Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
How the Dutch got their cycle paths
Worth spending 7 minutes of your time to find out how and why the Dutch built their famous cycle networks
Tags for Forum Posts: cycling
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
The cycle "lanes" we have now are a token compromise that is next to useless. The painted lane markings afford no real and little sense of protection from motorised traffic. I feel much safer on my motorcycle than I would on a bicycle.
The Dutch have come up with the ideal solution which is physically seperate, dedicated cycle lanes. It is hard to retrofit lanes into a cramped ancient city like London but I think its also true that there exists no political will to do it.
I seem to remember that one of the grand projects mooted for the Millenium celebration was a national network of cycle ways that would cost a billion pounds. Instead, that sum went into the long-time white elephant of the Dome (sold off cheaply to become the O2). It benefitted London only and some politicians' egos.
How much better if that huge sum of our money had been spread more widely into the lasting benefit of a national cycle network.
-
-
... and some of the huge building works associated with the Olympic games – as with every Olympics – are destined to become white elephants. Once again, we see (as small part of) London favoured, and with big building contracts.
If the games finish without a terrorist incident we can all breathe a sigh of relief, but the debts and disused facilities will be there for a long time.
Part of the rationale for the Olympics is to foster interest in sport. But this is largely a spectator activity.
Again, how much better if monies had been invested in a national network of cycle ways that would help keep the populace healthy – not just for three weeks!
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Hewitt on
-
I couldn't agree more with Clive - especially the part about the sad lack of political will.
Although it is hard to fit physically separate lanes in London, it is not impossible. Amsterdam is an old, crowded city with many narrow streets too. It seems to manage it. It also does much more to restrict motor speeds on narrow residential streets where bikes and cars do have to share space. Here, Haringey Council has taken some action, but sadly doesn't favour a blanket 20 zone as in Islington.
I think one of the biggest things standing in the way of a usable network of uninterrupted segregated cycle lanes is the amount of on-street car parking we allow. Often both sides of our roads, many times in bus lanes, sometimes even on our pavements!(I'm a driver, pedestrian and wobbly cyclist, to declare my interests.)
In some cases, these parked cars would need removing to create the space required. This would not be an immediate vote winner, I have to admit! But in the long term, as behaviour and commuting habits adjust to the possibilities offered by a safe comprehensive cycle network, I think clearing space for cycles would bring about a much more equitable and efficient use of our streets. It'd also cut congestion for those who continue to drive, reduce the air pollution that exacerbates our kids' asthma, and give the slightly older ones the freedom to get around independently in safety - freedom which has been lost in recent decades.
The question is, who among our politicians is brave and far-sighted enough to get the ball rolling?
-
-
the sad lack of political will [to more promote cycling in London]
Meanwhile, here is how Germany shows the way forward:
The rise of the bike follows a decision by the [Berlin] city senate in 2005 to promote it.
It seems to me that London could learn from the Berlin example
.
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
I got red ears Clive..
I'm not a fan of Stephen Evans' reports but he's right when he says:
I have cycled in London but gave it up after too-many rants at a white van. But in Berlin, it is a joy. Firstly, the city is pretty flat, and secondly, there are endless cycle tracks.
Thirdly, everybody has a bike - so car-drivers are probably also cyclists in their other lives and so keep their eyes wide open.
-
Permalink Reply by JJ B on
-
It is not hard to retrofit cycle lanes in London at all. The city lends itself perfectly to these. The hard part is the attitude of the 'people in charge' who refuse to take the hard but necessary decisions and squeeze more cars off the road.
I spent two weeks in Eindhoven on a course two years ago and 'commuted' 25 minutes on a bike every day to school, along with the many, many, others including families with todlers, 'grannies' and 'granpas', going about their everyday business. The family I stayed with had a car and a garage which they used regularly too. I would never do that in London because it is too dangerous.
In Holland, one of the most densley populated countries in Europe, with large connurbations, the reflexes i.e not organising every trip around the car, are just different because the physical space of the urban built environment uses a different model.
There are no cycle lanes in London except some parts of Camden. I am fed up of the hypocrisy of the people in charge of London telling us that they are building cycles lanes. Why is it so hard to achieve progress here when the solutions exist and have been tested years ago! They are not innovative (see the video).
It is the same with the removal of the bendy buses. These buses were a real advance for people who need more space on the bottom floor of the bus so that they can stand comfortably with their groceries WITHOUT competing with the "pushy chair" mums and others for space - not all of us are 'priority seat' needers. Ok, the bendies had their issues but instead of sorting the issues out, a retrograde step was made to replace them. Now, on a route like the 29 bus we will need twice as many buses to fill the void left by 1 bendy. Cylists will still be killed by trucks turning left and there will not be more space on the road for cars because we will have 2 buses where before we had 1.
We need in situ, segregated, cycle lanes to get the population on their bikes. Car usage will go down, city centres will need to provide for less car-centric shopping habits, petrol use will go down along with carbon emmissions, town dwellers will be healthier, etc, etc. This is not revolutionary thinking!
PS I am a member of well known car club.
-
-
The only instance in Haringey I can think of that is closest to a separate cycle lane, is a relatively short stretch of Stroud Green Road, under the Finsbury Park railway bridge. For a about one or two hundred metres, there is:
- Pedestrian pavement
- Cycle way
- Parking (!)
- Roadway
This is as good as it gets. The cycle way is on a slightly different (lower) level than the pavement, but it is not sufficiently separate. I doubt I'm the only person nearly bowled over by cyclists, by briefly stepping onto the cycle way to pass other pedestrians. There needs to be more separation.
The ideal cycle way is the "green field" type. The only ways I can see to retrofit them in a relatively narrow street is to reduce parking, to narrow the road lanes and do away with dual road lanes. There must be more roads where this is feasible?
The paint solution (including the large cycle boxes at some intersections) is not a solution.
-
-
If anyone fancies getting involved in the protesting (which seemed to be a key ingredient in the film above) before the Mayoral elections in May the above site was circulated by the Islington cycle action network
also some info from Bikes alive group action:
Many of you will have heard of the death of a cyclist at King's Cross recently, and the emergence -- via a Freedom of Information request --- of a report that TFL commissioned which concluded that under the present design of that area 'deaths are inevitable'.
The group Bikes Alive are staging a protest on Monday that may be of interest -- details are below:As you might have seen from the announcement that went up on the Bikes Alive website last night, the next pre-announced Bikes Alive action of organised self defence against the violence of motor traffic is at Kings Cross, from 6pm to 7pm on Monday 23 January (seebikesalive.wordpress.com for more details).
Cyclists and others will again forcibly, but non-violently, calm the traffic at Kings Cross for an hour - both in opposition to Transport for London's policy of prioritising vehicle speed above the safety, health, and sanity of everyone else on the streets, and also in opposition specifically to the lethal nature of the roads at Kings Cross, where changes currently being made by TfL will actually make matters worse.
-
-
TODAY, The Times newspaper has launched a campaign to improve the safety of cycling in Britain's towns and cities.
Their front page comprises a single story, "Save our cyclists"
A young Times journalist remains unconscious after an accident with a truck three months ago.
-
-
The editorial of the Times on Friday contained a shocking statistical comparison. More British cyclists have been killed in the last 10 years than British soldiers KIAin Iraq and Afghanistan.
Anyone interested in this subject may be interested to see Friday's Times where cycle safety was again their front page story.
A double page spread with large graphic illustrates the hazards that exist currently, including the inadequacy of cycle lanes. It also describes a list of improvements, both static and on trucks, that might lower the terrible toll of deaths and injuries. One example is kerbs for cycle ways.
I ride a motorcycle and have done so, so far without accident. For a host of reasons I feel much safer on that 500cc machine, than I would riding a bicycle in London.
I would happily ride a bicycle in London, but only if the conditions could be made safer.
.
-
-
The Times campaign is most welcome. One of the things it's asking people to do is write to their MP asking them to back its eight point plan.
That led me to wonder about Lynne Featherstone's views on cycling. As she's a Lib Dem I expected she'd be keen to see cycling encouraged (her Lib Dem colleague Caroline Pidgeon at the GLA has asked Boris some very pointed questions about TfL's cycling safety failings). But I found an old blog posting from Lynne in which she was attempting to stir up animosity towards cycling on Parkland Walk. TfL had been offering funding to improve its surface, but Lynne was aghast that it was coming from TfL's cycling budget. She christened the plan a "cycling speedway", to play on walkers' concerns that they'd be knocked over by dangerous cyclists.
I was really disappointed about this attitude. A smooth surface and a wider pathway would surely improve safety and reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, the vast majority of whom are well mannered enough not to go careering into the back of joggers and mums pushing prams. I'm not calling for the whole walk to be smothered in tarmac. I get that it's a nature reserve.
Her populist pandering could have wider consequences than the scaling back of improvements to Parkland Walk. If the local authority knows that it's likely to be pilloried, petitioned and FOI'd by the local MP every time it suggests any works that might benefit cycling levels in the borough, what's its incentive for proposing any decent infrastructure improvements at all?
-
-
Agree Matt. I think in connection with the Parkland Walk and cycling, Lynne was misguided. It seems to me this is exactly the kind of thing that needs encouragement.
BTW, when I referred to the Times leader comparing cycling fatalities to soldier deaths, I meant to mention the Times claims that the figure for cyclists is double the number of war-zone casualties in the last 10 years. Something must be done.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
