Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Is Cycling as Mass Transport on its Way to Haringey?
Image: Courtesy of Skycyle - published under fair use
With bikes now accounting for 24 per cent of all road traffic in central London during the morning peak and 16 per cent across the whole day, TfL's new Cycling Design Standards Policy has declared that cycling is to be considered mass transport in London. How quickly will this translate into the Haringey context?
The TfL policy begins with the words “Cycling is now mass transport and must be treated as such”. The effect of the policy means that councils in London are now starting require developers to integrate this approach into their development plans. A growing number of high profile examples are regularly cited.
I wonder how this policy is being translated into the local context, across Haringey in general, but more specifically within Harringay. Is it part of the requirements being placed on the St Ann's developers or those planning the huge development by Hornsey Station? Does anyone know?
Whether Haringey is at the cutting edge or trailing behind, what seems almost certain is that we can expect some Amsterdamification over the coming years. Transport for London figures show that cyclists now make 570,000 trips in London every day compared with 290,000 trips in 2001. And, looking ahead, the mayor’s “cycle vision” aims to sustain the cycling boom by increasing cyclist numbers by 400 per cent from 2001 to 2026.
Over the coming few years, a tube network for the bike is envisaged with the development of a system of Dutch-style bike lanes and in n 2016, an east-to-west "cycling crossrail" will open.
More locally, the Cycle Enfield scheme, also known as 'mini-Holland', saw Enfield Borough Council gain £30million from London Mayor Boris Johnson to improve cycle lanes in the borough.
It may well be that we'll begin to see things changing in Haringey soon too. New Council traffic supremo Stuart MacNamara is a keen cyclist and has been spending time looking at how cycling provision can be improved in the borough. As a man with something of a reputation for putting action above political gaming, those in the know are allowing their expectations to to see change coming.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on
-
I don't deal with stated preferences. That's subjective.
How do you quantify careless?
-
-
Cool. I do not respect your claim to be objective. History shows a marked tendency of the "objective" observer to find what they expect to find. That's my point.
Still more than happy to consider the facts and data sets, should you wish to offer the source rather than just your "objective" interpretation.
-
-
I refer to the same science that built the computer upon which you type. Your cognitive dissonance is not fair to either of us.
Anyway - if you want to see evidence on air quality, accidents, deaths, economics, etc etc, you don't need me - it's freely available. If you need links let me know.
I assure you things are not in favour of the cyclist in london. Still it's nice that you are happier with the 2-wheeled experience.
-
-
-
"Anyway - if you want to see evidence on air quality, accidents, deaths, economics, etc etc, you don't need me - it's freely available. If you need links let me know.
I assure you things are not in favour of the cyclist in london."
Ah, so to paraphrase, you have plenty of facts therefore I should trust your assertion.
And you've moved the goalposts from "improvement" to "in favour". If someone claimed things were "in favour" of cyclists I admit I missed it. I only ever said I thought things had got better. -
-
-
Ooo, Dan comes back with a late edit!
I define "careless" as a driver is statistically more likely to be at partial or total fault in an accident that injures a cyclist than they were 10 years ago, after rebalancing for the number of cyclists on the road.
-
-
No worries.
How do you control for weather, day/time, congestion, etc? How are you drawing a causal link?
I re-iterate the causal links in the datasets I have given as examples. Sure more people are cycling. That's true. And?
(last minute edit nice to meet you!)
-
-
-
Causal link as determined by the DoT cause of accident stats.
Control for weather, day/time, congestion etc should not be needed given the sample size we are taking about (1 yr DfT London road accident stats for most recent year vs 1 yr 10 years ago).
Btw you haven't yet given any data sets as examples so I'm assuming the Dft data as they are publicly available and do break down accidents by fault. -
-
-
You need to look up how you define causal. Just because it's a large sample means nothing. And then look up statistical bias. Unless congestion has no effect on whether or not people are in your words 'careless'. Or perhaps weather doesn't affect 'carelenessness'. or can't be local.
How do you define 'fault'? Who the policeman whistles at first? This is a stated preference
Here are some of those datasets - I did promise. Not one there for 'fault' or 'carelessness' - yet much is stated pref.
http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&...
http://data.gov.uk/dataset/gb-road-traffic-counts
I am not going to waste any more time with someone who is more focused on being right than addressing the matter at hand. That is unless the air quality/accident/etc data is wrong.
-
-
-
What a shame Dan. This was shaping up into a really interesting conversation.
I understand bias. As I'm asking about increase/decrease in the same datset over time the systematic bias should net out, including "who the policeman whistles at first".
As to congestion and weather, of course they will affect "carelessness" but I'm not asking what causes carelessness, I'm asking about the frequency that driver carelessness, of any cause, causes accidents. The cyclist doesn't care that the driver A hit them because they were dazzled by the sun or that driver B was trying to negotiate congestion. The cyclist just cares that drivers A and B weren't driving safely in the given conditions. What is relevent is if these second order causes are cyclical, which is why I proposed using annual data sets.
You see, this could have been really interesting. It's such a shame you didn't stop after your fourth paragraph. I'm afraid that after reading your fifth paragraph, I suggest you need to look up projection.
-
-
-
I very much welcome this. I feel there is still too little consideration from the side of car users and pedestrians. People simply don't look out for bikes and walk on the road, open the car door without looking and overtake and turn suddenly. It doesn't help that some bike lanes stop erratically, need to pass dangerously narrow lanes fringed by lampposts (eg the one on Green Lanes beside Fini Park) or are full of parked cars. I think we still have a long way to go. I say this also from the side of cyclists-there are much too much inconsiderate ones. Maybe a rule like in my home country that you can loose your driving license for any traffic offence (not just in a car) would help. Or introducing a number plate like in CH. on the other side we want to make cycling easier, not harder , don't we?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
People can't remember the registration plates put on cars, it's pointless putting them on cycles.
If I sit in Bun & Bar and watch the traffic, every red light heading south after the orange has a car going through it and accelerating! Some drivers are as bad as some cyclists, more so because they are in vehicles that weigh many tons and accelerate very fast.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
