| Topic: | Re:Re:CS9 Jeremy Clarkson uncovers the 'Truth' about Cycle Lanes! | |
| Posted by: | Al Webber | |
| Date/Time: | 23/08/19 15:42:00 |
| I wasn't saying anything about the plans for CW9 in that post. I was talking more generally. Cycling is actually a safe activity. If you look at what I've said on here in various threads, I've repeatedly said that the A4 is a better route. What I've also said is that that CW9 won't "destroy the High Road" as some have been saying. What is proposed for the High Road will be better than the current situation, although less good than building good facilities on the A4. The other thing I've said repeatedly is that London's streets are not wide enough for segregation everywhere. Cyclists and cars need to learn to co-exist. Overall, I have mixed feelings on cycle lanes like this. Cycling on a straight road is incredibly safe for a competent cyclist. It would be more cost effective to spend the money on redesigning some of the problem junctions. You also see pedestrians walking in cycle lanes as well. I was in central London a week or two ago, and abandoned the cycle lane on Constitution Hill, and went back onto the road, because the supposedly dedicated cycle lane was full of pedestrians, despite there being a wide path for pedestrians only a few metres away. At the same time, I wouldn't cycle along the High Road as it is now with my 11 year old daughter. With this proposed lane in place, I would. The lane isn't aimed at someone like me. It's aimed at enabling people like my daughter to be able to cycle on the High Road. I also see a large number of (mainly) women cycling on the pavement - I believe because they are too scared to cycle on the road. The other thing to bear in mind is that the roads will change massively over the next 10 to 15 years. Driverless cars are on the way, and it will be a lot less scary cycling on the roads. They won't be looking at their phone instead of the road. They will stick to the speed limits (which will be 20mph). They will give sufficient clearance when passing - which is a big reason that people feel uncomfortable on the roads. I regularly get passed by vehicles that give a LOT less clearance than the 1.5m specified in the Highway Code. I'm used to it, and it doesn't bother me much, but I can see how it would bother an inexperienced cyclist. The stupid thing is that they do these bad overtaking manouvres to get past, and I normally just overtake them again when they are queued at the next set of lights. They aren't getting there any faster. All they are doing is using more fuel and putting more wear on their brake pads. The thing that makes it difficult is that cyclists are very different. If you are commuting 8 or 10 miles each way, you will get fit, and you will be able to easily maintain speeds around 20mph, or a bit more with the wind behind. That's not racing - that's just a comfortable speed. At the same time you have the proverbial old lady pootling to the shops, who might be doing 6mph. A shared use path on the pavement might work for the old lady doing 6mph, but it is incredibly dangerous for both the cyclist and pedestrian if someone is doing 20mph on a shared path. In an ideal world, we would have the space to redesign everything and not inconvenience anyone, but short of knocking London down and starting again, there are no easy solutions. |