Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Haringey Left Behind (Again) as Hackney Announce Plans for Segregated Cycle Track for Green Lanes

Image: geograph.org

While Haringey Council faffs around with its almost universally unpopular scheme to divert traffic from Crouch End to Harringay, Hackney Council is getting on with the real work of creating a transport system fit for the future.

Hackney Council has announced that it wants to transform its section of Green Lanes to make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians. The proposals include adding a cycle track between Newington Green and Manor House, as well as narrowing roads to reduce traffic speed, "floating bus stops" and raised continuous pavements.

Hackney Transport chief Cllr Jon Burke said: "Green Lanes forms a key route for people travelling in the borough, but at the moment it's a hostile environment dominated by cars. We want to transform it for walking and cycling, so we can encourage more people to travel cheaply and sustainably, improving the quality of London's toxic air and reducing our reliance on polluting vehicles. I'd urge people to have their say on the proposals."

Subject to consultation, the scheme would be delivered in two phases. This consultation relates to the first phase of proposals between Petherton Road and Woodberry Grove.

Consultation on a second stage will take place later this year.

The Council says it is relying on funding bids for the project, so if it doesn't achieve full funding it would have to carry out the work in stages.

View the plans at consultation.hackney.gov.uk/streetscene/green-lanes.

Views: 2202

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"Cycle lanes are pointless and have made London even worse for transport. "

What does worse mean, and evidence please.

Before you start, there are bike lanes on approximately 2% of London's roads. Where they are installed, they move more people than before, according to TfL.

"If cyclists want a better experience with motorists they are going to have to change their culture and meet motorists halfway somehow"

What does this mean? Be specific, please. What do you want me to do such that you won't drive your car at me when you see someone else wearing lycra? Bearing in mind I obey the highway code, rigorously and bearing in mind there's no secret society of people on bikes who collude with each other to make people in cars angry. Please, I'm all ears.

Wow!

“reducing the holding capacity of say half a mile of roadway essentially to cater to bicycle transport”

already concession for bikes to use the bus lane along the complete stretch of road”

“punishing the motorist”

“so new cyclists feel that we don't have to carve up the already limited road space to cater to their needs”

“Riding two abreast whilst adorned in Tour de France style clothing having a chat because they can”

Your attitude helps explain why the Dutch took the decision they took to make it national policy and give bikes equal status in the transport equation, especially in urban areas where it has become a great mode of transport. Read the article in the link....

No one suggested turning the motorways into cycle lanes! But You put all the onus on the cyclists.

I spent some time in Eindhoven and cycled every day, 20 minutes to and from school (as a very mature 50something year old. It was a bliss. The town centre has very little space for cars but is car accessible where it is necessary, especially for deliveries and disabled access.

The family I stayed had with a car and each family member had a bike which was insured. They used their car to go and do big shops or for intercity travel and to go on holiday. But day to day 'commuting' was so pleasant because cyclists ARE NOT COMPETING with cars.

There is no way I would cycle down a bus lane in London or on the busy city roads although the distance to my work place in Kings Cross is very doable. Just too many kamikaze drivers, not the majority but enough for it to be scary. I've seen how some lorry drivers drive. I regularly observe how the buses I am sitting in are right up on the back of the cyclists in the bus lane.

In Holland it is not just the adults between 18 and 60 that cycle. Youngsters go off to school on their bikes....Pensioners go out on their bikes. There are huge bike parks at the major train stations so people can use public transport without having to live next to a train station. Yet the Dutch own and use cars too.

When the London ULEZ comes in, road pricing and running a privately owned car becomes so prohibitively expensive, the bike as a privatemeans of transport will return to its heyday and everyone will just have to fall in.

Read that article. Unless you were just being unneccessarily provocative...

Read the article in the link....
I've read it and was very impressed. It does in some scant way back up some of the things I was trying to comment on, i.e. from a motorists perspective we have to learn how to respect cyclists. And from a local authority and lawmaker perspective make changes to enable this so it doesn't pit motorist against cyclist like what we have now, with some half thought out concession that doesn't really help the cyclist that much.

When the London ULEZ comes in, road pricing and running a privately owned car becomes so prohibitively expensive

This saddens me, mainly because the cost to the average man going about his own business is going to be crippling, and secondly the money generated will not go towards improving the harmony on the roads, it will just be swallowed up and spent on useless things like rainbow coloured zebra crossings.

Read that article. Unless you were just being unneccessarily provocative...

Absolutely not, I would like to have a healthy debate and you have provided some good points of view that I agree with. How do we go about implementing these things and leave behind the cars are bad bikes are bad slanging match is my goal here.

One example of a bad cyclist (and yes they exist) vs the day in day out experience of bad car, van, lorry drivers who, for example:

1) Aren't able to obey a speed limit (though obviously there is little chance of being prosecuted, and the cameras have to be bright yellow so that drivers know where they are - and where they aren't)

2) Are apparently unable to indicate properly - it's mirror, indicate, manoeuvre, not the more commonly used 'start manoeuvre, maybe indicate if I feel like it, what's a mirror' (I suspect no one is every prosecuted for this, but it is very dangerous).

3) Park on double yellow lines (as routinely seen on Green Lanes - it appears that BMWs, Audis etc are not subject to parking restrictions).

The stats show that the cars & other motor vehicles are the source of the vast majority of injury & death among all road users (including pedestrians), but somehow it is socially & practically permitted for large numbers of drivers to drive dangerously through speeding, lack of indication etc.

Even if you are a pedestrian on a pavement, you are far, far more likely to be killed by a motor vehicle than a cyclist:

"New analysis of 15 years of road collision data in England, Scotland and Wales, revealed that 548 pedestrians have died in collisions on pavements or verges – roughly 40 a year – between 2005 and 2018. 

Most were killed by drivers who lost control of their vehicles through dangerous driving, momentary inattention, inexperience, or a medical episode, all with devastating consequences. Six of those – around 1 per cent – were killed in collision with cycles....

the oldest and youngest in society are disproportionately killed by drivers on pavements, with 28.1 per cent of pedestrian deaths of under-fives occurring on pavements....

By far the highest number of pedestrian fatalities, 104, were among those over age 75. Older people are potentially less able to get out of the way of out of control drivers, and are less likely to survive being hit."

See https://www.citymetric.com/transport/think-roads-are-dangerous-some...

Firstly, cars are allowed to park on double yellow lines, blue badge holders can park if it's safe to do so and there are no kerb markings.

As I alluded to before we can spend all day tit for tat recalling stories, and in your case even singling out specific car makes to make our points.

I think we all know that motor vehicles cause unnecessary harm and deaths but my question is do you think penalising every motorist and appearing to want to force them onto two wheeled transport is the solution?

Or would you much prefer better policing of the roads and a compromise of both motorists and cyclists to share the road in a better way?

Sounds like the second car should have been paying more attention if they've managed to plough hard into the back of a car and caused massive damage in slow moving traffic.

I don't identify as a cyclist any more than as a driver, public transport user or pedestrian. They're all ways that I get around and I'll opt for whatever is most appropriate.

Cycle lanes are pointless and have made London even worse for transport. 

What metric are you using here? How are you defining transport? Cycle lanes are carrying more passengers per square metre than a standard road for instance which seems an improvement.

If cyclists want a better experience with motorists they are going to have to change their culture and meet motorists halfway somehow

There isn't some giant cycling community any more than there's a driving community (unless of course you're saying that all drivers need to take responsibility for the culture of speeding, driving whilst on mobiles, jumping red lights, driving on pavements, insurance fraud, etc).

There are bad drivers out there and there are bad cyclists. Generally though bad drivers are hugely more likely to cause death or serious injury than bad cyclists and that's why I'd focus on training/awareness for the drivers. I want it to be evidence based whereas you are relying on anecdotes.

I don't know how we get from "bicycle infrastructure is bad because it leaves less room for cars"

to

"people who choose to use bicycles to get around are responsible for other road users appalling sense of lethal entitlement towards them and by the way what about their wacky clothing", but here we are.

Attitudes like yours, when I am 100% law abiding about my behaviour on the road, are what gets me punished just for being on the road, on a bike, in front of someone in a motor vehicle. Close passed every day. Yelled at for, I don't know, being in front of someone. My wife as well. All we want to do is get to work safely, get to the shops. We're not responsible for other people. If you can't control your anger towards vulnerable road users, you should hand in your licence.

You kind of mangled my comments to make your point. I only mentioned the Tour de France clothing to illustrate my point that it wasn't usually the common or garden cyclist but more the case the cycle club members who have a real problem with sharing the road. You may not agree with me but I've seen it many times, I've even seen a swarm of riders descend on a car that clumsily overtook, presumably totally frustrated at the lack of common sense and manners even though we all know "they have every right" to ride two and 3 abreast at a walking pace. If the reverse were applied and every motorist ensured no cyclist could overtake or undertake in queuing traffic by hugging the kerb and the white line alternately I'm sure cyclist would feel equally frustrated. 

No one wants to punish anyone really, I think everyone using the road just wants everyone else to use it with a mutual amount of respect. Every car driver who drives too close to a cyclist chips away at that respect and every cyclist who does something equally disrespectful does the same.

How do we address this is the question? 

Your cyclists being 'disrespectful' are slightly inconveniencing motorists.

The driver passing a cyclist too closely physically endagers them.

Where's the equality in that?

I cycle to work in jeans, shoes and a shirt (if it's cold, a jumper and gloves), it makes no difference to how motorists treat you. It's not about the clothing and there is no such thing as group responsibility - cyclists are not some secret cabal that behave the way they do because of an agreement. Ditto motorists.

I agree with you, stop building cycle paths in London. Enforce the 20mph speed limit with the same vigour that I see the City of London police enforcing the red lights for cyclists and price vehicle journeys according to the externalities that they force upon the citizens. There is already great cycling infrastructure in London, it's just monopolised by myopic car drivers.

Okay got it, maybe just set aside your thoughts about recreational or club cyclists, this is a conversation about segregated lanes, about enabling utility cycling.

To be clear though, the "reverse situation" you mooted is, in fact, what is so; people in cars impede my progress on a bike every day. Hundreds of them, in every direction, clogging up the roads. It can sometimes be impossible to get past, there are so many.

As for the idea of respect and punishment, I want to see drivers punished more often. They are on the road only by licence, where pedestrians and people on bikes have a right to use the space, and yet are consistently reminded that they are second class citizens, subject to a careless lethal entitlement enabled by near non-existent enforcement. i don't know what to say about respect; it won't keep me safe.

Here are some facts, as my final word;

Outcomes of a Met Police christmas drug & drink driving campaign in London;

DrinkDrive 1,452 tested. 297 failed or refused test (20.5%)

DrugDrive 179 tested. 94 failed. (52.5%)

https://twitter.com/SuptAndyCox/status/1232324445659897857?s=20

There are 14 hit and runs a day in London. Just London, every day.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38063443

DfT and TfL tell us that around 80% of drivers in 20mph zones are breaking that limit.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/eighty-per-cent-of-driver...

5 people die every day after being driven into; their deaths go unnoticed by newspapers.  It's estimated that motor vehicles are involved in 99.4% of collisions in which a pedestrian dies, and yet here is today's headline about a person killed by someone speeding, on a probably illegal e-bike;

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/26/cyclist-mowed-killed-pe...

Note the language; "Cyclist mowed down and killed pedestrian". Note also the language used when a car kills a person; we will be told "the car lost control" "the car was speeding" "the car collided with the pedestrian". There never seems to be anyone driving the car, the truck, whatever.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/12/news-journalism-traf...

Speaking of pedestrians, 6 a month are killed by cars on the pavement. ON THE PAVEMENT.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/pedestrians

RSS

Advertising

© 2022   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service