Clarkson praises cyclists

custardy

Lum wrote: »

I think a lot of disabled people would have issues with this.
So would any business that deals in large or bulky goods, such as independent hi-fi shops.
Would you also ban delivery trucks?

again with the same old excuses
I have just stated large areas
At no point did i say the whole city centre

to stay current
slight issues with deliveries or lower sales?

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/transport/call-for-pedestrian-zone-to-revive-city-centre-business-1-2242620

which is better?

NBLondon

custardy wrote: »

As for shared paths and what side. well half the time you ill find peds on either side,especially when the markings wear out.
Again in Edinburgh they have a new idea
on the ped side they have fitted rumble strip type paving slabs
on the bike side. straight ridges

They have something like these on the Blackheath one too. You're quite right that even though this has been recently resurfaced and marked; some family groups of pedestrians sprawl across the whole width. So do some family groups of cyclists.

My complaint is that actually only the north-south wide paths are shared use, the east-west narrow ones are footpaths. But plenty of cyclists don't see (or care about) the difference.

The other factor is that the design isn't great. If a cyclist wants to go east-west they either go down the A2 - a trunk route full of commuter traffic with a busy roundabout - or through the village which means a narrow one-way system and adding at least 3/4 mile. So I can see why they take the short-cut...

Another example on my commute is Gillender Street in East London http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Gillender+Street,+London&hl=en&ll=51.521188,-0.006137&spn=0.000027,0.013711&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=14.118794,28.081055&oq=gillender+&hnear=Gillender+St,+London+E14+6RH,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.521265,-0.010254&panoid=nMnA5V4Z_-AxCMW4cfpztw&cbp=12,180,,0,0 which is one-way southbound. But plenty of cyclists use it going northbound either up the bus lane against the flow or along the pavement. Because otherwise, to get to the industrial units on the eastern side, they would have to go 1/2 a mile north, through an underpass and double back.

So back to Clarkson's original point. If the road design is done right - cyclists use it in safety and drivers have one less hazard to worry about. Win-Win. But when it's done half-heartedly, it can increase the risk either by dumping cyclists back into traffic at an unsuitable point or by some cyclists deciding to make up their own route and rules. Lose-Lose is bound to happen at some point...

Lum

NBLondon wrote: »

So back to Clarkson's original point. If the road design is done right - cyclists use it in safety and drivers have one less hazard to worry about. Win-Win. But when it's done half-heartedly, it can increase the risk either by dumping cyclists back into traffic at an unsuitable point or by some cyclists deciding to make up their own route and rules. Lose-Lose is bound to happen at some point...

This.

Cycle lanes in this country are largely badly implemented crap done because there used to be extra funding available for councils who had a certain amount of cycling facilities on their road networks.

It creates animosity because cyclists don't want to use lanes that are dangerous and/or unsuitable, and drivers get annoyed because they have less space than they used to and yet that still has cyclists in it. The attidude that's formed is "I'm not going to give way to you because I'm not legally obliged to and you have a cycle lane now, you don't need my help".

That said, I really don't agree with shared pedestrian/cycle lanes as pedestrians are actually worse than car drivers* and will happily blither blissfully unaware into the cycle part of the path, having no idea what the signs or white lines mean, or simply not caring or too busy texting.

*though admittedly they can't do as much damage.

custardy

NBLondon wrote: »

They have something like these on the Blackheath one too. You're quite right that even though this has been recently resurfaced and marked; some family groups of pedestrians sprawl across the whole width. So do some family groups of cyclists.

My complaint is that actually only the north-south wide paths are shared use, the east-west narrow ones are footpaths. But plenty of cyclists don't see (or care about) the difference.

The other factor is that the design isn't great. If a cyclist wants to go east-west they either go down the A2 - a trunk route full of commuter traffic with a busy roundabout - or through the village which means a narrow one-way system and adding at least 3/4 mile. So I can see why they take the short-cut...

Another example on my commute is Gillender Street in East London http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Gillender+Street,+London&hl=en&ll=51.521188,-0.006137&spn=0.000027,0.013711&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=14.118794,28.081055&oq=gillender+&hnear=Gillender+St,+London+E14+6RH,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.521265,-0.010254&panoid=nMnA5V4Z_-AxCMW4cfpztw&cbp=12,180,,0,0 which is one-way southbound. But plenty of cyclists use it going northbound either up the bus lane against the flow or along the pavement. Because otherwise, to get to the industrial units on the eastern side, they would have to go 1/2 a mile north, through an underpass and double back.

So back to Clarkson's original point. If the road design is done right - cyclists use it in safety and drivers have one less hazard to worry about. Win-Win. But when it's done half-heartedly, it can increase the risk either by dumping cyclists back into traffic at an unsuitable point or by some cyclists deciding to make up their own route and rules. Lose-Lose is bound to happen at some point...

those in charge seem to not bother having people with practical experience on board.
like roads with cycle lanes
then a pinch point like an island
the cycle lane stops
so what happens there?
cyclists teleport over?

or just this week in the Edinburgh on the Meadows road.
bike lanes either side(this is a massive cycling through area in the city)
one side has been removed and a full bus lane put in
not perfect but the bus services at present are pretty light
however they have removed the bike lane from the other side of the road?
The path parallel to that side has (out of date) no cycling signs on them

Harry_Flashman

custardy wrote: »

those in charge seem to not bother having people with practical experience on board.
like roads with cycle lanes
then a pinch point like an island
the cycle lane stops
so what happens there?
cyclists teleport over?

Easy, the cyclist looks out for his own safety by waiting until the motors have gone through and then proceeds unflustered and unharmed

Lum

custardy wrote: »

again with the same old excuses
I have just stated large areas
At no point did i say the whole city centre

You miss my point, which was about the overly simplistic measure of a blanket ban. Something that often gets proposed by people who haven't thought things through.

At the very least you need to leave a delivery window, which would typically be 5-8AM.

It's also wise to not have the ban at times when public transport is not in operation. This is particularly true in areas where there are nightclubs and so on. If there's no public transport then some people will have arranged lifts, others will be getting taxis.

You also need to consider whether taxis and busses should be allowed in the pedestrianised area even when the ban is active. This is a risk because once a ban is in place people wont bother to look before crossing the road.

Will you allow cycling in the area? The same risk exists as there is for allowing taxis. Especially if there are steep hills in the area.

You also need to consider disabled people. The most obvious part is ensuring that the whole area is wheelchair-accessible, including routes from the nearest parking, but remember that disabled doesn't necessarily mean "in a wheelchair". Some people can walk (with or without aids) but only for a short distance. How are you going to accommodate this? Are you going to let their vehicles in? Are you going to keep the area sufficiently small that it isn't a problem? How small is sufficiently small? Councils are notoriously crap at accessibility provisions as it is, so I'm not confident that they will pull this off.

And lastly, if the area includes shops that deal in large items, such as furniture or A/V gear, are you going to let them have an exempt vehicle. Do they have a rear entrance and could you make an allowed route that customers could bring their vehicles to for loading?


The point I'm making is, it's easy to cry "ban cars from [parts of] the city centre!". It's a lot harder to actually do it.

custardy

Lum wrote: »

You miss my point, which was about the overly simplistic measure of a blanket ban. Something that often gets proposed by people who haven't thought things through.

At the very least you need to leave a delivery window, which would typically be 5-8AM.
which we already have in Edinburgh for a small area
It's also wise to not have the ban at times when public transport is not in operation.24 hour pubilc transport. This is particularly true in areas where there are nightclubs and so on. If there's no public transport then some people will have arranged lifts, others will be getting taxis. roads are already closed in the Grassmarket for the safety of clubbers

You also need to consider whether taxis and busses should be allowed in the pedestrianised area even when the ban is active. This is a risk because once a ban is in place people wont bother to look before crossing the road.

Will you allow cycling in the area? The same risk exists as there is for allowing taxis. Especially if there are steep hills in the area.

You also need to consider disabled people. The most obvious part is ensuring that the whole area is wheelchair-accessible, including routes from the nearest parking, but remember that disabled doesn't necessarily mean "in a wheelchair". Some people can walk (with or without aids) but only for a short distance. How are you going to accommodate this? Are you going to let their vehicles in? Are you going to keep the area sufficiently small that it isn't a problem? How small is sufficiently small? Councils are notoriously crap at accessibility provisions as it is, so I'm not confident that they will pull this off.

And lastly, if the area includes shops that deal in large items, such as furniture or A/V gear, are you going to let them have an exempt vehicle. Do they have a rear entrance and could you make an allowed route that customers could bring their vehicles to for loading? well given Edinburghs layout. its very easy to close roads and yet still have access to the rears of buildings etc
However. are we designing traffic policy around a few folks buying and collecting large items in the city centre?


The point I'm making is, it's easy to cry "ban cars from [parts of] the city centre!". It's a lot harder to actually do it.

well you may think so

Lum

I wasn't talking specifically about Edinburgh.

Last time I was in Edinburgh was a few years ago when Princes street was a gigantic mess of roadworks. I'd been driving for about 10 hours and I wasted a further 2 hours late that night driving around with a car full of expensive kit, trying to get to my Hotel, which was somewhere in the middle of those roadworks. Lots of driving around but didn't really get to see what the place looked like.

Edit: That said, you still haven't addressed disability access.

custardy

Lum wrote: »

I wasn't talking specifically about Edinburgh.

Last time I was in Edinburgh was a few years ago when Princes street was a gigantic mess of roadworks. I'd been driving for about 10 hours and I wasted a further 2 hours late that night driving around with a car full of expensive kit, trying to get to my Hotel, which was somewhere in the middle of those roadworks. Lots of driving around but didn't really get to see what the place looked like.

but I was and am.
hence why I said 'the' city centre
not city centres.
The tram scenario is an utter disaster.
the cost to the city is astronomic.
the benefits,questionable.
It however doesnt change the fact that the city centre is chocablock with traffic