50 metres before you have another metal barrier...
A quick shimmy through some bollards and you're out onto Melbourne Road. Another 100 metres or so and...
...you've guessed it, another barrier, this time a 'triple'. There's yet another one 25 metres further down the path.
Now obviously, these barriers have an extremely important purpose. They force cyclists and pedestrians into a narrow corridor, so they get in each others' way.
No, I'm being cynical. You can't have people cycling at speed approaching a junction, because they might kill a pedestrian. But wait. By that logic, all road junctions would have similar obstacles to restrict car speed. But don't worry, cars aren't anywhere near as dangerous as cycles. Cars only kill 2500 people a year, whereas cycles kill at least 2 people a year. Merton Council needs to get people off their bikes and into cars, so they need to make cycling slow and unpleasant, by putting in as many barriers on cycle paths as they can.
Railings - De-cluttering?
Merton Council's coffers are cluttered with too much taxpayers' cash, so they're spending it on 'de-cluttering'.
De-cluttering - that's the latest trendy thing in street-design circles. It basically means removing railings, and other 'unnecessary' street furniture. Now the theory goes that railings encourage drivers to regard the road as their own, with incursions from pedestrians only permitted at certain places. Removing railings should 'create uncertainty' and encourage drivers to be more aware of pedestrians. You'll have seen railings removed from Morden Road and in Wimbledon Town Centre. You'll notice in the Town Centre, a lot of bikes used to be locked to the railings, so the Council have had to replace the railings with Sheffield stands. You'll also notice that Sheffield stands are rather similar to railings.
I'm just an ignorant council-tax payer, so I rather miss the point of this. The street is still pretty choked with traffic most of the time, going faster than the 20MPH limit, they've not put in any trees or flowerbeds, the same light-controlled pedestrian crossings are there...so what's the point, other than giving someone at the Council something to do that burns through a pile of cash?
Now while removing the railings in the Town Centre is pointless, removing them from Morden Road is downright dangerous. The pavements are very narrow along Morden Road, traffic is very heavy and speeds are generally quite high. There are no pedestrian crossings for a good mile. It's also a notorious accident blackspot. I've personally witnessed 4 accidents including one where a car mounted the pavement and hit a lamppost. Now, if they wanted to remove the railings, lower traffic speeds and volumes, widen the pavement, put in a proper cycle/bus lane it would make sense, but no, they are doing nothing about road danger, and removing the only thing that prevents another car from mounting the pavement. And spending taxpayers' money doing it! It's no wonder drivers regard Morden Road as their own - that's because it continues to be their own, and removing a couple of railings ain't gonna change that!
De-cluttering - that's the latest trendy thing in street-design circles. It basically means removing railings, and other 'unnecessary' street furniture. Now the theory goes that railings encourage drivers to regard the road as their own, with incursions from pedestrians only permitted at certain places. Removing railings should 'create uncertainty' and encourage drivers to be more aware of pedestrians. You'll have seen railings removed from Morden Road and in Wimbledon Town Centre. You'll notice in the Town Centre, a lot of bikes used to be locked to the railings, so the Council have had to replace the railings with Sheffield stands. You'll also notice that Sheffield stands are rather similar to railings.
I'm just an ignorant council-tax payer, so I rather miss the point of this. The street is still pretty choked with traffic most of the time, going faster than the 20MPH limit, they've not put in any trees or flowerbeds, the same light-controlled pedestrian crossings are there...so what's the point, other than giving someone at the Council something to do that burns through a pile of cash?
Now while removing the railings in the Town Centre is pointless, removing them from Morden Road is downright dangerous. The pavements are very narrow along Morden Road, traffic is very heavy and speeds are generally quite high. There are no pedestrian crossings for a good mile. It's also a notorious accident blackspot. I've personally witnessed 4 accidents including one where a car mounted the pavement and hit a lamppost. Now, if they wanted to remove the railings, lower traffic speeds and volumes, widen the pavement, put in a proper cycle/bus lane it would make sense, but no, they are doing nothing about road danger, and removing the only thing that prevents another car from mounting the pavement. And spending taxpayers' money doing it! It's no wonder drivers regard Morden Road as their own - that's because it continues to be their own, and removing a couple of railings ain't gonna change that!
Dorset Road - A Rat Run
Dorset Road is a pleasant, wide residential road in the heart of the Merton Park area of Wimbledon. It is lined with magnificent mature plane trees on either side. It forms part of the local cycle network. Children can cycle safely along it on their way to Rutlish and Merton Park Primary schools, along the well-maintained, segregated cycle path.
Even if you have never been to SW19, you will have spotted that last sentence was a lie. There is no segregated cycle path. Despite the fact that Dorset Road is part of the cycle network, and despite the fact that most properties along Dorset Road have off-street parking so there is little demand for parking spaces, and despite the fact that the road is well wide enough to accomodate a cycle path.
Instead of a cycle path, there is, well, nothing. In fact, it's rather worse than nothing. There is a 20 MPH speed limit, but the 'speed cushions' do nothing to calm vehicle speeds, and the road is a well-known rat-run that the council have done nothing about.
As you can see below, the road width and lack of proper speed humps and parked cars just shouts 'put your foot down!' to rat-runners:
Once up to speed, motorists tend to align their vehicles between the speed cushions for the most comfortable ride. The result is that in a gap between parked cars with a nearby speed cushion such as the one below, you can expect cars coming towards you in the middle of the road, rather than on the correct, safe line:
For cyclists, the cut-through speed cushions offer pretty much the worst of all possible worlds:
1. They do little to reduce speed of motor traffic.
2. They tend to funnel all traffic into a certain corridor in the road.
3. They focus the driver's (and also the cyclist's) attention on what line (s)he has to take to avoid the speed cushions, rather than what is the safest line, and distracts their attention from other road users and pedestrians.
4. They tend to force the cyclist into the cut-through, where they are more likely to come into conflict with other traffic.
5. The cut-throughs are not a safe distance from parked cars. In other words, in taking a path into the cut-through, you are at risk of getting 'doored' or hitting a pedestrian stepping out from behind a car or van.
6. They are dangerous, particularly in the wet. If you strike the corner or side of the hump at the wrong angle, this can cause a wobble or a skid. In other words, if you initially take a line into a cut-through, but are forced by oncoming traffic to alter your line , the steep sides of the hump present a hazard.
So why is the council not making Dorset Road a safe, pleasant place to walk and cycle? Because they are too busy 'de-cluttering'. Of course, they won't be removing advertising hoardings or parking spaces, because they're not 'clutter'.
So Dorset Road will remain a cycle route that you wouldn't want to cycle.
Even if you have never been to SW19, you will have spotted that last sentence was a lie. There is no segregated cycle path. Despite the fact that Dorset Road is part of the cycle network, and despite the fact that most properties along Dorset Road have off-street parking so there is little demand for parking spaces, and despite the fact that the road is well wide enough to accomodate a cycle path.
Instead of a cycle path, there is, well, nothing. In fact, it's rather worse than nothing. There is a 20 MPH speed limit, but the 'speed cushions' do nothing to calm vehicle speeds, and the road is a well-known rat-run that the council have done nothing about.
As you can see below, the road width and lack of proper speed humps and parked cars just shouts 'put your foot down!' to rat-runners:
Once up to speed, motorists tend to align their vehicles between the speed cushions for the most comfortable ride. The result is that in a gap between parked cars with a nearby speed cushion such as the one below, you can expect cars coming towards you in the middle of the road, rather than on the correct, safe line:
For cyclists, the cut-through speed cushions offer pretty much the worst of all possible worlds:
1. They do little to reduce speed of motor traffic.
2. They tend to funnel all traffic into a certain corridor in the road.
3. They focus the driver's (and also the cyclist's) attention on what line (s)he has to take to avoid the speed cushions, rather than what is the safest line, and distracts their attention from other road users and pedestrians.
4. They tend to force the cyclist into the cut-through, where they are more likely to come into conflict with other traffic.
5. The cut-throughs are not a safe distance from parked cars. In other words, in taking a path into the cut-through, you are at risk of getting 'doored' or hitting a pedestrian stepping out from behind a car or van.
6. They are dangerous, particularly in the wet. If you strike the corner or side of the hump at the wrong angle, this can cause a wobble or a skid. In other words, if you initially take a line into a cut-through, but are forced by oncoming traffic to alter your line , the steep sides of the hump present a hazard.
So why is the council not making Dorset Road a safe, pleasant place to walk and cycle? Because they are too busy 'de-cluttering'. Of course, they won't be removing advertising hoardings or parking spaces, because they're not 'clutter'.
So Dorset Road will remain a cycle route that you wouldn't want to cycle.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Biking Boroughs
So there is this new initiative from Boris called Biking Boroughs. Under the Livingstone administration, cycling funding was somewhat ring-fenced, but the new arrangements mean that boroughs have more freedom and could in theory spend more, or less, or nothing at all on cycling.
The first step in the programme was that boroughs had to apply to become Biking Boroughs. 12 of these boroughs, Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Brent, Bromley, Croydon, Ealing, Haringey, Havering, Hillingdon, Kingston, Merton and Redbridge, have been given £25K each to fund a 'study' to identify how to improve cycling provision.
My reaction to this is: firstly, £25K is a fair amount of money especially multiplied by 12. Do we really need studies to tell us what we already know is wrong with cycling in London?
Secondly, it seems unlikely the the Councils will pay someone to tell them what a crap job they've done in the past and what a pile of money they have to spend in the future to fix the mess they've created. It's more likely that the studies will say how marvellous cycling is and recommend just enough projects to use up the budget they've previously allocated. And the projects won't piss of local residents or cause motorists to be inconvenienced in any way. Everyone gets to keep their job or get re-elected and it's champagne all round.
No! If we're serious about cycling, we need less bureaucracy, not more. Too many projects get mired in the planning process and end up compromised by non-cycling interest groups. You end up with cycle lanes that are advisory (not mandatory), too narrow and where parking is allowed. You get cycle paths that effectively go from nowhere and to nowhere. In planning terms, it is easier to build a new runway at Heathrow, or a nuclear power station, than a cycle route worthy of the name. If City Hall and the government are serious, there needs to be a London-wide strategy that will deliver a proper network of attractive, safe cycle infrastructure that takes people where they want to go. There needs to be a mandate to do this and there needs to be a way to cut through the planning bureaucracy to deliver it without endless public enquiries. There needs to be the authority to reallocate roadspace, put in traffic control and parking measures, do whatever needs to be done.
The thing is, it can be done. Because of Boris's manifesto pledge to deliver the Cycle Superhighways, Wansworth borough are pulling out all the stops to solve in 12 months what were previously considered insoluble problems. Because they know if they screw up and delay the launch of the first Superhighway, Boris will kick their sorry butts from here to Timbuktu. Compare and contrast this attitude with the 10-year struggle to get cycling permitted over Wandsworth Common, involving 2 public enquiries. I'll bog about that later.
The first step in the programme was that boroughs had to apply to become Biking Boroughs. 12 of these boroughs, Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Brent, Bromley, Croydon, Ealing, Haringey, Havering, Hillingdon, Kingston, Merton and Redbridge, have been given £25K each to fund a 'study' to identify how to improve cycling provision.
My reaction to this is: firstly, £25K is a fair amount of money especially multiplied by 12. Do we really need studies to tell us what we already know is wrong with cycling in London?
Secondly, it seems unlikely the the Councils will pay someone to tell them what a crap job they've done in the past and what a pile of money they have to spend in the future to fix the mess they've created. It's more likely that the studies will say how marvellous cycling is and recommend just enough projects to use up the budget they've previously allocated. And the projects won't piss of local residents or cause motorists to be inconvenienced in any way. Everyone gets to keep their job or get re-elected and it's champagne all round.
No! If we're serious about cycling, we need less bureaucracy, not more. Too many projects get mired in the planning process and end up compromised by non-cycling interest groups. You end up with cycle lanes that are advisory (not mandatory), too narrow and where parking is allowed. You get cycle paths that effectively go from nowhere and to nowhere. In planning terms, it is easier to build a new runway at Heathrow, or a nuclear power station, than a cycle route worthy of the name. If City Hall and the government are serious, there needs to be a London-wide strategy that will deliver a proper network of attractive, safe cycle infrastructure that takes people where they want to go. There needs to be a mandate to do this and there needs to be a way to cut through the planning bureaucracy to deliver it without endless public enquiries. There needs to be the authority to reallocate roadspace, put in traffic control and parking measures, do whatever needs to be done.
The thing is, it can be done. Because of Boris's manifesto pledge to deliver the Cycle Superhighways, Wansworth borough are pulling out all the stops to solve in 12 months what were previously considered insoluble problems. Because they know if they screw up and delay the launch of the first Superhighway, Boris will kick their sorry butts from here to Timbuktu. Compare and contrast this attitude with the 10-year struggle to get cycling permitted over Wandsworth Common, involving 2 public enquiries. I'll bog about that later.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Free Money for Cycling
Free money for cycling?
According to the report, "Any community group or organisation can apply for funding from the Community Cycling Fund for London, which can be spent on bicycles, training and other necessities to promote cycling in your neighbourhood".
Sounds good huh?
Two problems with this.
First problem. LCC is administering this grant. The money comes variously either from the government (such as TfL), or organizations with close links to the government (National Lottery). This subverts the LCC's ability to campaign against government policy, because the government can use the (implied, unstated) threat of withdrawal of funds as a stick to keep LCC in line. You gotta know who your daddy is. Particularly as some active LCC folks are involved in the bike industry and benefit directly or indirectly from these funds. In other words, there is a conflict of interest being generated.
Now I am not for a moment saying there is anything corrupt going on, or questioning the good intentions or integrity of anyone involved. I am just pointing out the political landscape of the situation.
You can draw parallels with the situation at Sustrans, as documented here and here. For that matter, the same situation exists at CTC. Is it a coincidence that LCC and CTC unite in their strategy of pretending that everything in the garden is rosy, and we just need a bit of training to get more people on bikes or subsidise bikes, do a bit of marketing showing happy people cycling and then the safety-in-numbers effect will magically make the roads safe? The only people who seem to be pointing out the parlous state of cycling infrastructure and the dangers to cyclists are bloggers like that whingeing Waltham Forest bloke .
Which leads into the second problem. Training without attractive, safe, continuous infrastructure that enables people to cycle to where they want to go - the shops, library, swimming pool, for example - won't result in more people cycling. At least, the effect won't last long.
Changing people's habits is very, very difficult. It seems to me obvious that if you want people to leave their cars at home and use their bikes more, you need to make cycling very attractive. You need to make motoring unattractive too, but that is politically difficult to do.
The real danger with the 'marketing over substance' approach is this:
1. You get a bunch of new cyclists cycling.
2. They discover that the attractive cycle routes where they live don't actually go anywhere much before they soon turn into unattractive normal roads, with lots of traffic.
3. They have one or two near misses.
4. They quit cycling.
5. They tell other people how scary it is.
Does that sound unduly pessimistic?
Well, I've been keeping a diary for the last three months or so of my near misses. I've had about a dozen in that time. Now I like to think that, as an experienced cyclist who knows London road conditions pretty well, and has in the past driven vans and ridden motorcycles, I have a pretty good idea of what to expect out there. I've had the training and the experience to anticipate and avoid dangerous situations like passing up the inside of lorries. Also, I deliberately avoid busy roads and tune my routes for safety rather than speed. I don't think I scare easily. What I mean by a near miss is, a situation where a driver has done something obviously dangerous/illegal and physically threatening. Cut me up, pulled out in front of me, passed very close to me. The kind of thing that would really scare a novice cyclist. So, again, a dozen near misses in three months - is that enough to put a novice off cycling?
Maybe I'm just unlucky.
According to the report, "Any community group or organisation can apply for funding from the Community Cycling Fund for London, which can be spent on bicycles, training and other necessities to promote cycling in your neighbourhood".
Sounds good huh?
Two problems with this.
First problem. LCC is administering this grant. The money comes variously either from the government (such as TfL), or organizations with close links to the government (National Lottery). This subverts the LCC's ability to campaign against government policy, because the government can use the (implied, unstated) threat of withdrawal of funds as a stick to keep LCC in line. You gotta know who your daddy is. Particularly as some active LCC folks are involved in the bike industry and benefit directly or indirectly from these funds. In other words, there is a conflict of interest being generated.
Now I am not for a moment saying there is anything corrupt going on, or questioning the good intentions or integrity of anyone involved. I am just pointing out the political landscape of the situation.
You can draw parallels with the situation at Sustrans, as documented here and here. For that matter, the same situation exists at CTC. Is it a coincidence that LCC and CTC unite in their strategy of pretending that everything in the garden is rosy, and we just need a bit of training to get more people on bikes or subsidise bikes, do a bit of marketing showing happy people cycling and then the safety-in-numbers effect will magically make the roads safe? The only people who seem to be pointing out the parlous state of cycling infrastructure and the dangers to cyclists are bloggers like that whingeing Waltham Forest bloke .
Which leads into the second problem. Training without attractive, safe, continuous infrastructure that enables people to cycle to where they want to go - the shops, library, swimming pool, for example - won't result in more people cycling. At least, the effect won't last long.
Changing people's habits is very, very difficult. It seems to me obvious that if you want people to leave their cars at home and use their bikes more, you need to make cycling very attractive. You need to make motoring unattractive too, but that is politically difficult to do.
The real danger with the 'marketing over substance' approach is this:
1. You get a bunch of new cyclists cycling.
2. They discover that the attractive cycle routes where they live don't actually go anywhere much before they soon turn into unattractive normal roads, with lots of traffic.
3. They have one or two near misses.
4. They quit cycling.
5. They tell other people how scary it is.
Does that sound unduly pessimistic?
Well, I've been keeping a diary for the last three months or so of my near misses. I've had about a dozen in that time. Now I like to think that, as an experienced cyclist who knows London road conditions pretty well, and has in the past driven vans and ridden motorcycles, I have a pretty good idea of what to expect out there. I've had the training and the experience to anticipate and avoid dangerous situations like passing up the inside of lorries. Also, I deliberately avoid busy roads and tune my routes for safety rather than speed. I don't think I scare easily. What I mean by a near miss is, a situation where a driver has done something obviously dangerous/illegal and physically threatening. Cut me up, pulled out in front of me, passed very close to me. The kind of thing that would really scare a novice cyclist. So, again, a dozen near misses in three months - is that enough to put a novice off cycling?
Maybe I'm just unlucky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)