tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post2069142526547731879..comments2024-03-18T08:51:07.314+00:00Comments on i b i k e l o n d o n: Is the LCC pro cycle lanes or not?ibikelondonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06978714126105951294noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-89835360373114406782022-05-04T20:22:48.991+01:002022-05-04T20:22:48.991+01:00newssee it here navigate herecheck it out chec...<a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/utility-c-157_158_369/wholesale-louis-vuitton-replica-utility-phone-sleeve-monogram-m80746-p-3745.html%22" rel="nofollow">news</a>see it here <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/fr/messager-c-157_168_223/sac-de-674164-designer-gucci-replica-messenger-avec-verrouillage-g-p-4392.html%22" rel="nofollow">navigate here</a>check it out <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/monogram-c-157_158_241/louis-vuitton-2021-new-monogram-canvas-high-quality-m46112-bags-p-3577.html%22" rel="nofollow">check my blog</a>click tataseighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397350136560499257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-71211331333664185502011-05-27T19:10:09.404+01:002011-05-27T19:10:09.404+01:00Umm... LCC campaigned for years on the London Cycl...Umm... LCC campaigned for years on the London Cycle Network, then the London Cycle Network+. They didn't work out so well. I hope you will understand that when there are so many things one could campaign on that if you keep failing at one aspect it might be a good idea to try something else for a while. Fear of bike theft (in London) is the second biggest reason people cite for not cycling in London. HGVs are the major cause of cyclist fatalities. But of course LCC did come up with proposals for central London 'bike grid' and could campaign on these areas again in the future. Neither the members nor a majority of activists are "hardcore vehicular cyclists". It's a democratic body - get involved if you want to.Mustafa Arifhttp://www.mustafa.arif.me.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-42316078828323886172011-02-01T19:55:37.345+00:002011-02-01T19:55:37.345+00:00@allthatjazz That's exactly what the Cycle Emb...@allthatjazz That's exactly what the Cycle Embassy of Great Britain is aiming for. See my blog post from yesterday! Great minds think alike...ibikelondonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06978714126105951294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-60891038109744700762011-02-01T19:53:52.452+00:002011-02-01T19:53:52.452+00:00Absolutely agreed.
Why don't we set up an org...Absolutely agreed.<br /><br />Why don't we set up an organisation to represent those of us (and those women and their children and older people) who want physically segregated cycle lanes* in London? <br /><br />*not enforced, but equipped with fully segregated facilities all the wayallthatjazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12613349667847671108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-2347099683630293412010-10-25T15:28:25.745+01:002010-10-25T15:28:25.745+01:00Re: cyclists being forced off the road
What about...Re: cyclists being forced off the road<br /><br />What about bus lanes? Buses have their own lanes and they have not been forced off the road, have they? :PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-67129360190544368702010-10-25T12:58:50.976+01:002010-10-25T12:58:50.976+01:00In my view prioritisation at junctions is a major ...In my view prioritisation at junctions is a major issue to be tackled before segregation can really work in the UK. I've explained my thoughts here:<br /><br />http://kenningtonpob.blogspot.com/2010/10/segregation-and-integration.htmlCharlie Hollandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02907483153757193008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-55533002305581357362010-10-25T09:01:57.712+01:002010-10-25T09:01:57.712+01:00I am all up for a brand new organization that woul...I am all up for a brand new organization that wouldn't promote cycling at all. What it would promote though is creating bicycle paths and walking spaces by taking space away from cars. I am very sure that this itself would promote cycling enough. I've been thinking about it for some time now, but I don't have enough experience or knowledge to start anything like this myself, yet "you have my bike" if anyone sets up something like this.ndruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15324118775089929952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-91241962507468265062010-10-22T17:23:47.765+01:002010-10-22T17:23:47.765+01:00Take a look at the LCC’s impoverished notion of ho...Take a look at the LCC’s impoverished notion of how <a href="http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=77" rel="nofollow">the roads must be made more cycle-friendly</a><br /><br />The LCC is quite clear where it stands: <a href="http://lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=230" rel="nofollow">It believes the city’s roads should be made safer and shared by motorists and cyclists.</a><br /><br />Until the LCC gets round to producing a coherent philosophy of how mass cycling in London is to be achieved it will remain <a href="http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2010/02/whats-wrong-with-london-cycling.html" rel="nofollow">an obstacle to mass cycling, not an enabler</a>.freewheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16731932510033958017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-20220371495962142562010-10-22T11:54:27.946+01:002010-10-22T11:54:27.946+01:00@mintea: 'a new approach' - now that's...@mintea: 'a new approach' - now that's an idea.<br /><br />I'm not a creative type, but how about this for starters:<br /><br />'MODE<br />- Dedicated to Cycling and Walking for all.'<br /><br />A new organisation doing exactly what it says on the tin.<br /><br />'New organisation MODE (as in: modal share) was launched today with the sole intention of increasing walking and cycling rates. Tired of poor walking and cycling infrastructure, Mark, one of the founding members, had this to say at the official launch party:....'Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-11224208972389553152010-10-22T10:31:35.376+01:002010-10-22T10:31:35.376+01:00How can people like VéloNdon believe that there is...How can people like VéloNdon believe that there is no room for cycle paths in London, yet believe that there is room in Amsterdam? Has he ever been there? Amsterdam's streets are much much narrower and also there is the little issue of their network of canals. In the centre a lot of places barely have pavements. I would say Amsterdam is actually a MORE difficult city to carve out cycle paths than London. But they did it. They MADE room. And it's not that hard, it is possible to do in London. The belief that it isn't is just wrong and damaging.<br /><br />I'm all for a separate campaign of some kind for segregation if that's what's needed, as it really sounds like the LCC just doesn't get it, for whatever reason. I think it's probably the single most important issue for cycling in Britain. Why cling to an organisation that has so little power anyway? We need a new approach.minteahttp://twitter.com/mintea_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-36000506445816728032010-10-22T10:02:33.610+01:002010-10-22T10:02:33.610+01:00If anybody out there starts an organisation campai...If anybody out there starts an organisation campaigning for Dutch (or Danish:P) style facilities in London I'll join in a second!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-11079294215771113702010-10-22T09:54:04.217+01:002010-10-22T09:54:04.217+01:00Hi anonymous, don't worry, we don't mind a...Hi anonymous, don't worry, we don't mind a little bit of pedenatry here :o)<br /><br />Of course Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark and Amsterdam is in the Netherlands, but what I meant by 'Dutch-style' infrastructure is the sort of bike lane which was pioneered by the Dutch and later copied to great success by Denmark and to a lesser extent Germany. The Dutch did it first and best in my opinion, I merely referred to Copenhagen specifically because of the interview with that city's former Mayor which had appeared in the LCC magazine.<br /><br />Credit where credit is due (and I do understand that there are some differences between their styles of segregated infrastructure) the Dutch-style (as in of the Netherlands) bike paths are the most desirable :o)<br /><br />PS If you're interested in the differences between the two the entertaining piece by David Hembrow 'The Truth about Copenhagen' over on his blog makes for an interesting read!ibikelondonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06978714126105951294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-16614762543839335902010-10-21T22:30:09.399+01:002010-10-21T22:30:09.399+01:00"It's unbelievable isn't it, how can ..."<i>It's unbelievable isn't it, how can it be NO?</i>"<br /><br />Why not? Their stated goal seems to be "to make London a world-class cycling city". That does not have to conflict with a low modal share---although they'd probably have to justify themselves to non-cyclists for promoting cycling as an elitist activity.<br /><br />If you need an organisation that promotes a high modal share in London, perhaps you should start one. (But first, find out what LLC's stance is---no use duplicating their efforts.)Branko Collinhttp://www.tekstadventure.nl/branko/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-81744095185167717042010-10-21T19:27:51.196+01:002010-10-21T19:27:51.196+01:00Hi Mark,
Your article mentions separated bike lan...Hi Mark,<br /><br />Your article mentions separated bike lanes a la Copenhagen and cites an interview with the former Mayor of Copenhagen who says, 'segregation is key to cycling numbers and subjective as well as physical safety.'<br /><br />Which I wholeheartedly believe in... but then you go to say, 'the benefits and potential for *Dutch-style* cycling infrastructure here in London barely get a mention. Hmmm...'<br /><br />Did you mean Danish-style cycling? I wonder because you mention Copenhagen twice; The Netherlands not once.<br /><br />Dutch = of The Netherlands<br />Danish = of Denmark<br /><br />Sorry to be pedantic. Although of course, that great city of cycling, Amsterdam, has segregated cycle lanes and is also Dutch!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-63170272969459244642010-10-21T18:33:23.648+01:002010-10-21T18:33:23.648+01:00Going back to the original question, which was: &#...Going back to the original question, which was: 'Is the LCC pro cycle lanes or not'<br /><br />Well, LLC will say: Yes: "When speeds and volumes of vehicles are high, LCC says separate bicycles and cars.".<br /><br />'speeds and volumes' - I ask you.<br /><br />I think LCC pays lip service to Dutch Model Infrastructure - preferring to focus time and resources on less politically contentious aspects of cycling, like: theft, training, and marketing young girls with flowing locks cycling down a car free street...and so on. Fair enough really - it's what the membership wants.<br /><br />Surely, the question should be re-written: 'Is the LCC pro 30% cycling mode share?'<br /><br />For all the reasons I've pointed out on previous posts, and touched on by people in this thread, the answer has be a resounding: NO. It's unbelievable isn't it, how can it be NO?<br /><br />You can talk and campaign all you want about bike parking, the helmet debate, Bikeability - but none of these have a track record of encouraging large mode share. My view is LCC is either: institutionally pro Vehicular Cycling (in which case we're doomed); or, has simply given up campaigning on the really politically tough issues surrounding Dutch Model Infrastructure (which means we're only 'probably' doomed).<br /><br />Think about it - there's absolutely no-one out there campaigning for segregated infrastructure (apart from Hembrow & freewheeler) - Sustrans isn't really a campaign organisation. Regardless of your stance on the issue, doesn't that strike you as rather odd?Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-82952350362410355822010-10-21T14:31:39.896+01:002010-10-21T14:31:39.896+01:00As ever, words of wisdom from Mr Philip Loy - I su...As ever, words of wisdom from Mr Philip Loy - I suppose, with funding scarcer than ever, that the strength in groups like the LCC will be in it's members so there's one reason to get another. If the campaign *is* (and I'm not saying that it is) overly dominated by people who don't think cycle lanes are a good idea then there's another reason to get involved - we can help to redress the balance somewhat.<br /><br />To start with, I'm going to be writing to LCC, with a copy of this blog post and the comments under, saying it would be great if we could have an article in the next magazine about the strengths and desirability of Dutch-style infrastructure, and offering up my services to their campaigns for the same.<br /><br />Who's with me?!! :o)ibikelondonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06978714126105951294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-20906433529987169052010-10-21T13:46:07.841+01:002010-10-21T13:46:07.841+01:00Apologies for getting hung up on the segregation i...Apologies for getting hung up on the segregation issue!<br /><br />The fact is though, that there is something of an idealogical divide (of which the segregation debate is a symptom) which is one of the problems that WE as cyclists/"people on bikes" have.<br /><br />Without resolution, this is going to hamstring everything we do, irrespective of the best intentions of all parties.<br /><br />Quite right about getting involved though. I look with envy at the Camden Cyclists' website - so much info, the route maps, the campaign history... it makes me want to take part. My only contact with my local organisation - HFCyclists - didn't really encourage me to get further involved. Perhaps LCC membership would be a good place to start.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-23763566746530474602010-10-21T13:18:31.842+01:002010-10-21T13:18:31.842+01:00I would urge anyone who wishes to influence the ca...I would urge anyone who wishes to influence the campaign priorities of groups like London Cycling Campaign to get involved with them! One or two people in this discussion thread I know already are, but more voices being heard, and more active involvement from people will I believe only strengthen groups like LCC in getting the general message across. Now more than ever.Philip Loyhttp://twitter.com/philiploynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-72442625608837714062010-10-21T12:09:32.151+01:002010-10-21T12:09:32.151+01:00Thanks @Sirius7dk @velonlondon and @iswas for join...Thanks @Sirius7dk @velonlondon and @iswas for joining the debate and sharing your opions. It's really good that we can all discuss this at depth, and I think it's worth remembering that outside of cycling circles most people wouldn't even know that this sort of debate exists - most people just have some vague notion of what cyclists 'are' or 'do' in their minds, and that's a weakness. (See my previous post about the need for a cycle lobby)<br /><br />Whilst I value the contributions here I don't want this to become a protracted, possible divisive, debate about the pros and cons of segregation (we're all 2 wheeled brethren here after all!) Regardless of your personal opinions of segregation what I think we can all recognise is that the LCC has said they advocate for cycle lanes and segregation and yet we've heard little about this from them and there's been even less still in their magazine... so... are they or aren't they? That's the big question I'm really trying to get at here (and not to try and divide the cycling camp in any way but to try and promote a discourse about cycle lanes and the Dutch model, which I think it is something worth our having)ibikelondonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06978714126105951294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-63117818023239609652010-10-21T12:07:33.930+01:002010-10-21T12:07:33.930+01:00re the point about compulsory. LCC quite rightly f...re the point about compulsory. LCC quite rightly fought very hard to ensure that the latest Highway Code specifically doesn't insist cyclists MUST use cycle facilities. In the current regime of crap cycle lanes, I think that's reasonable. <br /><br />However, look at Germany. In Germany, you MUST use the cycle provisions. In fact, if you're under 8 you also MUST cycle on the pavement! <br /><br />But in Germany, the cycle provisions aren't a complete joke in the way they are here. In some cities (Cologne) they are pretty bad. In Berlin they are pretty good. But the point is they are all much better than here and so people don't mind using them. Hence, no problem with the legal obligation to use them. <br /><br />We've got the worst of both worlds, though. An impending threat that we might have to use the cycle facilities but absolutely atrocious facilities on the ground. <br /><br />And no sustained representation to local or central government with a consistent message. <br /><br />And I genuinely believe there's no reason that 50% of journeys in the UK couldn't be by bicycle. And what we cyclists need to be doing is working out ways to encourage the 49% of people who don't cycle but might to. LCC and CTC, in my opinion, are focussed too much on the fewer than 1% of us who already put up with the crap road conditions, the unbalanced Highway Code obligations etc...<br /><br />question is really how to make it happen because I don't see it happening by itself. Or is that not fair?cyclelondoncityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00528405781032114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-42757569816525155592010-10-21T11:54:29.047+01:002010-10-21T11:54:29.047+01:00Couldn't disagree more with Velondon.
I could...Couldn't disagree more with Velondon.<br /><br />I couldn't care less about my right to ride on the road to be honest. I don't WANT to ride there. Right now I'm forced to and I don't like it.<br /><br />Do you know, I don't see myself as a motorist and I don't want the law to see me as that either. This seems to me like some sort of inferiority complex. I'm not surrounded by a tonne of steel and I'm happy for that to be acknowledged. I want separate facilities, with priority over the motorists, not to be thrown in to fight it out with them and battle for space. I'm not a pedestrian, and I'm not a car. What's wrong with us being a third type of transport?<br /><br />I also honestly can't comprehend how people can't see that for most people, both the idea and reality of riding alongside motorbikes, buses and taxis is bloody horrible! It's not always dangerous, true, but it's often unpleasant and stressful.<br /><br />We are not all racers who want to weave in and out of traffic, and that's exactly what vehicular cycling means in reality if you want to get ahead on London's streets (which seems to be the major concern). Filter left or right... will I make it... are those lights about to go green... is that car going to turn... should I go to the outside instead... what about the oncoming cars... he's going pretty quickly... oops almost hit by a scooter doing the same thing but FAST...<br /><br />I'm sure for some all that is a buzz but personally, I'd rather relax on the way home!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-9590060895677672032010-10-21T11:04:26.641+01:002010-10-21T11:04:26.641+01:00@ VeloNdon
The only reason that countries such as...@ VeloNdon<br /><br />The only reason that countries such as Denmark and NEtherlands have a cycle culture at all is because they have had a network of segregated bike lanes for years, and those lanes did not come because of the existing culture, but because the governments in the 2 countries realised that oil dependency was not the way forward in the 70ties.<br /><br />Before the car became common, UK, Denmark and Netherlands had the same levels of cycling.<br /><br />Do you read David Hembrow's blog? Read his posts in this link and tell me that there is not enough space in Britain: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/search/label/notenoughspace<br /><br />In Denmark (where I am from) the cycle lanes are not as wide as they often are in Netherlands but you can overtake slower cyclists because they are wide enough for 2 cyclists so old women does NOT slow one down, aand if people are cycling side by side, a simple ring with your bell would make them let you pass. <br /><br />You are afraid that you would lose the right to cycle on the road, but in Denmark there are plenty of paths that are nothing but a painted white lane in the side of the road, and this would be the case in Britain too on some roads depending on the speed of cars.<br /><br />Rasmus JensenSirius7dkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688465574306782024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-81275921340860059462010-10-21T10:35:20.354+01:002010-10-21T10:35:20.354+01:00I guess I'd class myself as a 'vehicular c...I guess I'd class myself as a 'vehicular cyclist' although I think that's a pretty awful phrase to use. A lot of the comments on here seem to be written by people who see themselves as cyclists through the eyes of motorists. I think it's worth pointing out that cyclists have as much (if not more) right to be on the road than cars, after all, drivers have to be licenced for the privilege of using them! Us cyclists have a right to use the road networks - which afterall we all pay for, yet it seems some of us would rather be forced off the roads. Why? So the motorist can have their collective cake? I'm sorry but segregation is a dirty word. Force cyclists off the road, and you are only reinforcing the perception so wrongly held by many motorists, namely that we have no right to be on the roads at all. <br /><br />Now consider that in a city such as London, building seperate paths would prove next to impossible on all but the biggest roads and the problem becomes apparent, it would simply be impossible to build a joined up network, complete with junctions (separate traffic light systems etc), our roads and pavements are too narrow for the most, especially in central London, and the costs would be prohibitive. It's all well and good citing Germany/Holland etc. But these countries have a number of key advantages: Firstly a culture of cycling that has existed for many many years, and secondly more modern cities and road networks, particularly in Germany where WWII bomb damage saw whole swathes of cities rebuilt - so they had wider, purpose built road networks, whereas many London streets where built for a simpler time. We are constrained by our history.<br /><br />Surely it is better to spend our time lobbying for money to be spent on integrated cycle lanes and education, rather than fighting amongst ourselves with the 20mph + roadie slagging off the 10mph urban commuter and vice versa? We're all in this together. Build segregated lanes and we'll all have to use them, and I agree with another poster on this front - I don't want to get stuck behind other cyclists. One of the reasons I took up cycling was to get around London faster than driving or using public transport, and before you jump in here, I'm not talking about racing, or being reckless, or jumping lights or endangering others, but cycling fast where it is safe/possible to do so - especially as this helps me keep fit twice a day, much better than going to a gym. I have no issue whatsoever with slower cyclists, I was one once, and my fiancee still is. But segregate us, and we'll all have to use the same narrow lanes (and they would inevitably be narrow), or if not, the motorists perception will be that we should be. 'Use the bloody cycle path' etc etc, we've all had that shouted at us. That doesn't seem right to me.<br /><br />Cycling in London is not dangerous, this is borne out by statistics. The issue is that people regard it as being dangerous. My fiancee was in that boat, so I worked out a route for her, rode with her a few times and in no time at all she was cycle commuting from Willesden to Tower Hill, via Edgware road and Embankment, two big, busy, fast roads; and you know what? She was fine, she enjoyed it and she was perfectly safe. What new, nervous, scared cyclists need is good advice and support, not separate lanes. The more of us there are on the roads, the more motorists will accept us and show us courtesy. I've been riding in London for 8 years now, and I'm really gratified about the steadying rise in our numbers. We don't need segregating we need including, that's how you bring about a change in culture and perception.<br /><br />Ramble over.VéloNdonhttp://twitter.com/velondonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-47309278528511388152010-10-20T22:17:41.618+01:002010-10-20T22:17:41.618+01:00I'm guessing no-one who isn't so keen on s...I'm guessing no-one who isn't so keen on segregation has never got stuck while filtering, which surely holds most cyclists up more than other cyclists... Obviously narrow cycle routes aren't going to appease speed freaks, so how about semi segregated lanes using traffic cylinders (a bit like under Admiralty Arch, but longer and wider) - that way cars can't enter but you can still move into the main traffic lane to overtake...christhebullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058394246399615754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7129037502516609710.post-44059940959835827112010-10-20T20:11:32.608+01:002010-10-20T20:11:32.608+01:00The comment by the anonymous "totally committ...The comment by the anonymous "totally committed cyclist" above really underscores for me that sometimes cyclists as a group are their own worst enemy.<br /><br />People who run cycling advocacy organizations seem to be generally of the lycra-and-clips type, and when they say they want more cyclists, I truly believe that they envision <i>more cyclists just like them</i>. They use terms like "newbie" to describe riders who roll slower than they do, quite as if with a little more practice the newbs will "graduate" to "real" cycling. <br /><br />With that kind of thinking, it makes perfect sense to advocate for no separated facilities. "What if it makes me have to slow down behind some newbie?" is the wail--what they really mean is what if it makes me have to slow down behind older people, women in skirts, and children on the way to school? What if I have to wait a whole bridge span to overtake one of those "not real" cycllists? What if my average commute time goes down? What will happen to my self-image (or my fitness regimen) then?? Oh nooooo!<br /><br />Until LCC (and other urban bike advocacy groups) change their fundamental perspective on what bike-riding in the city <i>is</i>, they will continue to be blind to the fact that majority of potential bike-riders never want to go fast, or work out, or wear lycra, or clip in. And until then, they'll continue to remain silent on separated facilities, because in their hearts, they really, really don't want to slow down or make way or share the road.<br /><br />In that respect, they're not much different from entitled SUV drivers, they just consume less fuel.Annehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13943854290539335426noreply@blogger.com