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 Itsjono on
-
CS1 is a joke, the dogleg on to St Anns Rd is a death trap where cyclists will be expected to cross a narrow road where in my experience traffic is either queuing or rushing to and from the lights.
It has been sent that way because Hackney council don't want CS1 going down the A10; it doesn't mesh with their policy of incremental changes. http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/hackney-blocking-cycle-superhighway-...
I think they believe their own press in that Hackney's high modal share is talked up a result of the council's design interventions such as the filtering around De Beauvoir, which is great, really wonderful, don't get me wrong. But I really believe what set Hackney up for an explosion in bike use was the July 7 bombings. I was living in Bethnal Green and literally overnight I saw the streets flooded with bicycles in a borough which is very flat, has lots of young people on lower incomes, and (before the Overground) crappy/no trains. And the hipsters and couriers cruising around on fixies didn't hurt either .
So Hackney council are patting themselves on the back and ruining CS1 for everyone, when it could go straight through Stamford Hill, and then as a contra-flow to the far end of the Stoke Newington High St gyratory. After that I dunno, I'm not a planner, but it's beyond disingenuous of them to claim there is no room.
-
-
I think you are being far too easy on Haringey by placing all the blame for the CS1 debacle on Hackney. I agree that a backstreet route is less than optimal, but whoever was charged with designing this in Haringey hasn't even bothered to make the backstreet alternative safe and inviting. The quiet roads are ok per se but the problem with this route and all the others across this borough is that they are stitched together with very busy and dangerous-feeling roads. So CS1 proposes cycling from one low traffic 'filtered' road onto another via (for example) St Anns road, with no effort at all made to provide safe space on this busy road. The same on Philip Lane where narrow, painted 'advisory' lanes are suggested. Fancy letting your kids/granny ride here? No thanks! If CS1 goes ahead in this form it will be a complete failure and yet another wasted opportunity.
-
-
Ha, no, not at all, Haringeys contribution I've already moaned about elsewhere; the cycle path running past a tube entrance! The trees! Why are there trees? I guess they are like "yeah it's just some bikes, how hard can it be?" Whereas Hackney seem to be actively working against the routes effectiveness. What a dream team!
Yes, I think the question of whether you would be happy for families to ride it should be a benchmark for bicycle infrastructure. A route where a less confident rider gets stranded because they can't cope, don't feel safe, whatever, well it's failed, we get no new cycle users and a ton of money is wasted because confident riders will continue to ride where they want.
Apparently CS1 has been getting publicity in Denmark. The shame! -
-
-
Cycling requires a greater degree of concentration because Haringey (and other) Council's outdated road engineering practices continue to prioritise the movement of motor vehicles over people. It doesn't have to be like this - we could have streets where anyone could ride a bike if they wanted to, and where walking was safer and more pleasant.
We all need to ask our elected representatives and others why this is the case, why the movement of motor vehicles through neighbourhoods trumps the needs of those who live there, why Haringey gets the worst designed cycle 'superhighway' in the whole of London (so bad it's been noticed in Denmark), why people here are denied the opportunity for cheap, convenient, healthy travel (in a borough where only one in five people meet recommended levels of physical activity). I don't doubt the value of cycle training to individuals, but it should really be no more than a coping strategy, rather than a solution. Training currently seems to be used as an excuse for councils to not make the physical changes to the road environment that would allow everyone to cycle in safety, not just the quick and the brave who are prepared to get trained to deal with the inhospitable roads as we now find them.
(By the way not having a pop at you Andrew, just a general rant!)
-
-
Hi Itsjono
Replying specifically to " I have considered the level 3 Bikeability course, but honestly I'm doubtful about the benefit to me. I make myself as visible as possible with lights, positioning and velocity, I expect that I haven't been seen, and anticipate. I know how and when to take primary; I join the traffic stream through intersections; I shoulder check; I indicate; use situational awareness; filter slowly; eyeball drivers on side roads; I don't automatically take the ASL; I don't take gaps through moving vehicles; watch parked cars for tyre movements or brake lights; I use my lights during the day; place myself in a driver's mirrors. Keep away from the door zone. Jesus, it's exhausting reading that, but I can't afford to relax too much in the face of so much indifference to my existence....The assertion that a cycle safety course would sprinkle magic dust over the experience of any vaguely competent and confident person on a bike is, I believe, demonstrably wrong. I'm not saying such courses shouldn't exist, I'm not saying some nervous riders may not get some benefit from them..."
I suppose the first question is "how often do you see a vaguely competent and confident person on a bike?". Look at the list of considerations you give and tell me honestly what proportion of the other cyclists you see do the same, vs the number riding in door zones, filtering to get to the front of every light regardless whether they can see that there's space, overtaking buses by squeezing between the lanes, etc. Already that's telling you there's a lot of people out there, experienced or not, who could really do with some good advice.As it happens, I had been commuting by bike in London for 5 or 6 years, plus 5 years outside London before that, before I took cycle training. As an experienced cyclist, I was interested in cycle training for two reasons - (1), because I was recommending it to new cyclists as a way to learn exactly the sort of skills that come with experience so I thought I should put my money where my mouth is, and (2) because I wanted an impartial assessment of my standard of riding and to get some advice for tackling big, multi-lane junctions like Minories and Nag's Head.
Like you, I had already made the effort to find out and follow good practice, and like you I wasn't sure they would have much else to teach me. Before booking anything, I spoke to some cycle trainers to ask them whether training would be appropriate. They explained that because it is one-on-one, they can tailor the lesson to whatever the client wants (or needs) to focus on, even down to practicing specific roads or junctions where the trainee encounters problems to see if there are techniques that could help.
On the impartial assessment side, the instructor told me that (like you) I was already doing pretty much what I should be in terms of road positioning, awareness etc. What we focussed on was actively negotiating with drivers.
Absolutely this makes a huge difference- for example I hardly ever need to wait for a safe break to change lanes any more, someone almost always creates one for me.
As a side effect, I spend more time being aware of the good and considerate drivers out there than the bad ones, which makes the commute feel less like a warzone.
I'm not saying rogue drivers don't exist, of course they do. But it is possible to manage your interactions with drivers so that most of the time you interact with the good ones not the bad ones. Sometimes I still have bad experiences, of course, but generally it's because I anticpated the risk but for some reason (lazyness, impatience, anger, bloodymindedness) chose to let it happen anyway, whereas before it felt like it was just unavoidable because "grrrrr, drivers!"
None of this is to say that better cycling practice will magic away any risk to cyclists. Like all road users we are at risk from poor driving and I absolutely agree with you that far more should be done to enforce acceptable standards on the road users with the greatest capacity to kill and injure. But to assume that only novice cyclists will get any benefit from cycle training is demonstrably wrong.
-
-
If I could do my commute across north London on one of these I definitely would. My route and indeed our borough is unlikely to see any segregation; Sustrans are going to splash some paint around, and announce "there's your Quietways, now stop complaining, a bit of paint never hurt anyone, off you toddle" and spend the rest of the £120,000,000 on lolz.
It's a commuter route is all, not for sight-seeing or going to the shops. It might seem fancy, but it's actually quite practical.
-
-
Hi Hugh. 24% of all morning road traffic? I will re-iterate the words 'all' and 'road traffic'. So that's ~1 in 4 of all road vehicles are now bicycles. Or something like that.
As a cyclist, I dream of such take up - but I fear this number is perhaps an outlier stat rather than a mean.
I do however take umbrage with superlative reports such as this. First and foremost (I think which has been alluded to below) cycling has not changed much in my 14 years pedaling the roads of london. Sure there are nicer more bike-friendly places to go, but this is not the commute, the main issue. I have not seen any change in the road conditions for the journey to work. Apart perhaps from more cyclists. A lot more.
Haringey have done nothing of any note for travel in the borough - apart from demonstrations of the best intentions by lower racked officers (who are very capable of managing change and must be frustrated). Smarter travel is based on nothing more than selectively bias surveying work and stated preference data, which carries no evidence validity. In short, it's a waste of money. Unless there's a causal effect that I am yet to see.
Cycling is dangerous for me and my children here. I personally don't see that changing any time soon. Getting big things done, which might upset car drivers, is a long way away for LBH.
The first and easiest thing to do is to hit high polluting vehicles with a 'lung treatment' tax. Our children have lungs 66% the size they should be because of the air here. People might say, "well we lived in the pea soup" For example, 4x4 runs to school should be made very expensive and hard to do. But they are not.
Until LBH starts showing that they really care about the hard evidence, we are in the land of the Lorax. "Unless you care an awful lot, nothing will change".
Nevertheless - I really hope you are right
-
-
I'm surprised you haven't seen any difference in cycling over 14 years. I've seen a huge improvement in the awareness and courtesy shown by people driving to people cycling. I usually finish my commute on a bit of a high from all the positive interaction I have with the people I encounter on the way.
-
-
Hi LS. I am speaking of course with objectivity in mind. I think the car rules for the road commuter in London. With regard to 'the people I encounter' - people are people. Nice and bad everywhere. Although I'm averse to a fluffy dialogue on feelings (esp. with someone without a name) I would say that car drivers are rarely 'positive interactions' - especially on my lungs. To go full circle - this is of course backed by air quality evidence.
-
-
I'm impressed you extrapolate objectivity from your single personal experience. I claim no such feat. On the contrary, since it is impossible for humans to experience the world and each other without "feelings", I go so far as to state that the only intellectually honest approach is to lay claim to these tricky things.
So with that in mind, my entirely subjective experience is that a higher proportion of the people driving show consideration to people on bikes now than five or ten years ago.
I do, of course, have a name. I'm just picky who I share it with. Dan Anon, you don't (yet) make the cut
-
-
I am sorry you have taken my comments personally. I am trying to say that subjective experiences or beliefs are fine, but am trying to outline the facts. That's all. As for extrapolation - please be careful with your snap personal judgements. I work with the world's leading academic institutions looking at travel datasets. That's where I get my evidence from. Not a wave from a passerby or a wink at the lights whilst coughing...
-
-
if you make personal comments don't be surprised if they are taken personally. Personally, I despise pseudo-objectivity. I respect people who take a view and stand up for their beliefs far more than those who claim to be impartial interpreters.
But I am intrigued by your evidence. Hit me with some facts. Are today's drivers statistically more careless of cyclists than they were 10 years ago?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
