Are cycle lanes a good thing or a bad thing?

[tgame]

What great news this is for London members if true. Has anyone further news about it? I can't imagine any filter down effect reaching Felixstowe alas.

 

[flecc]

What great news this is for London members if true. Has anyone further news about it? I can't imagine any filter down effect reaching Felixstowe alas.

Of course we still complain, since the widespread facilities we have are constrained by London's existing infrastructure, but we are spoiled in comparison with most towns and cities.

Today we've had added the news that large car and 4 x 4 owbers will have to pay triple congestion charge, £24 a day, and it's widely forecast that many will get rid of them, so more good new for cyclists. At the same time, the smallest and least polluting cars will no longer have to pay any charge.

As these policies prove to be successful, the congestion charge already being a huge success, they will inevitably spread to other cities, and eventually to towns, so there's hope for Felixstowe yet.
.

 

[Footie]

Are cycle lanes a good thing or a bad thing?

The news about London going even more green for cycles is good news. However I think it will have little impact on places like the southwest (I mean past Exeter) were all we face is steep, long hills.

As for the cycle lanes we have here – they are a laugh.
It was interesting reading the thread because next time I am in town I will take a tape measure with me. I don’t believe the cycle lanes we have here are 1.5m wide – feels like 2 feet.
The only good thing about them is you can use them to avoid the speed bumps – but then, so does everyone else. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic to see a 4x4 striding the safety island with one side on the speed bump and the other in the cycle lane. Obviously no one has ever told them they will actually do more damage to their steering and suspension than if they drove over the speed bump evenly.
Other two wheel vehicles like them as well like motorcycles and scooters. It’s amusing to see the local swarm (50’s) buzzing their way in and out of the cycle lane (avoiding the speed bumps) as it slows them down to the speed limit – I am of course referring to 20 mph zones
Then you get the brainless others who just use them as a private car park – either because their to lazy to put their car in their driveway, or so they can stop and pop into the shop. The one that really gets me mad is the ones that park to answer their mobiles. This gets a very visual shacking of my head and if the window is open a verbal outburst as I pass – I always try to make sure I’m staring right at them so their no mistake who I am talking about. On a carefree day, something like “dickhead” springs to my lips with little effort.
And it’s not just motorised vehicles that can be an issue - I once had a near head-on because some grandmother decided the cycle lane was a better route to push her baby carriage than the empty pavement.
I didn’t stop to see if the baby was air-peddling in the carriage
.

 

[flecc]

It was interesting reading the thread because next time I am in town I will take a tape measure with me. I don’t believe the cycle lanes we have here are 1.5m wide – feels like 2 feet.

The only good thing about them is you can use them to avoid the speed bumps
.

You've illustrated two things that are still bad in London, despite our advantages.

I don't know any marked 1.5 metre cycle lanes, most are nearer 1 metre simply because there's not enough road for wider ones.

And quite a few of our speed bumps are the platform variety which go from kerb to kerb, so there's no escaping them.
.

 

[simonbarnett]

Congestion Charging

Today we've had added the news that large car and 4 x 4 owbers will have to pay triple congestion charge, £24 a day, and it's widely forecast that many will get rid of them, so more good new for cyclists. At the same time, the smallest and least polluting cars will no longer have to pay any charge.

As these policies prove to be successful, the congestion charge already being a huge success, they will inevitably spread to other cities, and eventually to towns, so there's hope for Felixstowe yet.
.

Actually Flecc you may be wrong for once(!) in your prediction.

Anyone who drives or rides daily in Central London will agree that congestion is as bad as ever, so I fail to see the success in that respect. As for pollution (being his new target, having failed on congestion) it's all well meant but misguided. Today's announcement is just Ken's revenge on Chelsea Tractors- political hype only. The reality is those owners will replace these with cars just under the 225 carbon limit (or older ones under a concession) which will keep the charge to £8, so the gain will be small at the top end. And, because he's a man of principle (!), he'll let you off the £8 if your caar is less than 120 carbon things- so maybe lots more of them from those who didn't like the charge. My maths says a small drop at the high end and potentially a big increase at the "clean" end just means more carbon and more congestion.

Don't believe me? This is how i'll probably and selfishly react to the new scheme. Presently I drive a newish coupe into the City. This is a gasguzzler and according to Ken as bad as a 4x4 though not so obvious. At home sits an older estate for weekend and family use with a big engine producing probably more carbon, but qualifying for the £8 rate in view of its age. So, if I'm self-interested like most people, I'll swap cars and take the old one in and increase the carbon in town. Maybe I shouldn't, but people behave like that when the charge trebles!

Of course I should find a nice replacement under 120 carbon things, but choice is small for those with a family to cart around. And I can't change my cars for 3 years under the company rules.

Maybe my Kalkhoff (when it arrives) will save my soul when I get to pedal in!

Don't get me wrong, I think I voted for Ken once, but this is ill-thought out political headlining- policy gone mad even after months of consulting.

 

[flecc]

Actually Flecc you may be wrong for once(!) in your prediction.

I think you've misread me Simon.

I agree with much of what you've said, though one could hardly call acting against the interests of the largely car driving electorate "politicking". More likely to lose votes.

That aside though, this is what I said:

"so more good new for cyclists."

I was referring to the effects on cyclists of wide vehicles on our narrow roads, and 4 x 4s are frequently the worst there, up to 7' wide even without their oversize mirrors. Those swapping to the largest cars to avoid the extra charge will mostly be allowing us more width on the road.

The pollution issue I wasn't considering, in view of what the buses and trucks are kicking out all day long. Ken can do his Don Quixote thing on that as much as he likes as far as I'm concerned as a cyclist.
.

 

[oznog]

I
The pollution issue I wasn't considering, in view of what the buses and trucks are kicking out all day long.
.

#
Right I just wanted to put my two cents in here. First on cycle lanes, they are great, ok the ones in the UK mostly suck(and I've got my own personal comparison to sweden, Amsterdam, and Portland Oregon, USA) and as for anything transport related outside of London they are really bad here in Leeds and Bradford, but i would still rather have one, and sometimes we get a cycle/bus lane which is great (because Public transport also is below standard outside of London, which means there really aren't too many buses in those lanes either!) I use them everyday. Now the best thing would be if they were actually smooth, not covered in acess grates and random plops of bumpy pavement oh yeah and if they actually connected instead of stopping when you need them most, at interesections and other pinch points.

And finally a response to pollution/congestion charge .. and the quote from flecc.. no offense there but have you looked into the London Low emission zone? that is targeting pollution, local air pollution from heavy vehicles, this combined with trying to limit demand for travel (via the congestion charge) and trying to promote cleaner vehicles (via the hike in congestion charge to £25) is a very good coordinated strategy to give people real incentive to get the £$%^ out of their cars and think of another way ;at the same time improving air quality for everyone and as flecc mentioned perhaps a bit more roadspace for cyclists.

-Mary
for the stats counters---(yup another woman, and I'm under 30!) on the forum

 

[simonbarnett]

Low emission zone maybe the start of something good in London- shame the introduction is so gradual, but perhaps understandable.

The shocker is that London taxis are exempt from the £25 charge (and even the current £8 one) and probably the LEZ. Amazing as they drive around all day producing continual higher emissions than my coupe, which only does one return journey a day.

Agree with you Flecc on sheer size of 4x4s- very entertaining (not) on the North London school run.

 

[flecc]

And of course I agree on the desirability of the low pollution zone, which I'm well aware since I live here on the edge of it.

But as said, I was only commenting on the 4 x 4 sizes, which I also suffer daily on the narrow lanes when I travel outwards. In one lane I cycle every day currently, Beddlestead Lane, it's so narrow in places that when one of the larger 4 x 4s appear, I have to stop against the hedge and lean into it for the "passenger truck" to squeeze past.
.

 

[tgame]

when one of the larger 4 x 4s appear, I have to stop against the hedge and lean into it for the "passenger truck" to squeeze past.
.

That really is quite awful isn't it. And when on top of this one considers that it is totally unnecessary since most of these wretched great things never see anything other than a tarmac road, one doubts homo sapiens' sanity. The lovely little Italian passenger trike, that we have seen a pic of, would probably do most if not all of what these huge pantechnicons do much of the time.

 

[oznog]

Low emission zone maybe the start of something good in London- shame the introduction is so gradual, but perhaps understandable.

The shocker is that London taxis are exempt from the £25 charge (and even the current £8 one) and probably the LEZ. Amazing as they drive around all day producing continual higher emissions than my coupe, which only does one return journey a day.

A good point you bring up, but Ive found out that taxis are being forced to clean up too.. see link http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/14_07_Emissions_Strategy_for_London_Taxis_Start_date_for_Metrocabs.pdf

 

[emotivepete]

The lovely little Italian passenger trike, that we have seen a pic of, would probably do most if not all of what these huge pantechnicons do much of the time.

Unfortunately, the "lovely trike" is unlikely to fall under the 1983 Statutory Instrument limiting unladen vehicle weight for a trike to 60kg. I understand that Cycles Maximus, who run Lynch and Heinzmann motors on some of their pedicabs, withdrew their motorised pedicabs from London once the pencil-pushers started asserting that the 1983 reg was still valid in UK. Great shame, not just for motor suppliers, but also for the future of the inner cities.

My limited understanding of this is that as a bike or trike some old law meant that the pedicabs did not fall under the Hackney licensing system and so were free to ply their trade. Once classed as mopeds however they do fall under the system and have to be licensed making the whole venture less attractive.

 

[tgame]

Unfortunately, the "lovely trike" is unlikely to fall under the 1981 Statutory Instrument limiting unladen vehicle weight for a trike to 60kg. I understand that Cycles Maxims, who run Lynch and Weizmann motors on some of their pedicabs, withdrew their motorised pedicabs from London once the pencil-pushers started asserting that the 1981 reg was still valid in UK. Great shame, not just for motor suppliers, but also for the future of the inner cities.

My limited understanding of this is that as a bike or trike some old law meant that the pedicabs did not fall under the Hackney licensing system and so were free to ply their trade. Once classed as mopeds however they do fall under the system and have to be licensed making the whole venture less attractive.

Oh dear! So much proposed transport innovation is stymied by antique and foolish legislation. The very early little petrol cycle motors were a real case in point. Their coming under the heading of motor cycles completely destroyed their usefulness and likelihood of popularity.

 

[Footie]

.... Boris was supportive of the bike hire scheme, but reckoned 6000 bikes was too few, and that it should be 20,000 like the Paris scheme.

As I said before, with these two main candidates for mayor, cycling wins either way.

It will in the short term - but what about the long term?

I seem to remember when petrol cars out numbered diesel cars and diesel fuel was cheaper (described as being "more green - need less" if I remember correctly) everyone switched to buying diesel cars. Then someone in the Government realised they were loosing money hand-over-fist so they upped the price of diesel - now diesel is more expensive then petrol - because - more people drive diesel cars.

So when everyone eventually drops the car for bicycle, I wonder how long it will be before the laws are changed about cycling for free in the UK.
.

 

[flecc]

The very early little petrol cycle motors were a real case in point. Their coming under the heading of motor cycles completely destroyed their usefulness and likelihood of popularity.

I used to sell and fit these in the early 1950s, and they did reach about a million on British roads, with annual sales well over 100,000 for a while, so popularity wasn't a problem. It was the scooter and increasing affluence that wiped them out, though the Velosolex hung on into the early 1980s.

It would be a wonderful thing if e-bikes ever reached a million on the road, and sales would have to be at least fivefold to get there. Trouble is, people are too rich now, compared with the 1950s, so they buy cars, an undreamed of luxury over fifty years ago for most people.
.

 

[Footie]

.... Trouble is, people are too rich now, compared with the 1950s, so they buy cars, an undreamed of luxury over fifty years ago for most people.

Being rich is something that will never be a problem with me living and working in Cornwall

I do hope your right - as I want to be riding my ebike long into the future
.

 

[flecc]

Being rich is something that will never be a problem with me living and working in Cornwall

You have my sympathy. People speak of the UK's unbalanced economy, but it's as nothing compared with Cornwall's very low wages, dearth of employment opportunities and shockingly high house prices.

It's those retired types from elsewhere in the country who've caused the house price problem of course, including my relatives in the past. However, our contribution has been removed now, the two aunts have now died and my senior army officer nephew has retired to Yorkshire.
.

 

[simonbarnett]

Thing is Flecc, the 4x4 driver thinks you're the nuisanse as he has to slow down to squeeze past the irritating cyclist in the hedge!

 

[flecc]

You're right Simon, but I don't mind that. I determinedly stick to the attitude that we share road space, not compete for it, so I'm always happy to give way.

In fact when driving I give way to public transport including taxis all the time, and even van drivers, since they are working and performing a public service, while I'm retired and just amusing myself.
.

 

[simonbarnett]

You need to be canonised, or whatever they do to saints.