Left-turn on red

Boris is proposing a trial to allow cyclists to turn left at red lights (after giving way of course).

There is one very good justification for this. Being amongst traffic at a junction as the traffic lights change is very dangerous. It's much safer if you can get away from the junction before the traffic. That's why we have Advance Stop Lines (not that motorists observe them for the most part). Now you could argue that allowing a left-turn on red will encourage cyclists to take more risks. That's possibly true, but really risky cyclists will be jumping the lights anyway. Putting cyclists more in control of the risks we face has got to be a good thing, both from a philosophical and a practical perspective.

There is one question in my mind, however. What does a left turn actually mean, in reality? Let's look at a couple of scenarios:
1. 4-way cross  roads. Simple enough you would think; if there is no traffic crossing and the light is red against you, you may turn left. But there's no reason why you can't turn left and immediately make a U turn, and another left turn, is there? If not, you've just gone straight on, without breaking the law. How shallow does the 'U' have to be before you've broken the law? I imagine you would have to actually leave the road by crossing the white line on the left-hand side, but of course not all junctions have such lines.
2. T junction, aproaching from the bottom of the 'T'. Simple enough, you can make a left turn against the red light, but not a right turn.
3. T junction, approaching from the left of the 'T'. In other words, you are on a major road, and a road joins from the right. There's no 'left' turn as such, so presumably going straight on is not allowed? But topologically, it is no different from the previous case. Consider if the T is not completely straight, and the major road has a slight deviation to the left - does that count as a left-turn?

Anyone got any ideas?

Police Enforce ASL

Yes, you read that right!
This morning as I rode in, at the roundabout on the south side of Lambeth Bridge, there were two cycle-mounted officers in plain view. I asked one of them if they were here to enforce the ASL and the cycle lane, which are usually blocked. "We're giving them [drivers] a talking to" was the response. No fines or 3-point endorsements then. Contrast that with Westminster's rabble-rousing £100 fines for cycling offences.

This location is normally completely blocked up with traffic at that time in the morning rush-hour, but today, for some reason, it was very quiet. Not only was the usual traffic gridlock not in evidence, there were fewer cyclists as well. I have no idea why. So the officers were rather wasting their time...

Active Travel Strategy (more of the same...again)

Government ministers have launched an Active Travel Strategy, aimed at increasing the amount of cycling and walking.
Before you break out the bunting, it says all the usual stuff we know already about how cycling and walking are the key to happy, skinny people and world peace. Unfortunately, having spent all our money on the Iraq War, there's not much left to spend on cycling. And what little there is left for this initiative (£12M) will be spent on cycle training.

Research shows the reason people don't cycle is because of safety concerns. Cycle training is fine, and can make nervous cyclists more confident, but first, you need safe routes for people to cycle. The Active Travel Strategy aims include "Cycle parking at or within easy reach of every public building." In Merton, there is no safe, legal way for me to cycle with my kids to either of the two swimming pools, even though there's plenty of cycle parking at both. It really isn't rocket science! We need to remove the hazards from cycling. We cannot train our way round the problem.

The Active Travel Strategy document gushes on about the progress made in the Cycling Demonstration Towns, in particular Darlington which achieved a 113% increase in cycling modal share. However, you need to dig a little under that headline figure before you conclude that cycling is going to double across the nation thanks to this Strategy.
1. Darlington put in place "infrastructure measures to create a city centre ‘pedestrian heart’ and development of seven radial cycle routes." Where are the infrastructure measures in the national Active Travel Strategy? I found one: "Through Cycling England, DfT is funding 250 safer links to approximately 500 schools". There are about 21,000 schools in England, by the way.

2. Darlington started from a modal share for cycling of 1%. You can't get much lower than that. Even now, it's only 2% (113% of bugger all being not much), which is about the national average, which remember is among the lowest in Europe. You could read the figures another way: it took 3 years of investment to get 1000 more people cycling.

3. Darlington is small and flat. It's only 4 miles across. Why anyone who lives there has a car is a bit beyond me.



Now, I've not seen or ridden the Darlington 'radial routes' so I don't know how good they are. If they're any good, maybe more people in Darlington will 'get it'. But on the other hand, the 113% increase in modal share in terms of the number of people actually cycling is so low, it could be down to the Hawthorne effect.

I've seen too much of this. Central government write a lot of words, and give a small amount of money to a variety of charities who don't have the authority to do anything in terms of infrastructure. Building cycle routes fails at the planning stage, because if you move just one parking space, residents and businesses are up in arms and councils usually cave in. Because the charities cannot build cycle routes, the money gets spent on bike racks, training, marketing, promotional leaflets: anything but the infrastructure that's necessary for long-term change. The Government need to quit writing strategies and start mandating Councils to achieve an increase in modal share for cycling. They need to give them the authority to build proper cycle routes for cyclists, rather than for the convenience of motorists.

Well, guess what, a few people seem to agree with me - take a look at this .

Breathe easy in Kensington and Chelsea?

Kensington and Chelsea are considering raising the parking permit surcharge on diesel cars according to the London Evening Standard.
Diesels generally emit higher amounts of particulates and nitrogen oxides, which are the main cause of London's appalling air quality.
However, diesels also emit 20%-30% less CO2, so any displacement of diesel with petrol vehicles is bleak news for the planet as a whole.

What difference is charging Kensington and Chelsea residents a few quid more to park their cars going to make? Absolutely none, I predict, unless the charge is punitive, which it won't be.

Boris Johnson's decision to postpone the next phase of the Low Emission Zone is part of the problem, as is his decision to scrap six-monthly emissions checks for the huge fleet of black cabs.

The Mayor's draft Air Quality Strategy says "The majority of PM10 emissions from within London come from road transport. A surprisingly high proportion comes from tyre and brake wear, which is difficult to tackle. In central London where the hotspots are, taxis are a particular problem, accounting for 35 per cent of emissions from exhausts". So there's your problem right there then - that'll be the same taxis that are now not facing six-monthly emissions checks.

I'll be taking a closer look at Boris's solution - the Air Quality Strategy - later...

A24 Cycle SuperHighway - to - be

Instead of my usual quiet back-roads commute which I've refined over many years, I decided to brave the main A24 road from Merton into The Smoke today.
The A24 will be one of the first Cycle Superhighways, so I figured I'd do a 'before and after' comparison.

First impressions:
At 8AM, it was busy, but not as busy as I'd expected. It was possible to make fairly good progress, and only a few areas where the traffic was backed up significantly. There's not much parking on the route, and there are a number of bus lanes and the occasional cycle lane.
The main problems are these:
1. My computer clocked it as being about a mile shorter than my usual route, but not much quicker. Bear in mind my usual route is slow, because being on back roads, there is a lot of stop-start due to junctions. The A24 suffers from a huge number of traffic lights (which are all red of course). Because I don't jump them, they were each costing me significant time.
2. It's not pleasant. It is a busy, urban arterial road, 4 lanes of traffic in many stretches. You really wouldn't choose to cycle on it. I can't see that changing even with lots of blue paint...

Car versus Bicycle - relative efficiency

I replaced a headlamp bulb on my car at the weekend. The bulb is a 55W bulb. There are two of them, of course, which makes 110W in total.
The mean power output of a cyclist on the flat stages of the Giro d'Italia is 132W (source). Now, bear in mind these are world-class athletes in a race; your average commuter or club cyclist won't be producing anywhere near that.

In other words, it takes more power just to light a car than it does to power a bicycle.

A typical 1.6 litre petrol engine will produce a maximum power output of around 75KW. Of course, the engine isn't delivering anywhere near its peak output most of the time, but it does give you an idea of how incredibly inefficient cars are for moving people. Even at 1/10th of that power, 7.5KW is still roughly 2 orders of magnitude greater than the 'bicycle engine'.

It's not surprising either, given the physics. An average small-medium car weighs about 1.3 tonnes (1300kg). An average bicycle weighs 13kg. An average reasonably fit person, maybe 75kg. So in a car, 95% of the engine power (and therefore 95% of the fuel) goes on propelling the car rather than the load. That's 5% efficient. Bear in mind the engine is not even 50% efficient, so there is a truly huge waste of energy. Even with a full load of four people with luggage, the efficiency is unlikely to get above 25% (again ignoring engine inefficiencies).

With a bicycle, the ratio is pretty much the opposite. 80% of the power is being used to move the load rather than the vehicle. You could argue that the human body is an inefficient engine, but don't forget a) a completely sedentary driver in a car still needs to eat; b) people need excercise to stay healthy. So the car driver would need to expend the calories that could be used to propel a bike in other ways .

The Strand, WC2

The Strand is a major east-west route between the West End and the City, and in common with Victoria Embankment, it has no cycle lane. It does have a bus lane, so why am I complaining?
Because in the westerly direction, going towards Trafalgar Square, the bus lane is permanently choked with traffic during the day.
Now, you might point out that The Strand is too narrow to accomodate a cycle lane.
Let's take a look..















Above is the view looking east, from Charing Cross Station. There's a wide island in the middle of the road. Plenty of space here then, as there's no pedestrian crossing at this point.

Above, a little further east, still in front of Charing Cross Station. Plenty of room for a righ-turn lane for taxis. It's worth noting that the easbound carriageway is not usually congested - above was taken on a weekday lunchtime.

Here's the view looking east from a point just beyond Charing Cross Staion.Plenty of room here for lots of bins where people can get rid of the free papers they collect on the tube and their hamburger boxes from Mucky D's, plus room for a taxi rank. Bear in mind the station has taxis and is only 10 yards away. Maybe the more obese customers of McDonald's can't walk that far?
Just beyond the taxi rank, you can see a phone box. Who on earth uses phone boxes these days? Well, I suppose they do have a couple of purposes - 1. amusing the tourists; 2. advertising for prostitutes.

Above, further on, another  bin, a  phone box, and a security van parked outside a bank...

 

Above, a little further on, yet another bin, two quaint old phone boxes ...

 

Above, just before Adam Street. Room for another bin, set well back from the kerb, and a couple of shop advertising boards. On the corner of Adam Street, the cafe with the striped awning has tables outside on the pavement.

Now, I'm not suggesting that it would be an easy task to put a westbound cycle lane on The Strand. But I am saying that the argument that 'there's no space' doesn't hold water. There's space for everything, it seems, bar a cycle lane.