tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29697919289529416042024-02-07T15:56:31.103+00:00The Grumpy CyclistGrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.comBlogger219125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-31166232508212503722013-11-21T00:31:00.002+00:002013-11-21T00:38:08.982+00:00Getting off my high saddleIn a horrible couple of weeks for cycling in the capital, and what seems to be a concerted rear-guard action by the mayor and others to deflect attention away from the state of the roads for cycling by comments about lawless cyclists wearing headphones, it is difficult not to get really angry.<br />
<br />
But, as much as I would love to rant, I thought I would post my thoughts on a really quite well-meaning tweet that apparently got a big backlash from some cyclists this week, and the subsequent blog where the author is confused by the reaction. I wanted to note why I think the tweet got the reaction it did, and why it gave me cause to let out a small sigh.<br />
<br />
Firstly, the tweet was by <a href="https://twitter.com/TheCustodySgt">@thecustodysgt</a> and is clearly by a member of the police, but tweeted in a personal capacity. The tweet that caused "offence" was<br />
<br />
<img alt="Screen Shot 2013-11-20 at 17.00.53" height="400" src="http://thecustodyrecord.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screen-shot-2013-11-20-at-17-00-532-e1384967432760.png?w=294&h=300" width="392" /><br />
<br />
After what appears to be somewhat of a backlash on twitter, the author put together a blog post, <a href="http://thecustodyrecord.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/get-off-your-high-saddle/">found here</a> in which he felt that he tweeted many road safe messages for both drivers and cyclists on offences commonly committed by both but it was only cyclists who got offended. And I can see why it might sound like cyclists are a thin skinned lot anxious to defend law breaking. And I want to put down my thoughts as to why this might elicit the response it did (and make me sigh slightly).<br />
<br />
As a reference to motoring tweets he chose the following on the blog.<br />
<br />
<img alt="BZX9sDAIEAAqweE.jpg-large" height="400" src="http://thecustodyrecord.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/bzx9sdaieaaqwee-jpg-large.jpeg?w=266&h=300" width="355" /><br />
<br />
Now both tweets don't feel offensive to me as either a driver or a cyclist. Both are clearly published with good intentions And one has to always bear in mind that twitter isn't really the best place to gauge the general reaction of any particular community to anything.<br />
<br />
But here is the first thing. The tweet on cyclists seems to send out a bit of a subtext that isn't present in the second. Try taking the text from the cycling tweet and moving it to the texting tweet; it would read something like "A ubiquitous law. Contrary to popular belief the ban on texting also applies to car drivers". Sounds like there is possibly a bit of a subtext running through this? Maybe that car drivers generally ignore this law? That maybe car drivers have a popular opinion that the law doesn't matter?<br />
<br />
Now take the second tweet - a powerful one that doesn't have much of a subtext other than texting and driving is dangerous. It isn't even really targeting car drivers, it could be the lorry driver was texting. It certainly isn't giving the inference that there is a popular belief that texting whilst driving isn't applicable to them.<br />
<br />
Now this all might sound a bit thin-skinned. Maybe I need to be a little less precious. But consider it in conjunction with two weeks where there has been six fatalities, some of which on routes I regularly cycle. That my wife is currently clearly worried about my cycling and that I am also becoming jittery about the roads I need to use. Realise that I see the fatal accident boards on my commute. And then understand that the reaction in the press and, indeed from people who are in power and should know better, is to link these deaths with traffic offences which appear to bear absolutely no relationship to the cause of the collisions. Then imagine reading the comments sections under press articles where the level of vitriol is difficult to comprehend when they are simply about a mode of transport. Comments which go from blaming cyclists because they break the law to ones that say cyclists deserve it to ones that actually say we are scum because we might decide to pedal to the shops and sometimes we die in horrible collisions.<br />
<br />
Imagine if, after a series of terrible pile-ups such as on the M5 a few years ago or the Sheppey Bridge one more recently, the Mayor said that motorists who play music too loud are a scourge and should it should be banned because they cannot hear traffic, even if this wasn't a contributory factor in any of the pile-ups. Imagine that the press ran headlines asking "Even after these deaths" why do motorists still want to speed, tailgate, floor it through amber lights and park in dangerous locations even if none of these violations were actually material to the deaths? Imagine if these articles had comments that said motorists deserved to die as loads drive like suicidal maniacs, think they own the road, and park outside school gates and on zebra crossings. Would this not, as a motorist, make you feel pretty pissed off?<br />
<br />
Well this is what I feel like as a cyclist at the moment. A whole bunch of cyclists die in horrible accidents and the backlash from all quarters is simply amazing. And all I want to do is use a convenient way of doing my fucking shopping and getting a bit of exercise. Yet it appears that this is viewed with a suspicion and distrust normally reserved for anti-social criminals.<br />
<br />
So the tweet, in itself, may have only been slightly oddly worded, and the reaction might appear to be out of proportion. But consider it against this backdrop and maybe the reaction can be understood in the context of recent events.<br />
<br />
<br />GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-41576929712846648212013-11-20T20:42:00.005+00:002013-11-20T20:42:53.984+00:00Drapers field revisitedI was travelling by bus today and passed Drapers Field in Leyton.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of 2012 I wrote a<a href="http://grumpycycling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/i-remember-when-all-this-was-fields.html"> post about how this field</a> - heavily used by local schools and teams for football, cricket and other sports - was going to be closed and concreted over to act as a storage area for the Olympics. The field is just around the corner from the Olympic village.<br />
<br />
From memory, and with reference to<a href="http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/9175751.LEYTON__Playing_field_closure_plans_approved/"> this newspaper article</a>, the field was closed in September 2011 and transformed from this<br />
<br />
<img alt="Drapers Field - to be shut for 2 years" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4708957361_2dae1175df.jpg" /><br />
<br />
To this :<br />
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4Fr8q8x-I0hQ4vUDQTOCTfTt7NF4lBxb0jt7yM9ofdnB9CpUhGNxDpgEGEmgyPMn_VfF7Yp4Vn4zS8yP0saPlj4GkMKXh2yrrRuF7WexwtMc75X5XWMqI3i67W8Bx1G85Eb3Wwg8UsAY/s400/IMG00036-20120116-0851.jpg" /><br />
<br />
Now, the plans and news reports had the closure lasting 18 months - in fact the news report linked above has the time the ODA would have the facility as from Sept 2011 to Sept 2012.<br />
<br />
Going past the site today it was obvious that it still is under redevelopment. There is a football pitch with floodlights on the far side, whilst the rest of the field is full of earth moving equipment and mud.<br />
<br />
After a bit of googling, I got to a notice on the Waltham Forest website which says that work is starting on <a href="http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/pages/campaigns/betterleisure-news.aspx">Drapers Field in May 2013 and due for completion in early 2014.</a><br />
<br />
Assuming that early 2014 means Jan-Mar 2014, this means Drapers Field has been closed to the public for over 28-30 months or around 2.5 yrs.<br />
<br />
From the council website it might be inferred that the work was awaiting funding from the Olympic Legacy Committee. Maybe this has delayed the transformation back to a local facility. Whatever the reason, this field has been closed to the schools, sports teams and locals for around a year longer than first discussed when the decision to close it was finalised.<br />
<br />
In truth it doesn't matter why it has been closed for this time. It is simply a bit sad to see a rare piece of green open space that was clearly extensively used being removed from public use for so long. I could think up some sarcastic, ironic comments about Olympic legacy, but really it is just simply a bit depressing.<br />
<br />
I hope the new facilities compensate in some measure and that the field can be seen as part of a legacy of sports facilities for the local area.<br />
<br />GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-45107295659309124482013-11-18T11:56:00.000+00:002013-11-18T12:01:27.785+00:00Mini Holland? Maximum Scepticism.(Caution : Posting contains rude words)<br />
<br />
I haven't posted anything in a long while. I got to the point where I was no longer amazed or angry at the vast disparity between the stated intentions of local road planning organisations and the results, and that pointing out the various ridiculous statements and idiotic cycling schemes was somehow getting tedious.<br />
<br />
Then a couple of things happened.<br />
<br />
1) Cyclists started dying on "cycle superhighways" - on roads that I use regularly and have been flagged more than once by cycling organisations as deeply unpleasant or unsafe. Junctions such as Bow where cyclists have been dying since 2011 yet it seems that "nothing can be done". This has made me less grumpy and more fucking angry. But I will leave Boris and his unpleasant and disingenuous remarks for another post.<br />
<br />
2) I get through the local Waltham Forest propaganda sheet a few months ago which has a big article on how Waltham Forest council are creating a cycling revolution on our streets. There are many more people cycling in Walthamstow but for the council to claim credit is chutzpah of the highest order. Then I get through a "consultation" on improvements to Hoe Street and Forest Road. And finally I see that Waltham Forest are urging people to support their mini-Holland bid for some money for cycling in greater London. And all these things, I feel, need comment because the gulf between what the council say is happening and what is actually happening is now so wide that I think they must just be doing this crap for a fucking bet. So I thought my first post in nearly a year should concentrate on my old favourite - the bollocks that Waltham Forest manage to spout whilst - at best - managing to be completely ineffective for cycling.<br />
<br />
I shall start off with the "improvement" plan for Bell Corner and the adjoining roads - Hoe Street and Forest road. For those unfamiliar Google view below gives an idea of the current state of this junction<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="350" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=e17+4rf&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=London+E17+4RF,+United+Kingdom&gl=uk&ll=51.589762,-0.020427&spn=0.008239,0.013797&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=51.590384,-0.018322&panoid=kTYia6UIVgGGGxXXMUBL-Q&cbp=12,107.71,,0,0&source=embed&output=svembed" width="425"></iframe><br />
<small><a href="https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=e17+4rf&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=London+E17+4RF,+United+Kingdom&gl=uk&ll=51.589762,-0.020427&spn=0.008239,0.013797&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=51.590384,-0.018322&panoid=kTYia6UIVgGGGxXXMUBL-Q&cbp=12,107.71,,0,0&source=embed" style="color: blue; text-align: left;">View Larger Map</a></small>
<br />
<br />
Note the three lanes of traffic. Note the incredibly narrow pavements and the tiny strip of cycle lane neatly running down the left side of the left turn lane.<br />
<br />
Now traffic regularly speeds down this road. And Forest Road has a bad reputation for accidents.<br />
<br />
There was a cyclist killed in a hit and run at Bell junction in 2007. Another cyclist was killed in a hit and run in 2008 a few hundred metres away near Winns terrace. Also in 2007 a motorist was speeding and was killed when his car hit the kerb at the Bell junction and hit the traffic lights. In the same year a car smashed into the wall of Lloyd Park. Last year a car overturned when it hit the pedestrian crossing outside the park just down the road from the Bell junction. In 2009 a motorist was killed when he hit the Bell pub on the corner of the junction. From memory, around 2011 a moped rider was seriously injured near Ruby road at the same spot that I remember at least 4 cars in the last 4 years hitting the central pedestrian refuge, normally late at night and presumably speeding much above the 30mph judging by the aftermath. The other month the road was closed further towards Blackhorse road due to an accident which wasn't even reported upon. And finally, a couple of months ago a child got hit by a car and had to be taken via Air Ambulance to hospital. Luckily he made a full recovery, but it does focus the mind to witness a child about the same age as my daughter lying motionless in a road. <i>But</i> e<i>ven this incident didn't manage to make it to the local paper.</i><br />
<br />
All this might make you think that those in charge of these roads would pause to think about making it much more pleasant and safe for pedestrians and cyclists and to try to slow down drivers to something like the speed limit.<br />
<br />
And, indeed the road layout is changing - with the plans below<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3oeV6hzqgoQqQJvtPLGRb8tOhttWSfZqsKZRvJqeDqR8t_AwoYdjWhWHwG1kv759bM-U24D8N6OYYluPA1qXOhQ8SA66aFZomc1nsqPKo3VivKEH1hz4Y4AWXCJlZt4G3SmTSzvq6k6I/s1600/hoe+street+improvements0001.tif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3oeV6hzqgoQqQJvtPLGRb8tOhttWSfZqsKZRvJqeDqR8t_AwoYdjWhWHwG1kv759bM-U24D8N6OYYluPA1qXOhQ8SA66aFZomc1nsqPKo3VivKEH1hz4Y4AWXCJlZt4G3SmTSzvq6k6I/s640/hoe+street+improvements0001.tif" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This is from a consultation document that majored heavily on how the changes will help cyclists and pedestrians and improve the streetscape. It mentioned that Hoe Street would become 20mph. It mentioned that traffic would be slowed near the entrance to a popular park and museum just down Forest Road.<br />
<br />
What it didn't mention was that the narrow pavements seem on google view were going to be unaltered and the biggest change at this junction is actually represented by the yellow lines on the map. Which are - of course - added parking bays.<br />
<br />
So, for cyclists, the current situation on Forest road is that you have a very narrow cycle lane which encourages cars to left hook you as they turn into Chingford Road. The new layout will have a very narrow cycle lane which encourages cars to left hook you as they turn into Chingford Road <i>and </i>the added bonus that you might now also get doored in the cycle lane by people getting out of parked cars. Presumably this is what the council class as spearheading a cycling revolution.<br />
<br />
So what about Hoe Street? This is quite a narrow road with shops either side and multiple side roads adjoining. On a Sunday it becomes a nightmare because the parking restrictions on the road are lifted and the buses on the numerous routes down there have to squeeze past cars parked by drivers who prefer to park like fuckwits instead of walking a few metres. Most traffic goes around 20-30mph but it is downhill towards the lights and there will always be the odd genius who decides to floor it to the next red light.<br />
<br />
Hoe Street will become 20mph. But seeing as 20mph limits are completely unenforced on all other 20mph roads, I doubt this will make a blind bit of difference to any driver who wants to speed. It looks like they will rip out a zebra crossing to replace it with a light controlled crossing. Which is presumably helping pedestrians by making them wait for the light sequence as opposed to being able to take priority on a zebra. Which sounds very much like the sort of "help" the council also metes out to cyclists. And, of course, the biggest change is, again, the fact that the road is going to be narrowed to add on street parking.<br />
<br />
Waltham Forest have form for fucking over cycling in preference to car parking. They did it at the other end of Hoe Street near Bakers Arms where they narrowed a road specifically to allow pavement parking. So now, you can either cycle right next to the parked cars, risking dooring whilst the traffic overtakes you so close they brush you with their wing mirrors, or you can decide to take the lane and have motorists hanging off your back wheel.<br />
<br />
On the plus side it looks like there will be more cycle parking, but on closer inspection I am slightly sceptical that even this is what it seems. Some of those locations already have a stand, so it may be more a case that they will remove a stand to replace it later on. I suppose I should be grateful, at least they are not making matters worse..<br />
<br />
This type of road layout change to increase parking whilst spouting bullshit about how they are improving life for pedestrians and cyclists is really Waltham Forest's<i> modus operandi. </i>So I think I am allowed to be somewhat sceptical when I see a request for residents to fill in a survey explaining how excited they would be if Waltham Forest got some of the money allocated to make certain Greater London areas into "mini Hollands". The survey says:<br />
<br />
<b><i>The Mayor of London has allocated £100m to improve cycling infrastructure in Outer London, as part of the Cycling Vision's Mini Holland programme. Waltham Forest is through to the final eight shortlisted boroughs, but only four will be selected to share the £100m. </i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b><i>A successful bid would result in a step change for cycling conditions in Walthamstow town centre and across the borough, as well as reducing congestion for other road users. Proposals include a network of 'Quietways', a Cycle Superhighway along Lea Bridge Road, a new Dutch-style cycle roundabout at Whipps Cross along with widespread greening and environmental improvements.</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b><i>Waltham Forest is competing with other boroughs for the Mini Holland funding. We'd like to show Transport for London that our residents back our bid, so please pledge your support below</i></b>.<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
Sounds marvelous. Lea Bridge road is a popular cycle route but is horrible and is possibly worse than Forest Road for cycle accidents. Whipps Cross roundabout is less of a roundabout and more of a free-for-all gyratory with drivers able to speed at will.<br />
<br />
But judging on previous form, I am so deeply sceptical about what might be implemented in the name of cycle improvement that I don't think I should sign anything that may encourage the council. The phrase "reducing congestion for other road users" makes me suspicious for a start. How would this be achieved whilst making conditions easier for cycling? Are they thinking that more people cycling = less cars, which is probably too rational for them, or is it, as I suspect, that they will use the opportunity to rework junctions to improve traffic flow? Whipps Cross roundabout did have plans to be removed and replaced with a more cycle friendly lights junction - the huge amount of space available should allow implementation of something really cycle and pedestrian friendly, but I believe this was shelved. The last plan I saw for "cycle friendly" roundabout was a horrid scheme which I <a href="http://grumpycycling.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/olympic-cycle-ways-and-whipps-cross.html">blogged about here</a>; I have reprinted the plan below.<br />
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoPnWCygfC0j3SDJM6VfHjsQDx5SuyjcZN7PvsGOs-ijD2p5s93tfo_nF6gYcGtpJMLkXShUqbIp_mb3EHZm0EDA81GGyGikfuBrHvGxHWMGV7olSUtYdbyJyaJuKt78yxvg7UNCjD6Sc/s400/lea+bridge+southbound.png" /><br />
The red line shows that, whilst a driver going south on LeaBridge Road would have three light controlled junctions, a cyclist using the offroad lanes would be stopped at junctions 8 times. And conflict with pedestrians on narrow pavements.<br />
<br />
Finally, quietways sound great in principle, but - like the LCN implementation beforehand, they will usually be on narrow roads which quite often act as rat-runs for drivers, they will often be badly signposted and circuitous with crossings at major roads that are probably more difficult and dangerous than just using the main road. I used to use the quiet roads signed when I first started cycling. I found I was pushed to one side on narrow double parked streets by angry motorists who had become incensed that I had slowed up their rat-run. I also found that the signs would be so small as to be useless and when you saw them they would often be turned the wrong way or simply confusing. I gave up on back roads and used the main roads -my policy even to this day.<br />
<br />
I can find no reference to plans for the supposed improvements planned so who knows what is in the minds of the road planners? All I would say is that the "improvements" to Forest Road and Hoe Street are now underway and the first change was that two zebra crossings were removed with no temporary facility for pedestrians. This included one crossing on Forest Road used extensively by parents with children going to the local schools. Presumably whilst the works are ongoing those of us needing to cross the road are expected to invent some kind of teleportation device or jetpack to allow safe passage across the road. Traffic flow hasn't been impeded at all.<br />
<br />
So the question is - why should I trust this council with any cycling funds?GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-90818224269093140312012-12-01T16:12:00.002+00:002012-12-01T16:12:37.111+00:00It has been some time since my last post. It isn't because cycling in Waltham Forest, and London more generally, has become such a wonderful experience that I no longer have anything to moan about.<br />
<br />
I just haven't found the time to put together a full post. I have a rather eclectic mix of less than half finished posts, the last of which was actually only 8 words long before I gave up.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I have to say quite a lot has been happening with cycling in general. We have had Bradley Wiggens, and his coach in accidents which has reignited the cycling safety debate, albeit not in a particularly constructive way when radio channels such as LBC debate whether cyclists should be allowed on A roads.<br />
<br />
In the time between posts the weather has taken a significant turn for the worse. It is now very cold, wet and windy as opposed to the summer which was<i> slightly less</i> cold, wet and windy. What has pleased me is that, even in these conditions, I am absolutely not the only cyclist on the roads. It may be my <i>inexhaustible optimism</i>, but I do feel that more people are cycling these days. Around 8am on the A10 between Stoke Newington and Aldgate there appears to be more cyclists than private cars. Where I was once the only cyclist on the Tottenham Hale / Seven Sisters part of the A10, I now see more. Walthamstow also seems to have more cyclists. I assume Waltham Forest and TfL will attribute this to the power of whatever warm and fuzzy social media advertising campaign they have running at the moment , but I wonder if the recession and appalling traffic might be more the reason.<br />
<br />
In the last couple of months a few cycling news stories have caught my eye, but none have made me more open-mouthed with incredulity than a feature that was run on an Australian news programme. I have never visited Australia but a friend of mine worked there for around two years. He said there were many things which surprised him, most in a very good way. But one thing that astonished him was Australian government's obsession with health and safety. I suppose this might account for their laws about cycling and helmet use. This strikes me as odd in a country where virtually any animal on land or sea, no matter how big or small, appears to be venomous to a ridiculous degree - I would have thought living around so many animals which can kill you in a myriad of painful and innovative ways would have imparted a certain laissez faire attidute to health and safety.<br />
<br />
Anyway, the story may be one that is now fairly well known. A reporter for a news programme happens to see a woman cycling with a child in a trailer on a busy street and then proceeds to follow her around in his car whilst his passenger is films the cyclist and shouts "IS THAT SAFE" at her. Presumably cycling in the city with a child<i> might be safer</i> if it didn't involve lunatics tail-gating her whilst shouting.<br />
<br />
For those who wish their blood pressure to be raised, the television article<a href="http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8524906"> can be found here</a>. The cyclist's side of the story can be<a href="http://www.sydneycyclist.com/forum/topics/child-endangerment-verbally-abused-filmed"> found here</a>.<br />
<br />
The most astonishing part of the video was the "expert" who viewed the footage as if the mother had left the child to play with fireworks in the middle of railway tracks. Multiple cutaways showed his face in various contortions ranging from pity to disgust to rage. This was followed by an almost equally astonishing demonstration of what would happen if a car hit something soft and squidgy at 60 kph. As if the audience might need help to make the mental leap on the consequences of fast travelling metal making contact with flesh and bone. I wondered what would happen if the "expert" was shown footage of an average school commute in Copenhagen or Amsterdam or Berlin. Presumably he would self combust with indignation.<br />
<br />
It led me to thinking how cycling, and its "dangers" are handled by various country's media and government. The action of cycling one's child to school in this film was viewed as some kind of suicide mission where the mother had lost her mind and was subjecting the child to a near death experience. At no point did anyone producing the film think "Maybe our roads should allow people to choose to cycle their children to school. Maybe this would help people's health. Maybe it would ease congestion. Maybe it might be a neat thing to encourage what with the obesity problems and our CO2 emissions being some of the highest per capita in the world".<br />
<br />
In London, TfL would view someone cycling with their child as proof positive that London was now a cycling city. They might even produce some <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mindthegap/2010/08/ping_another_initiative_from_t.html">Youtube videos about it involving minor celebrities and some roads emptied of the normal traffic</a>. The press are now either pro-cycling such as The Times and The Guardian or dress up general distrust of anyone daring not to use their car as "we would like them if they weren't law breaking communists" (eg. Daily Mail). Although local and national government still haven't got to a stage where they would encourage cycling by doing anything to hamper "traffic flow", at least in the UK we appear to have moved on from the stance taken by the Australian film.<br />
<br />
In the Netherlands and Denmark, the act of someone cycling their child to school would be viewed as completely normal. If the cycling conditions in the film were in Copenhagen or Amsterdam I imagine that the question the viewers would ask would be "why are we allowing cars to endanger this cyclist and child" rather than "why is this cyclist on our roads?" Which is where hopefully the UK will end up sometime in the near future.GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-90653567185928446922012-08-22T21:18:00.000+01:002012-08-22T21:22:11.583+01:00The criminal classes<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Cyclists are lawless reprobates. That much is pretty much fact.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://road.cc/content/news/63600-motoring-magazine-auto-express-claims-three-four-cyclists-break-road-rules">So it is useful to know that the esteemed research tome, Auto Express, have managed to quantify exactly how lawless and naughty cyclists are by using rigorous scientific methodology.</a> And it appears that 74.2% of cyclists are scofflaw scumbags as opposed to 12.1% of the motoring community. It must be right - the survey is <i>so precise</i> that the results can be measured to a<i> tenth of a percent</i>. That is some kick-ass data collection going on there folks.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">So what are the principle crimes of these cyclists that merit the headline of <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LHdS3k48e8YJ:www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/59734/cyclists-break-more-road-rules-motorists+auto+express+cyclists+break+more+road+rules&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk">"Cyclists break more road rules than motorists"</a>? Well here is the list</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<pre style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 16.183332443237305px; padding: 0px;"><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Cyclists %* Fault Cars %**</strong>
287 29.4 No reflective clothing NA NA
104 10.7 No indicating 49 1.6
90 9.2 No helmet NA NA
84 8.6 Pulling out without looking 25 0.8
58 5.9 Jumping lights 12 0.4
44 4.5 Wearing headphones 42 1.3
33 3.4 Almost causing collision 17 0.5
16 1.6 Mounting pavement 0 0.0
0 0.0 Waiting in cycle box 83 2.6
0 0.0 Crossing a stop line 83 2.6
2 0.2 Using phone 38 1.2
1 0.1 Eating 9 0.3
0 0.0 Blocking crossing 22 0.7
719 74.2 Total 380 12.1</pre>
<pre style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 16.183332443237305px; padding: 0px;">
</pre>
<pre style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 16.183332443237305px; padding: 0px;"></pre>
<pre style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 16.183332443237305px; padding: 0px;"></pre>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">If you look at this you will realise that cyclists are so lawless that, with the no reflective clothing or helmets, they are<b><i> breaking road rules that don't even exist</i></b>. That is taking lawlessness to another level - they are turning our roads into some kind of traffic equivalent of the OK Corral!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Then we have the objective categories of "pulling out without looking" and "almost causing a collision", which cyclists also seem to excel at. Although, strangely they don't seem to be particularly adept at waiting in the cycle box - presumably because it was full of cars.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Of course minor offences such as speeding weren't included as this type of slight oversight by drivers is completely understandable and would simply skew the results. As would counting the number of drivers without correct tax/insurance/license (hint : at last count it was 13% in London). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Of course, the cyclists might say that only the cars in front of the queue have the opportunity to, say, wait in the cycle box, and that 83 cars encroaching on the ASL might mean that every red phase of the lights had it stuffed with cars, but one can <i>overdo the scientific rigour.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The really laughable thing about this article is that the publishers (Dennis publishing) pulled the online version pretty quickly after cyclists complained to them in droves and started to organise a campaign to boycott the publishers new cycling magazine due for launch in a few weeks. I guess it wasn't considered <i>particularly good PR</i> to have a sister publication vomiting up half-baked articles slagging off the core demographic of a new magazine.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">For those interested, the new cycling magazine by Dennis publication will be called "Tax Dodging, Scofflaw rule breaking outcasts". No, not really, apparently that wouldn't fit on the cover using the standard typeface. So they decided upon "Cyclist". Presumably, once they got to naming the magazine the journalists' creative and imaginative flair had been exhausted putting together the cycling statistics for their sister publication.</span><br />
<pre style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 16.183332443237305px; padding: 0px;"></pre>
GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-15769345145008984862012-08-11T21:02:00.001+01:002012-08-11T21:03:08.242+01:00So who is Kierin, anyway?T<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">he Olympics - and team GBs proficiency at the cycling events - have generated a rather odd phenomenon. Which I have termed <i>expertise by association</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I shall explain.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Clearly lots of people are excited by the Olympic cycling since we won lots of races. But most people have no idea about the format or rules of these cycling races, which can look quite confusing. My friends and family then decide that, because I cycle, I must be au-fait with finer points of the sport. And I get asked questions. It hasn't occurred to them that I use my cycle to go to the shops and visiting people instead of in a velodrome. I admit that I sometimes put on my tracksuit and huff and puff around London on the cycle in an effort to get fit (a futile effort since I invariably come home hungry and longing for a curry). But I think this scant qualification to be classed "an expert".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">My mother asked me the other day about the rules concerning Kierin*. I had absolutely no idea what she was talking about - I actually thought for a while that she was talking about someone <i>called </i>Kierin. I explained to her that since she had watched a Kierin she probably had much more knowledge about the sport than me, who had never heard of it, or seen it, before she mentioned it. And this is <i>my mother</i>. Who, frankly, should know better than most my relationship to any type of sporting endeavour (I enjoy the types of sport where others play it and I watch it, preferably in a pub).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">It amuses me that, because I happen to cycle, I am assumed to be an expert on the cycling sporting world. The fact that cycling as a sport has only a very passing interest for me seems to confuse. But do all people who drive know about motorsport? The assumption that I understand Kierin is analogous to assuming that my mother will understand the finer points of Nascar because she drives to the shops.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I think this confusion between cycling as a sport and cycling as a transport option arises because cycling is considered a hobby, something that only the super fit or slightly eccentric indulge in. Therefore if one cycles one must be<i> really into it</i>. Thankfully attitudes are changing, especially in London where a more diverse range of people are tend to use the cycle to get around, but the assumption still persists, especially in my mother's generation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">But the confusion between cycling as a transport option and as a sport and hobby is understandable when politicians appear to make the same mistake</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">For example, Boris' olympic cycling legacy was launched on Friday. A two day extravaganza of cycling including a kind of souped up "sky-ride" and cycling races around London. Which is all very nice, but hardly much of legacy for cycling as a<i> transport option</i>. Unless Boris thinks that I can wait a year to do my shopping until he shuts the roads for a day or so. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Any Olympic legacy that helps cycling as a transport option seems rather distant. I am not an ardent believer in segregated cycle infrastructure, but a legacy where streets were started to be treated as places for people as opposed to conduits for traffic would be a legacy. Some courageous decisions on how our roads work would be a legacy. Slowing traffic to facilitate walking and cycling would be a legacy. An event that allows people to ride their cycles on pleasant roads for 1 day a year isn't a legacy, it is more a "here is what you could have won" if those involved in planning our roads weren't quite so beholden to traffic smoothing and grew some kahunas to implement some of those platitudes and aspirations they spout about cycling.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">*</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i> Note : I know that Sir Chris Hoyle won the Kierin and so we should be pleased about this event, but any sport whose rules are so lax that they allow one of the competitors to sneak in with a motorbike really needs to take a good look at itself. For most of the race the competitor who had fitted the motor was in front, as you would expect, and it was starting to get a bit like a procession. Thankfully, in the race I saw, the sneaky motorcyclist careered off the track - presumably with engine trouble or something - with only two laps to go to allow those competitors who hadn't stretched the rules a shot at Gold. </i></span><br />
<br />GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-65450617836586344292012-08-10T00:04:00.001+01:002012-08-10T07:45:28.226+01:00Barmy Bow BollardsI felt that there was little that could be done to the Bow junction that could possibly make matters worse. All the check boxes had appeared to have been ticked : cycle superhighway covered in vehicles? <i>Tick</i>. Motorway style exits allowing cars to speed far in excess of 30mph? <i>Tick</i>. Zero policing of speed? <i>Tick</i>. Cyclists deposited on roundabout against left turning traffic? <i>Tick</i>.<br />
<br />
The new scheme at the roundabout lights made matters slightly better if one could work out the meanings of all the light phasing - for instance not asssuming that a green cycle light meant proceed onto the roundabout. And that drivers didn't<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oigw_UnfdIA"> jump the lights or encroach the ASL.</a> Or<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT15kYXHxXI"> take off so quickly from the lights that they catch up, and left hook, the cyclists</a>. And cyclists didn't mind waiting twice the number of phases as cars. But the scheme is a testimony to the fact that TfL view traffic flow above cycle and pedestrian safety. As if anyone by now didn't know this.<br />
<br />
So, imagine my surprise, when I was cycling up to the Bow Flyover (the roundabout was a mess of traffic as per normal) during the Olympics to find this.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/m8O6Hd7avog?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Whoever had decided to put these cones in had done it! They had exceeded my expectations on how unpleasant they could make Bow for cyclists!<br />
<br />
For the Olympics the inner lane of the flyover has been coned off. As I approached it I suddenly felt with dread that I would have to either retain primary on the available lane and suffer the consequences of drivers frustrated that I was delaying them,<i> maybe by seconds</i>, to the next traffic lights, or hug the cones and have them pass within inches of me at the typical law breaking high speeds found on this flyover. A cyclist in front of me chose the latter option and it looked utterly terrifying. A van shot past and how it missed him is a mystery to this day. Presumably the advice would be to claim the lane but this is only good if you have a strong constitution for angry motorists.<br />
<br />
Then, I realised that there was a little cycle roundal and a tiny gap in the cones which appeared to indicate that cycles should enter the coned area. I popped in there, although the signs were so unclear I wasn't certain that I wasn't going to meet roadworks or something nasty over the top of the flyover. When I crested the flyover I realised all was OK and proceeded down the other side. To the end where there was a tiny exit and a give way sign. Frankly, you need all the speed you can get to negotiate the slip road traffic travelling at 40mph+, and this scheme makes you slow down to slalom through the tiny gap whilst attempting to swivel your head around 180 degrees to check for traffic. Which has no idea that cyclists may be merging since there are absolutely no signs or indications aside from a lonely "give way" sign for the cyclists and a tiny gap in the cones.<br />
<br />
Having done this route several times now, I realise that it is intended for cyclists to dive into the coned area and then patiently wait for a gap in the traffic to exit onto the road to the outside lane. It is like a scene from Mad Max except slightly more dangerous.<br />
<br />
The question I have is why? Why do this? Why have the entrance to the coned area for cyclists so small and positioned such that you need to get into the outside lane to access? Why have the exit at the bottom of a steep slope where the signs are so confusing and the cyclist is left with absolutely no priority to merge with two streams of fast moving traffic?<br />
<br />
The answer is because the coned area has nothing to do with cycle safety or convenience. It is so that traffic merging from the roundabout can do so without having to give way to traffic coming off the flyover. And then someone decided to stick an access point for cyclists so they didn't get in the way of the cars. Absolutely no thought has been given to how cyclists will use this road layout, or whether it is easily followed, safe or convenient. I would very much doubt anyone involved in this little scheme has ever cycled it. It is, again, symptomatic of the fact that cycling considerations and infrastructure are a very poor relation to traffic smoothing.<br />
<br />
<i>To say these things are an afterthought is unfair - it indicates that some thought went into the plan for cyclists in the first place.</i><br />
<br />
It does, however, indicate a couple of interesting things<br />
<br />
1) The Olympics, as fine as they are, will have absolutely no positive effect on moderating local roads to become more conducive to cycling. The Olympics are a boost for cycling due to the heroic efforts of Bradley Wiggens and the cycling teams on the track, but the local transport bodies will not be delivering any help to create a legacy that helps people make the transition to using cycles instead of cars.<br />
<br />
2) Bow flyover is massively underutilised by vehicles. This is obvious, even at standard rush hour most traffic goes off to the A12 link roads and leaves light local traffic to speed off over the flyover.<i> Reducing the flyover capacity for vehicles has had no appreciable effect on traffic flow at all</i>. There is a whole load of tarmac on the flyover that could be used for other things - such as a really nice cycle lane and it wouldn't even have any effect on the traffic. Yet I suppose that when the Olympics end, the configuration will be reset and cyclists choosing the Bow Flyover instead of the horrible roundabout will still have the exciting prospect of trying to gauge whether that speeding driver coming up the inside lane behind them has spotted them or is too busy texting / chatting / eating.<br />
<br />
3) To make the current arrangements a bit more obvious and friendly to cyclists would cost next to nothing. A bigger sign to show cyclists that they can use the inside lane. A slightly different arrangement of the cones to let cyclists enter the coned area without slaloming into the outside lane. Some signs maybe at the end of the coned area to tell motorists to watch out for cyclists merging into the lanes. Hell, they could go wild and put down some road markings to show that cyclists may be merging, possibly even a rumble strip or two to encourage motorists to moderate their speed to something closer to 30mph than warp factor 7.<br />
<br />
The last point strongly indicates to me that consideration to cycling isn't just being horribly compromised by "traffic flow" and lack of funds, but also by a complete lack of understanding of how cycling works. Whoever designed this little coned section should have been someone who had cycled it. The flaws become apparent immediately if you actually use it.<br />
<br />
The Olympics have been a fantastic. The cycling <i>at </i>the Olympics has been a triumph with gold medal after gold medal. But cycling <i>to </i>the Olympics has been a farce. At a time when cycling makes more sense than ever, when the profile of cycling is higher than ever, we need people new to cycling to be doing it at least in part <i>because </i>of the road planning, not<i> in spite</i> of it. Because with the current state of the roads, many of those enthused by the Olympics to cycle for transport or leisure will give up and return to their cars after a couple of weeks. And that would be a very sorry legacy indeed.<br />
<br />GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-55511690825170933732012-07-03T00:33:00.001+01:002012-07-03T00:33:35.424+01:00Beetle ManiaSo, there I am cycling along the Bow Road. There are plenty of cyclists. I am wearing a fetching hi-viz tabbard. There is a cyclist in front of me. There is a cyclist in front of him. Behind me there are some cyclists further behind. It is difficult to miss this number of cyclists in fetching shades of high-viz.<br />
<br />
I look behind as we start to get towards the junction. I notice a blue Beetle some way behind and indicating left. I move slightly to the right to try to prevent a left hook. Besides there is a huge gap between me and the cyclist behind me - more than enough to slot in behind, slow down and safely turn left.<br />
<br />
But clearly this isn't quick enough for this driver. They pull out to the next lane and then cut right across both me and the other cyclist to turn left.<br />
<br />
If safety in numbers works, I am left pondering what kind of cycling density is required to stop some motorists pulling this kind of manoeuvre. I am troubled that the answer may be having to get to the density that prevents this type of driver room to open their door to enter the vehicle in the first place.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AEsCO_QGiMk/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AEsCO_QGiMk?version=3&f=user_uploads&c=google-webdrive-0&app=youtube_gdata" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AEsCO_QGiMk?version=3&f=user_uploads&c=google-webdrive-0&app=youtube_gdata" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-47709221620607955992012-07-03T00:18:00.000+01:002012-07-03T00:18:08.192+01:00More Bow BarmynessMy previous post was the first time that I had tried out the new road scheme on the Bow roundabout. Since that time, I have used the flyover as I have done for several years. However, the other day the wind was fierce, and the flyover is exposed so I thought it better to use the roundabout.<br />
<br />
There were a fair few cyclists around, interestingly around half used the flyover, the other half using the roundabout - but of those using the roundabout a significant number eschewed the new cycle scheme completely and cycled in the traffic flow.<br />
<br />
I wasn't one of them. I elected to use the new TfL "early start" scheme. I was second in the queue and had a couple of cyclists behind me. I didn't like the look of mingling with the traffic and considered that the specially developed cycle facility would surely be better than that. And I was somewhat intrigued to understand what the facility was like to use with several cyclists - last time it had just been me.<br />
<br />
The video below is the result.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/oT15kYXHxXI?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
There are many things to note from this video.<br />
<br />
Firstly, the poor pedestrian with a buggy and small child having to dash across the A11 off ramp exit to cross the road. And also note that not only are there no pedestrian lights, but on this crossing <i>there isn't even a dropped kerb</i>, so she has to lift up the buggy whilst sprinting across 3 lanes of traffic with no signalling and a small child in tow. One can only assume that she had to do the same thing with the "on-ramp" whilst dodging cars entering the A11 west-bound.<br />
<br />
Secondly, the cyclist in front of me isn't lightening fast at getting away from the lights, but they aren't exactly the slowest either. Clearly the motorcyclist, who one can hear giving the bike full throttle to get around in front of us is an unmitigated moron who, if they have a license, clearly obtained it by some miracle that managed to get their small cluster of brain cells corralled together for enough time to fool an examiner that they were someone who should be let loose with a vehicle. Frankly, on this video evidence, allowing the motorcyclist access to anything more dangerous than a plastic spoon should be thought a mistake. If that motorcyclist had misjudged the gap, or the cyclists been a bit quicker we could be having our third ghost bike at this junction. I have reported this incident to Roadsafe, who I hope will do something about it. If I ruled the world (or at least the TfL roads) this idiot would be banned from a license for the foreseeable future and made to cross the bow roundabout continuously until they realised how antisocial and ill-educated they are for pulling this kind of stunt.<br />
<br />
But these incidents show the fundamental flaws in the approach taken to junctions such as Bow. The fact that a pedestrian and child have to scamper like hunted animals simply to cross a road is disgusting. This isn't a civilised space - no amount of regeneration and fancy paving is going to make a difference to the fact that - in this configuration - no-one outside a car will have any desire to be anywhere near this area. And even in a car it is pretty horrible - the traffic is too fast, the lanes are too wide. And it shows the huge flaws in the "early start" system because the highest priority of the scheme is to implement something with no impact on traffic flow at all. The feed in lane is one cycle wide, meaning that you feed in as a queue to wait at the next lights. The scheme relies upon drivers not encroaching on the ASL, and it relies upon the fact that drivers won't simply try to bully their way through like the motorcyclist. It relies upon the fact that everyone using the facility has the ability to sprint away from the line and across the junction in the time it takes the cars to traverse the several metres of ASL - woe betide anyone not taking off like they are in the tour-de-France.<br />
<br />
TfL on their website say they are <a href="http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/22247.aspx">redesigning Bow Roundabout to improve cycle safety</a>. This might be what they would <i>like </i>to happen, but with the compromise of having a scheme that cannot impede - to any extent - traffic flow, they have implemented something really deeply flawed. TfL say on their blurb that they believe that the Bow Roundabout scheme is the "first of its kind in London". But I don't believe this to be the case. There are in fact many instances of poorly thought out cycle facilities which are utterly useless because their functionality comes a very poor second to keeping traffic flowing to the next queue. Unfortunately, reflecting on my experiences at Bow, TfL have simply managed to add another scheme to this list.GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-3854362461414857012012-06-17T23:52:00.003+01:002012-06-17T23:52:59.057+01:00Cycling Bow roundaboutIt has been a little while since TfL announced that they were going to change the layout of CS2 at Bow roundabout due to 2 deaths in the latter half of 2011. TfL have finished their new scheme on the eastbound carriageway and there have been interesting reports (from <a href="http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/">diamond geezer</a> and <a href="http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/bow-roundabout/">aseasyasridingabike</a>) of how this new junction works and what improvements, if any, have been achieved for cyclists.<br />
<br />
Bow junction is a road system I have to tackle on a cycle on a reasonably regular basis. Having once ventured onto the roundabout, realised how dangerous it could be with two lanes of traffic sometimes trying to turn left, I have always used the flyover. The flyover isn't exactly cycling nirvana - it is quite steep, vehicles break the speed limit to a ludicrous degree, one has to be very assertive and claim the lane whilst checking to see if you might need to bail left into armaco if some driver is no inattentive as to plow through you. And then, nature doesn't help - the flyover is very exposed and cross winds can be fierce. And the eastbound side has a long and dangerous slip road allowing drivers to speed before they even get onto the A11. So, the popularity of the flyover with cyclists is less to do with the suitability of it for cycling and more to do with the fact that the alternatives are <i>even worse</i>.<br />
<br />
When I first heard of the alterations - and TfLs much announced first "early start" lights - <a href="http://grumpycycling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/bow-roundabout-update.html">I was cautiously optimistic.</a> Then I saw the youtube computer simulations of the scheme and became <a href="http://grumpycycling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/bowing-to-traffic-flow.html">somewhat more sceptical.</a> So, with the scheme finished (after some alterations due to vehicles becoming impaled on the kerb), I thought it only sensible to try the scheme. I decided to use the roundabout instead of the flyover eastbound the other day.<br />
<br />
Below is my video of the new scheme - with some annotations.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oigw_UnfdIA/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Oigw_UnfdIA?version=3&f=user_uploads&c=google-webdrive-0&app=youtube_gdata" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Oigw_UnfdIA?version=3&f=user_uploads&c=google-webdrive-0&app=youtube_gdata" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
There were three things that struck me immediately.<br />
<br />
1) This is absolutely no better for pedestrians at all. The few pedestrians I saw were still running between light phases as cars surged onto the A12.<br />
2) Presumably TfL have to stick to guidelines (I assume from the DfT) which appear to believe that cyclists don't exist and end up making schemes like this clunky at best and dangerous at worst.<br />
3) There had been an overriding factor with the scheme which was that traffic flow should not be impacted at all by anything implemented.<br />
<br />
I will take point 2 first. The cycle lights are at the same height as the standard lights. The red light on the cycle light is simply red, whilst the amber and green are cycle shaped. I can only assume this is because there are some guidelines concerning traffic lights that completely ignore the fact that signals for cyclists would be better to be a bit lower and all displayed in a cycle shape. The confusion caused can be quite large. It has been reported that cyclists and motorists were getting confused by the different lights (I think there are 8 in total) even to the point that some cyclists were assuming (not unreasonably) that the green filter cycle light allowed them safe passage onto the roundabout when in fact traffic was still crossing from the right and they were supposed to stop at the standard lights a few metres away from the cycle filter. I saw one instance of this with my own eyes and my heart was in my mouth as a cyclist - completely unaware of the danger - crossed the roundabout and just missed a car. My conclusion is that the DfT have generated many, many rules concerning traffic signalling and street furniture and very few of them are geared towards anyone travelling by cycle. And TfL (and local councils) will slavishly follow these guidelines to build "facilities" that are clunky, wierd, or dangerous, or all three combined. For further proof just look at some of the signage around one way streets with a cycle contraflow because DfT currently doesn't allow a no-entry sign with cyclist exemption.<br />
<br />
Point 1 is important because bow junction doesn't just present a barrier for cyclists. I have heard stories of elderly pedestrians catching the bus one stop simply to avoid having to cross this junction. I would call that beyond unsatisfactory. It is simply wrong and idiotic. If we want this area to be "regenerated" then not allowing locals to cross the road in favour of vehicles streaming out of London seems a very odd way of going about it.<br />
<br />
And then there is point 3. The fact is that when I used the scheme correctly, it was just about OK. It was better than before, but short of TfL implementing an Indiana Jones set for cyclists, pretty much anything would have been better. The cycle lanes are too narrow, CS2 stops half way around because Newham council took a dislike to blue paint, there is a frankly bizarre build-out of the kerb as you exit which seems to be a bike lane to nowhere but confused the hell out of me, and the lane on the Newham side is, as one has come to expect with any cycling facility in Newham, crap.<br />
<br />
On the lights on the roundabout entry, if there are no cars trapped in the ASL and you are a reasonably quick cyclist, and are prepared to wait for two phases of lights (one cycle, one standard), then you do get a bit of a headstart on the main traffic. But I wouldn't advise anyone hanging about once the lights turn green. Or taking it as read that no driver will jump / misread the lights. To the point that in the video above,<i> even a police van</i> completely jumps the lights.<br />
<br />
But why have TfL implemented a scheme in a known blackspot that is probably just about workable only for cyclists who are relatively quick and savvy? I have seen questions on blog comments wondering why TfL don't simply look at other countries to see how this type of cycle "early start" works elsewhere. But these questions miss the reason why the scheme is like it is. Of course TfL understand about how The Netherlands, or Germany, or even some US cities now give cyclists their own phase at junctions to remove potential conflict. The reason that this scheme is complicated and cumbersome is because of point 3. It appears that maintaining the same phasing for vehicular traffic defined the entire nature of the scheme. After all, if it didn't, why have the rather unique double phasing - why not have a simple cycle phase integrated with a new pedestrian crossing on the A12 exit? Because this would have taken time away from vehicular flow.<br />
<br />
So, we are left with this new scheme. Already signs exhorting cyclists to stop at the red signals have gone up as a response to the confusion over the two sets of lights. When I used the scheme at rush-hour, no other cyclists used it with me - they all went over the flyover. Because the current cyclists over Bow tend to be battle-hardened commuters who will take the quicker options and have learned how to manage in a deeply hostile environment. And those who would like simply to use a cycle to get to Bow, or Stratford are very unlikely to leap on their cycles with this new layout.<br />
<br />
It is a shame. It shows the compromises that are currently considered necessary to our road layouts to preserve traffic flow and the priorities that lie behind such schemes.GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-78586525812060726782012-04-28T18:58:00.001+01:002012-04-28T19:00:00.687+01:00Road Tax....<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. is a topic I have consciously ignored on this blog. Simply because anyone who trots out the road-tax argument as to why car drivers can treat cyclists badly is either unable to use reason or is trolling. Either way it doesn't compel me to engage with the argument.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, "road-tax" has been in the news again courtesy of the cyclists' friend, John Griffin - boss of Addison Lee. Who thinks cyclists should be told <i>"<span style="line-height: 19px;">You want to join our gang, get trained and pay up".</span></i></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">Ignoring the<i> rather presumptuous</i> assertion that anyone would actually want to be part of Mr Griffin's gang in the first place, the issue of tax - specifically "road tax" - is used time and again. Yet it is such a bizarre argument that countering it incurs the danger of being dragged down to the same level. Yes, it is true that "road-tax" was abandoned in the 1930's and it is actually Vehicle Excise Duty which is basically a (rather crude) pollution tax. Yes, the roads, like pretty much everything else, is paid out of a central pot; there isn't a special fund to build and maintain roads whose income is derived from "road-tax". Yes, there is a coherent argument that says the total externalities of cars actually comes to a lot more than the money derived from "road-tax".</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">But all of this is trying to present logical arguments against a premise that is fundamentally illogical. And the people who use the "road-tax" argument aren't looking to engage in rational debate.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">However, when I hear the "road-tax" argument, I do wish to run this to its logical conclusions. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">Firstly, the argument is based upon the assumption that paying more tax infers more rights. <i>This is an exciting development</i>. I have, for many years, had company cars. My last one was a large, rather plush, "executive saloon" which had a large engine and a CO2 emission that wouldn't have pleased anyone in the Green party. I paid quite an extra-ordinary amount in tax for the privilege of sitting in traffic in a leather seat, and when I chose my latest vehicle, I decided to forfeit a badge and leather seats for something that cost me less in tax. According to the "I pay roadtax" philosophy does this now mean I have less rights on the road? How about people driving smart cars or a Prius? Since they don't pay "road-tax" should they be bullied to the side of the road by those that do?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">And why should the concept of inferring more rights based on tax paid be used solely with road transport? Why not infer more rights for, say education or NHS access based upon tax paid? How about those who pay more tax having more "rights" to influence where that tax is paid by access to politicians and government? </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">Of course this is all nonsense, because the idea that paying more tax infers more rights is also - generally - nonsense. Actually it is something that is usually viewed as undemocratic and unhealthy to society - just look at the scandals involving the very wealthy and politicians. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">Cyclists and pedestrians have a right to the road in law which isn't extended to driving motor vehicles who use the road only by permission. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;">So, as much as Mr Griffin wants to blather on about road-tax, </span><span style="line-height: 19px;">the simple fact is that, thankfully, we don't need to "join his gang" to use the road.</span></span>GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-73096129033050086542012-04-22T23:27:00.000+01:002012-04-22T23:27:42.302+01:00Well Done Waltham ForestI might have missed the article which has caused me optimism for improvements in cycling in Waltham Forest. I haven't seen it widely reported.<br />
<br />
However,<a href="http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/wfnews/9660310.WALTHAM_FOREST___Safer__cycling_plan_passed/"> this article</a> details a plan which has been passed by the council to introduce 20 mph on most of the borough's residential roads, and to allow cyclists to travel both ways on one-way streets. For reasons that I struggle to fathom, the conservatives saw fit to vote against the plan on the grounds of "safety".<br />
<br />
As I have mentioned in previous posts, the average speed of travel when using a car on most streets in Waltham Forest makes 30mph seem a fairly distant dream. When one is spending most of the time sitting in queues for junctions, the difference between doing 20mph or 30mph on the short stretches which are free of traffic is unlikely to improve journey time by anything meaningful. And 20 mph will make the residential roads much more amenable to pedestrians, residents and cyclists alike.<br />
<br />
The one-way streets are somewhat more contentious, but on roads that have had cycle contraflows enabled, I rarely find an issue cycling them in opposition to traffic flow. Many of these roads have been restricted to stop rat-running and therefore can accommodate two way cycle traffic with little issue. It appears to me from reading up on the subject that one of the issues was actually how to amend signs to allow contra-flow cycling - no entry signs weren't allowed with cycle exceptions apparently, spawning some quite un-intuitive signs and road treatments to accommodate.<br />
<br />
So, Waltham Forest should be commended for its plans. It looks like there is a general will to improve matters for cyclists (as well as other non-motorised road users). I do think there is one problem with 20mph though. In that, where roads have been designated 20mph, it is a rare driver that actually sticks to it. My road is a 20 mph traffic calmed one, and I witness every day drivers going way above 30mph, less still 20mph, on it. It is a road with a high number of residents with children, and driving at these speeds shows the lack of consideration one is sometimes up against. So, it isn't enough to simply designate 20mph zones, thought needs to be given to policing it as well. And this is tricky.<br />
<br />
Maybe what is needed is a brave redesign of our residential streets along the "home-zone" lines, where it is really difficult to speed in the first place. Maybe we need to look for the police to blitz certain areas in relation to speeding in order to raise the profile. And these schemes could also look to take off the road many of the illegal and uninsured drivers who are statistically more likely to be involved in accidents than those legally using the roads. <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/rocketing-number-of-illegal-drivers-in-capital-6835696.html">Apparently, at the last estimate, the percentage of drivers who are illegally using roads in East London may be as high as 10%</a>. Imagine taking these drivers off the roads. Maybe the roads will be slightly less congested - maybe it is even possible that those forced out of their cars would transition to the cycle?<br />
<br />GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-71108807843109266842012-04-22T22:22:00.002+01:002012-04-22T22:23:24.761+01:00The Speed of ProgressToday, I did a local round trip of around four miles by car. Traffic was much lighter than on an average day - even though on a Sunday one gets stuck behind cars parked on yellow lines. Average speed was 14 mph.<br />
<br />
Last week, I drove to Camden one morning, after the 9am school run had finished. I averaged 9mph. Parking cost me the best part of 10 quid.<br />
<br />
Last time I drove locally at around 4:30 - 5pm, a short journey of a couple of miles took the best part of 45 minutes. I drive at this time (the perfect storm of the school run and end of work) very occasionally to validate my reasons for using the cycle.<br />
<br />
I travel to Camden on my cycle at a much faster average speed. And I am an unfit cyclist on an old and heavy bicycle. The local average in my car today was about the same as my average on a cycle, and this was in traffic that didn't hinder me particularly.<br />
<br />
Remind me again, how do bicycles hold up traffic?GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-37663495955315579462012-04-22T22:06:00.001+01:002012-04-22T22:06:38.614+01:00Addison Lee Boss : Breaking the law and running over grannies is OKOK, so he didn't actually say this - but seeing as he is defending his editorial in his Addison Lee magazine by saying he may have used some poetic license, I thought I would as well.<br />
<br />
I should imagine most people now know that John Griffin has<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17749071"> urged his drivers to use London bus lanes</a> and he will pay the fines whilst AL and TfL slug it out in the court on Monday. Then, he <a href="http://road.cc/content/news/56999-addison-lee-chairman-airs-his-opinion-london-cyclist-deaths">wrote an editorial in the AL magazine</a> which seemed to imply cyclists (especially novice ones) have only themselves to blame if they are run over. And then capped it all by dropping in the classic "cyclists don't pay road tax" canard to end.<br />
<br />
I am not going to analyse what he said in the editorial, since other sites <a href="http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/">have covered this far better</a> than I could. I do wonder about the logical reasoning of a man who, in one breath, can encourage his drivers to break the law, whilst on the other berate cyclists for using ipods. Considering the collection of youtube videos showing Addison Lee drivers <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJaERQpAJSY">texting</a>, on the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB_gqmY5NPM">phone</a>, and generally <a href="http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL84A8677DE78BD0DB">throwing themselves around the road</a>, one might think he would be better worrying about this than the actions of cyclists.<br />
<br />
Now, in The Times he seems to be trying to "clarify" his comments by saying that he is simply concerned for cyclists and thinks that we need more training. He says <i>"<a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3390328.ece" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; line-height: 18px;">If my article causes a debate around whether cyclists need training and holding to the same standards as other road users, bring it on</a>"</i>. If by "standards [of] other road-users" he means some of his mini-cab drivers' then, judging by the videos linked above, he has set the bar <i>really rather low</i>.<br />
<br />
One can deconstruct his comments and subsequent <strike>backtracking </strike> sorry - "clarifications" until the internet runs out of storage space, but the really interesting thing is why he thought printing these types of comments, and openly asking his drivers to flout the law by using bus lanes would actually pose no issues. Those of a more cynical nature may wonder whether he believed the significant cash donated to the party of current government bought him a certain indemnity. Others may wonder whether he realised that he won out over the M4 bus lane by flouting the law and then managing to get the fines cancelled, and thought he could do the same here. Certainly I doubt he expected this type of reaction to either statement. The story has now run in nearly all national papers, has spawned a protest group and been aired on radio. It has even brought black cab drivers and cyclists together in unity against Addison Lee - a truly spectacular achievement.<br />
<br />
But much more than this, his comments and actions have irritated people who cycle in London. People who work for companies that use his services. People who may be in a position of authority to review or influence these contracts. Already there are posts from managers saying they have cancelled their use of Addison Lee, and rumours of bigger cancellations.<br />
<br />
And this is what is really amazing. That John Griffin - a man savvy enough to build a large business - doesn't actually understand that cyclists aren't some odd-ball phenomena designed to fling themselves under his taxis. They aren't some militant out-group that are hellbent on destroying capitalism. They are simply people getting to work, going home, doing some shopping, meeting friends, going out.<br />
<br />
They are, in short, his customers.GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-76534847076151050942012-04-22T21:33:00.001+01:002012-04-22T21:33:38.129+01:00The Open RoadRecently I have had to travel by car for work quite extensively. It isn't something that I particularly enjoy, and driving is no longer something that can be defined by most as pleasurable - certainly not anywhere near London.<br />
<br />
I have had to drive from E17 to the M4 / Chiswick roundabout and back again a couple of times in the last week. None of the journeys were without severe congestion, even though I was travelling outside the rush hour. Indeed if one wants to travel around the North Circular without fairly serious queues you will need to do this before 6 in the morning or after 10pm at night. I have even been stuck in tailbacks at around midnight at Henley's corner. I frequently travel this road at 5:30am and, even at this time, traffic is building heavily.<br />
<br />
To illustrate the issue, my last trip from E17 to M4 was started around 9am. I averaged 11 mph for the whole trip - a journey time of not far short of 2 hours. To re-iterate - this was 11mph average outside the standard "rush-hour", on a road that is generally 40mph or 50mph speed limit. On my cycle I manage a better average.<br />
<br />
So it is with a certain incredulity that I learn<a href="http://www.sustrans.org.uk/resources/in-the-news/more-traffic-to-fill-new-roads"> the government are predicting a 42% rise in traffic in London over the next 25 years. </a> What average speed is likely if this comes to pass? I should imagine it to be speedier to abandon my car in the queues and walk to my destination over the top of the gridlock. If this predicted growth is accurate (and there are doubts over whether the government understand the change in dynamics with travel), then no amount of road building will stop the whole system grinding to a halt.<br />
<br />
I am unclear as to what the government plan to do about their predicted growth in traffic. Anyone who isn't completely car centric must see that the situation is unsustainable now, less still if we are going to add half as many cars again to the system. No amount of tinkering around with traffic lights in the name of "traffic smoothing" is going to change matters - what is needed are significant changes in attitude to travel, from individuals who currently decide to cover a couple of miles in a car to planning which allows offices and homes to be constructed far away from transport hubs, and roads constructed in such a way to make travelling by car easy and every other mode difficult.<br />
<br />
Attitudes have to change. I heard a woman on the radio the other week say that fuel price increases have meant that she has a choice between driving the children to school or buying food. Not only are attitudes like this incredible, but the fact that they aren't challenged even on public radio is even more amazing. We are so emotionally tied to the car, that any alternative is simply viewed as crazy. How has it come to this? How can we think that we can add another 43% to the road networks in London?<br />
<br />
I <i>do </i>see changes in attitude starting to happen. This year I saw more cyclists during the winter than previous winters - and now the weather is getting better I am very much heartened by the numbers of cyclists I see on local roads. My heart was lifted when I went to the shops in Walthamstow this weekend to find that all the spaces for cycles were completely full (shortly before becoming rather irritated that I had to try and find somewhere else of course!) But to wean us all from cars needs so much more. New offices and homes shouldn't just have the odd cycle stand as a sop to environmental guidelines, they need to be considered in relation to train stations, bus routes, shops and existing dwellings. The lady on the radio the other day has to be shown other options, and those options have to be made as easy and attractive as travelling by car.<br />
<br />
It is all perfectly possible. In fact, if the alternative is another 42% traffic on our roads, any alternative to this is the possible, and simply trying to cater for more traffic is the impossible.<br />
<br />
I will be back on the cycle tomorrow. And despite the sometimes horrible infrastructure, the challenging roads and delights such as Bow flyover, I cannot wait to get back onto a mode of transport that doesn't trap me for hours on a journey that should take a fraction of that time.<br />
<br />
As a finale, let me share with you two videos taken around Tottenham Hale in the morning. One shows the chaos caused by a single accident, the second shows that the standard state of affairs isn't much better. Surely we can do better than this?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_KN6An8Ufyg/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_KN6An8Ufyg?version=3&f=user_uploads&c=google-webdrive-0&app=youtube_gdata" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_KN6An8Ufyg?version=3&f=user_uploads&c=google-webdrive-0&app=youtube_gdata" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/uXVKGZED3XA?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-19714343170985488602012-01-22T20:03:00.001+00:002012-01-22T20:03:55.841+00:00Pavement Parking PandemoniumThe tarting up of the streets of Leyton and Leytonstone for the Olympics is now well under way (Waltham Forest use the phrase "improving the streetscape" instead of "tarting up" but I suspect you get the general principle).<br />
<br />
Pavements are being dug up around the area such as this area of Leytonstone High Road.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg0Dj3CTRoIWTmnm8RQ6gwUj8ML7Znh17vAKqJT2uV2uR5gTvUwuHiSljGNkLvOgz4hAC7hIfG7qVOqOOW90xGnqyA8gS7KvEMp43EwnyWoitNdVEqV94LwvrWIdwliR1722lE8jRplYs/s1600/IMG00038-20120118-0906.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg0Dj3CTRoIWTmnm8RQ6gwUj8ML7Znh17vAKqJT2uV2uR5gTvUwuHiSljGNkLvOgz4hAC7hIfG7qVOqOOW90xGnqyA8gS7KvEMp43EwnyWoitNdVEqV94LwvrWIdwliR1722lE8jRplYs/s400/IMG00038-20120118-0906.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
This "improving the streetscape" has been in operation for a little while, and appears to consist of the council digging up the pavement, installing expensive stone blocks in attractive patterns, and then allowing cars to park on the result. Here, in true Blue Peter fashion, is one they made earlier...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCJlghb55lwNEoAFhVmkIjJEfg1SbAzci8yJvw7opJ-y3IOhVZwY3zXmubJ4_AOcwSIfVwi79A5Tp5i4lgfLhSObF6pvQxp4635Tivyj8hhyviSAWy1ZSTFBfy-60ZkDAtB-vOaIly8ZQ/s1600/IMG00039-20120118-0909.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCJlghb55lwNEoAFhVmkIjJEfg1SbAzci8yJvw7opJ-y3IOhVZwY3zXmubJ4_AOcwSIfVwi79A5Tp5i4lgfLhSObF6pvQxp4635Tivyj8hhyviSAWy1ZSTFBfy-60ZkDAtB-vOaIly8ZQ/s400/IMG00039-20120118-0909.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
One can see the nice arrangement of stone blocks just waiting to be covered up by parked cars. I have to say the whole effect of "improving the streetscape" is somewhat undermined for me by the globs of uneven tarmac scattered along the edge of the road. And yes, dear reader, you are right to assume that the bits of uneven red tarmac with the liberal smatterings of potholes and jutting out kerbstones is the cycle lane. <i>Inviting, no</i>? Waltham Forest may be planning on re-surfacing the road, but I wouldn't bet my house on it.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the roads which have had this treatment for a while appear to be causing motorists some confusion. Consider this 4x4 parked in Wood Street the other week.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-Gv3390QFIWoCmRlzPmG8E1uUPHHdQyFIOG-JqKwXSeMirvHmqlHpTSbE95m-gKRHvjfNcAHVRdv52byDDzfkFITUQusDUGk4yDOwxfjprR3InuvDaDdFTv0SSoWmABiJz5EVYfQOBK0/s1600/IMG00035-20120114-1224.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-Gv3390QFIWoCmRlzPmG8E1uUPHHdQyFIOG-JqKwXSeMirvHmqlHpTSbE95m-gKRHvjfNcAHVRdv52byDDzfkFITUQusDUGk4yDOwxfjprR3InuvDaDdFTv0SSoWmABiJz5EVYfQOBK0/s400/IMG00035-20120114-1224.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
A CCTV enforcement car was taking some interest in it as it is illegally parked on the pavement. But on the other side of the road the cars are legally parked on some of those fancy stone blocks which have been installed for around six months. In fact the gap left for pedestrians by some of the legally parked cars on this road is less than the gap you can see between the 4x4 and the wall. There were spaces behind the cars on the other side of the road for the driver of the Land Rover to park. Maybe the driver is exceptionally lazy and couldn't be bothered to cross the road (there are no crossing points for pedestrians anywhere near, but that is OK since the building on the right only houses a popular indoor playcentre - so no need to help families with young children surely?). Or maybe the driver saw all the pavement parking along the whole length of this road and didn't understand that this is only OK if the car is parked on some expensive fancy stones as opposed to everywhere? Who knows?GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-23300977402991757912012-01-16T11:01:00.000+00:002012-01-16T11:01:48.818+00:00I remember when all this was fields...<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Draper's fields to be exact.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Before</span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><img alt="Drapers Field - to be shut for 2 years" height="300" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4708957361_2dae1175df.jpg" width="400" />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">After</span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4Fr8q8x-I0hQ4vUDQTOCTfTt7NF4lBxb0jt7yM9ofdnB9CpUhGNxDpgEGEmgyPMn_VfF7Yp4Vn4zS8yP0saPlj4GkMKXh2yrrRuF7WexwtMc75X5XWMqI3i67W8Bx1G85Eb3Wwg8UsAY/s1600/IMG00036-20120116-0851.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4Fr8q8x-I0hQ4vUDQTOCTfTt7NF4lBxb0jt7yM9ofdnB9CpUhGNxDpgEGEmgyPMn_VfF7Yp4Vn4zS8yP0saPlj4GkMKXh2yrrRuF7WexwtMc75X5XWMqI3i67W8Bx1G85Eb3Wwg8UsAY/s400/IMG00036-20120116-0851.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Draper's fields have been given to the ODA for the period of around a year and a half to accommodate logistics services for the Olympic village (seen in the background of the second photo). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">A BBC report on the the community usage of Draper's fields <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13157668">can be found here.</a> The site was playing fields and an astroturf pitch used by a local school and clubs. According to<a href="http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/8206223.LEYTON__Drapers_Field__may_be_Olympic_VIP_carpark_/?ref=rss"> this report</a> in the local paper, the astroturf pitch was used by 1,380 (an oddly precise number!) people a week alone. The report also headlines with the fact that the site may be used for VIP parking - something not in any planning documents I have seen, so either the ODA are keeping very quiet about this, or it is an unfounded rumour.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Now, I understand that the large Olympic village will require logistics support on an equally large scale. I also understand that open space near the Olympic village may be in short supply, and Draper's field is ideally situated. It is unfortunate that the open space is one of the few in this part of Waltham Forest, and will mean that clubs and local schools will not have access to it for more than a year.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The council have been compensated £3.5M by the ODA, which they say will go to turning back the site to an even better sports facility - with the fields opening again for the public in September 2013. They say that the compensation will not only allow redevelopment of the Drapers site, but will go towards improvements in other parks as well. What concerns me most is that I haven't managed to find any documents relating to what the redevelopment after the games will <i>actually involve</i>. The planning statement from the ODA (<a href="http://www.london2012.com/making-it-happen/planning-consultations/documents/planning-statement-drapers-field.pdf">found as pdf here</a>) is very light on use after the games since Waltham Forest will be in charge of the "legacy component" (I presume this means that Waltham Forest will be given the site as is and will then change it back to leisure use themselves). Waltham Forest were going to submit plans for the changes to the field after the games, but I haven't been able to find any details of these plans online (or indeed any mention of them).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">After the ongoing saga of the arcade site, I prefer not to trust Waltham Forest with regeneration plans, especially ones that are unspecified before the event occurs. Maybe I am just not a trusting soul. I would be interested to know if Waltham Forest indeed have plans for the field that are available for the public. </span><br />
<br />
<br />GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-1857040114705745712012-01-14T20:50:00.000+00:002012-01-14T20:50:04.246+00:00Smile - it could be worse...<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">... and then I smiled and it steadily got worse...</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Not only have we the <i>insipid </i>Bow Roundabout design from TfL - one that delays cyclists twice as long as other traffic yet gives them barely any extra protection anyway - but there appears to be <i>even more</i> bad news.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">I was reading a blog on the <a href="http://rosamundi.org/blog/2012/01/initial-thoughts-on-the-proposed-bow-flyoverroundabout-changes/">Bow Flyover by "Over The Hills and Faraway"</a>, which was commenting on the proposed Bow Flyover changes. (I am reading all I can about the changes in the hope that TfL are actually playing an early April Fools joke and I have missed the announcement that they were <i>only kidding</i>, and will, of course, be implementing something half reasonable.)</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">So imagine my concern when I read in the blog:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;"><i>The Highway Authority for the Bow Roundabout Flyover and the road
immediately to the east of the roundabout (Stratford High Street) is the
London Borough of Newham. TfL has commenced discussions with Newham to
seek approval where changes to accommodate these options may be required
on their roads.</i></span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">So, decisions to implement the flyover plan will rest with Newham council.<a href="http://grumpycycling.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-am-now-proud-owner-of-muvi-camera.html"> Remember them</a>? Yes, the <i> </i>oligarchy run by Sir Robin Wales - the mayor who hates cycling enough to block the Cycle superhighway extending to the games for the Olympics (although they say they can look at it after the games - yeah, great). The mayor that <a href="http://www.woodcraft.org.uk/news/woodcrafters-protest-about-lack-safe-cycle-routes">banned the woodcraft folk</a>, from a council cabinet meeting because they were going to protest about the laughable cycling facilities in the borough. I mean he <i>actually </i>barred the <i>woodcraft folk</i>! Maybe the council cabinet were too busy <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11984977">polishing all those chandeliers...</a></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">So it is probably fair to say that if you are a cyclist who needs to negotiate the Bow junction... well we are truly f*ck*d.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Call me Nostradamus if you wish, but I have some predictions for the future of cycling at the Bow Flyover:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">TfL will implement the bow roundabout "early start" cycle "facility" as is, despite protests from cyclists and cycling groups. Meanwhile the Bow flyover plan will fall into the pit of despair that is Nehwam council's transport department, never to be seen again. Or maybe it will end up in cubicle 3 of the bathroom facilities, where its absorbency qualities are thoroughly tested...</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Meanwhile motorists will continue to disregard the bow roundabout ASLs - especially since the traffic will be queueing at peak times anyway and no-one <i>ever </i>polices ASLs - so even the <i>minuscule </i>advantage given to cyclists with the scheme will be lost. Cyclists will get royally p*ssed off waiting twice as long as the motorists at the junction in order to be left hooked anyway, and will decide to jump the filter lights or ignore the filter lane altogether. Near misses will continue. People will complain. Police will clamp down at the junction - not at ASL encroaching motorists - but by fining cyclists not availing themselves of the magnificent facilities bestowed by TfL. Meanwhile TfL will put on their worried face again and drivel on about "cycle training" and the London Mayor will explain how he has absolutely no issues with the junction, positively enjoys it, and is stunned that anyone "with their wits about them" would have a problem. Most cyclists will continue ignoring the lethal roundabout and negotiate their way onto, and over, the flyover with absolutely no help from the road layout at all. TfL will announce the cost of the scheme implementation, which will be at least three times as much as any reasonable person could conceive it could <i>possibly </i>cost. Since computer modelling to ensure motor vehicles aren't inconvenienced in the slightest costs serious wedge. And then everyone carries on as normal with TfL slipping their time-scale for 5% model share by another 20 years, and hoping that some more promotional videos with minor celebrities will get everyone leaping on their cycles.</span></div>
</div>GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-89666478240290602182012-01-13T18:10:00.003+00:002012-01-13T18:10:48.895+00:00Bow(ing) to traffic flow?<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">In my previous post, I was cheered by TfL's response to the issues at Bow for cyclists. There appeared to be additions of cycle only lights to separate cycles and traffic wishing to turn onto the A12, as well as the consideration of cycle lanes over the flyover with light controls to aid cyclists on and off of the flyover.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">So far, so good. For those who use the flyover, a way of being able to access it without trying to control a very wide lane of traffic splitting between the roundabout and the flyover, and for those who prefer the roundabout some lights to safely allow cyclists to proceed past the exit slips to the A12.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I was pleasantly surprised that these measures were being implemented, especially on the roundabout where previous suggestions at "Toucan" crossings for pedestrians and cyclists were dismissed by TfL as being too disruptive to "traffic flow". It looked like "traffic flow" (meaning, presumably traffic with an engine as opposed to traffic without) was taking less priority to safety at last.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">However, I might be being cynical, but I am suddenly becoming very sceptical of these new plans, after looking at the <a href="http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/22247.aspx">plans and videos on the TfL site.</a> Specifically these two videos</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/gIktrH3b82g?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/MV3ZKSY0eCc?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Now, the text indicates that the improvement is :</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"><i>A cycle 'early-start' phase at the traffic signals on the eastbound and westbound entrance to the Bow roundabout. This would provide a dedicated green light phase to allow cyclists to travel ahead of other traffic </i></span>
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But is this actually tying up with the videos (which is the entrance to Bow Roundabout Eastbound)?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I say this because the change appears to be a set of cycle lights <i>in the cycle filter lane</i> which c<i>ontrols cyclists entering the (larger) ASL</i>. Once in the ASL, the cyclists are controlled by the <i>standard lights</i> which are green for <i>both vehicles and cyclists</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">So what would be the point of that?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Well, I suspect that the cycle lights go red when the standard lights are green to stop cyclists moving into the ASL and progressing through the junction with the traffic.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">So conflict is being stopped by only allowing cyclists to progress at the green traffic light who are already ahead of the traffic in the ASL. If this is the case, then cyclists arriving at the junction at the green traffic light will be held in the filter lane by the red cycle light until the general traffic lights go red. Then the cycle lights will go green to allow the cyclists to proceed to the ASL where they will have to wait for a full rotation of the standard lights before being able to proceed when the standard traffic lights go green.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">No wonder TfL isn't worried about "traffic flow" - <i>the disruption is to cyclists</i>, and not motorised vehicles. Also there are a few issues on top of the fact that, if this is a correct interpretation of the scheme, it will be massively inconvenient to cyclists :</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">1) The "early start" phase doesn't look like an early start at all. It looks like a standard head-start given by the gap in a deeper ASL. Slower cyclists will surely still come into conflict with vehicles if the vehicles are driven aggressively and the cyclist is slow. How big is the ASL to give a decent enough head-start? How fast will a cyclist need to pedal to avoid agressively accelerating cars?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">2) Won't the ASL simply be populated with the normal assortment mopeds, taxis, and cars as per many other ASLs? In which case there won't be any advantage given to cyclists at all.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">3) What happens if the roundabout gets backed up (as it often does)? Not only will this fill the ASL with vehicles, but the vehicles already on the roundabout may end up conflicting with the "early start" cyclists from the ASL.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I hope I have misread the video. I have watched it a few times and cannot see how else the scheme works. If I am correct in reading the scheme, then TfL will be making very little safety improvements, at the expense of delaying cyclists for a couple of traffic light cycles. It doesn't seem like much of a step forward.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I hope I am wrong...</span>GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-47359587897809197972012-01-12T09:39:00.001+00:002012-01-12T09:47:47.096+00:00Bow Roundabout Update<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I saw <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16521930">this article on the BBC website today.</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">After the Bow cyclist fatalities last year, TfL and the Mayor promised a review and report on the junction. This was in November, and as a general member of the public, I hadn't heard much since. Hence my scepticism when I saw some large yellow warning signs appear a month or so ago.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">It appears, however, that the junction has been reviewed, and TfL have some possible alterations in mind.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">1) Addition of cycle lights on the Bow roundabout to give cyclists a headstart over the traffic.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">2) Addition of cycle lanes on the flyover with lights to allow easy access for cyclists to the flyover.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The second proposal would see the east-bound carriage-way reduced from two to one traffic lane to implement a cycle lane, and presumably west-bound, the hatchings would be reworked to accommodate a cycle lane there.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">In my opinion, both these suggestions show the start of some sensible changes. Most cyclists I see use the flyover now, as do I, so I would err towards option 2 if I had to choose (or maybe TfL could implement both?!). Traffic over the flyover is typically very light - I am amazed at how few cars use it (most are going onto the A12 it would appear) even in rush hour. So reducing the lane count shouldn't cause disruption to motor-traffic. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The first option also looks promising, but only if the lights really create a safe route for cycles. Since all cyclists will be going in one direction (back onto the A11 slip road - the A12 is prohibited for cycles), I would have thought some cycle priority signals could be able worked with pedestrian crossing time, thus making the junction permeable for both cyclists and people on foot. I would prefer the flyover option because the roundabout is simply horrible for cyclists, and I would need to be convinced about any solutions that TfL have implemented to make it safer and more usable.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Leon Daniels said that TfL are committed to implement improvements before the Olympics. Which is an ambitious deadline considering that this is only 6 months or so away.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">This news looks positive from TfL. From the small amount of information in the news report, it looks like the options have been thought out - I didn't think anything involving lights for the motor traffic would be considered because of "traffic smoothing" considerations, so TfL have surprised me with these proposals.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Here is hoping that the ideas, which sound good on paper, translate into some good facilities to allow permeability across the barrier that is currently the Bow interchange.</span>GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-35526515245530020792012-01-08T00:30:00.000+00:002012-01-08T00:43:39.880+00:00Nero fiddles...<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The 2012 competition for the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/sep/15/james-martin-cyclists">James Martin </a> award is off to a flying start - the accolade for most obnoxious rant against cyclists in a newspaper may be won before the year has properly started!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">This time, instead of being a cook who sharpens his pen against the lycra louts, it is the MD of "Radio Exeter" <a href="http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/riders-refuse-use-cycle-paths/story-14333677-detail/story.html">in this piece</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">To properly appreciate the invective that Paul Nero has unleashed upon us anti-social cyclists, I have picked out some passages.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px;"><i><b>SO I'm driving through the ridiculous 20 mile-an-hour system that's been designed to stop people going to Topsham when there's a decision to make. Should I knock this ignorant cyclist off his bike, blast my horn so that he is in no doubt about my displeasure, or slow down further so that the tailback that's built up between the rugby ground and the roundabout becomes longer still?</b></i></span>
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></i></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Thus starts the article - with no punches pulled on the stupidity of a 20mph speed limit. Clearly the yoghurt knitting town planners have put pedestrians and residents above Mr Nero's ability to go from A-B in his car. Outrageous! Don't they know who he is? Clearly, as MD of <a href="http://www.exeter.fm/">Exeter Radio</a> he has places to go, deals to strike, important meetings to attend. Small provincial radio stations don't simply run themselves without some hard work by people like Mr Nero, and pedestrians and other road users simply need to understand the importance of people such as him travelling between traffic lights as quickly as possible.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">And then to make matters worse - there is one of those <i>appalling cyclists </i>in Mr Nero's way. You have to start to feel his pain at that point. This cyclist appears, from Mr Nero's article, to be impeding progress to the next tailback! Hence the author's dilemma - to quietly fume or knock this upstart aside?</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Someone who doesn't understand the importance of Mr Nero's progress around the back roads of Dorset might wonder if it is a proportionate response to consider causing injury or worse to another human who impedes their progress by a minute or two. Some who don't understand the distress might wonder if this sounds just a teeny bit <i>psychotic</i>. They might wonder if cyclists are singled out for this retribution or whether Mr Nero metes out such summary justice to anyone who slows him down. What would be his response if Mr Nero was delayed by, say, an elderly couple at the front of the checkout queue hunting for change? One might imagine that he would consider a decision between fuming behind them or punching them repeatedly in the face until they stepped aside. After all Mr Nero is a busy man; who <i>wouldn't </i>blame him for resorting to such summary justice?</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But the cyclist is in luck. Mr Nero is not a man who forgets he is a role-model in society.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px;"><i><b>As a responsible citizen I slow down. I fume. And I add fumes. Slow-moving traffic wastes fuel and adds to carbon emissions. Idiots who ignore cycle paths should appreciate that future generations of children will drown as global warming wipes out Lympstone. And it's their fault.</b></i></span>
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></i></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Here, Mr Nero's impeccable logic cuts through the eco babble. Those pesky cyclists think they might be helping reduce pollution by using transport which doesn't produce any, but they actually cause hapless motorists like Mr Nero to add to carbon emissions. Do cyclists not realise that Mr Nero is actually helping to save the planet when he drives quickly?<i> For Christ's sake why don't they think of the children?! </i>Thoughtless lycra clad bastards. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">As Mr Nero points out - it is <i>all</i> their fault for daring to use the roads.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I could go on, but I think I should let Mr Nero's rapier-like penmanship do the talking. </span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Except to say that those who wish to know more about the hero behind the devastating expose on cyclists may be interested to know that, as well as the comments section on the article linked there are other ways to show your appreciation for his work.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Such as on Exeter FMs facebook page <a href="http://www.facebook.com/exeterfm">here</a>. (Mr Nero appears to be wilting a little in the comments on this page, so any support from people appreciative of his article would surely be welcome..)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></span>GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-47998472082503983522012-01-04T21:50:00.000+00:002012-01-04T21:50:12.299+00:00BowRuminating on the year just past, I remembered the "Tour De Danger", and the two deaths on<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15703169"> CS2 at Bow roundabout which happened just before this event.</a><br />
<br />
The pressure from the media and the London assembly prompted TfL to say that they were going to review all SuperHighway junctions and report back on the bow roundabout as a matter of urgency. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15798634">This was reported on 18th November 2011</a>.<br />
<br />
Has the urgent report been compiled and delivered yet?<br />
<br />
What I have seen are a series of large yellow notices asking Drivers to be nice to cyclists, and for cyclists to try to avoid traffic. Such as this one below<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnmqj0hf-qGH23hQwhr_Uxa60ucXBx3zMYuCkWnoNNqII8nWnCH9-PzRRfpYF8wl0iBe30eXak5PdBFGFrWq76jKHkOPX2Zw1s_zBBiM66z-CkM1m9gxTuZs9ywAesIfaLc6FXApA3v20/s1600/IMG00018-20111213-0852.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnmqj0hf-qGH23hQwhr_Uxa60ucXBx3zMYuCkWnoNNqII8nWnCH9-PzRRfpYF8wl0iBe30eXak5PdBFGFrWq76jKHkOPX2Zw1s_zBBiM66z-CkM1m9gxTuZs9ywAesIfaLc6FXApA3v20/s400/IMG00018-20111213-0852.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I am not really sure how effective the signs are going to be. Especially this one, which had been twisted around to face the pavement. As a cyclist using this road, I might prefer a lowered and policed speed limit whilst the design is considered.GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-1700999184837204882011-12-30T13:51:00.000+00:002012-01-03T20:33:40.365+00:00Festive CheerI have been rather busy over the last few weeks, and unable to post. Therefore I offer a rather belated Festive greetings and Happy New Year.<br />
<br />
I have several posts I want to share, but to continue with the positivity I summoned up in November, I thought I would start with how cycling has changed Christmas for me.<br />
<br />
Since crossing the age divide, where one moves from opening up presents which are exciting toys and progress onto opening up presents which are socks, I have viewed Christmas as overblown and stressful. But the last few Christmases, I have started to enjoy the festive period again. And in doing so, I realised it wasn't the actual Christmas holiday I didn't like, but the<i> run-up</i> to it. I am not a happy shopper at the best of times, and having to shop for presents in a shopping centre so crowded that it probably contravenes EU rules on livestock transport was never going to improve matters. Or the fact that I used to drive everywhere, and at Christmas, this is just torture.<br />
<br />
But some things changed my mind, and made Christmas so much better<br />
<br />
1) Having a small child. One has to have really misplaced one's heart if unmoved by the excitement of a small child at opening presents.<br />
<br />
2) The wonder that is Amazon (or any other online retailer). Not only can you buy presents online without having to inch your way through hoards of angry shoppers, but you can specify the presents you want. This means I get the gifts I would like, and can simply pick something off other people's wish lists so they get what they want as well. This seems a very satisfactory arrangement all round. Hell, many online shops gift wrap it as well for you. It as if they read my mind (or the mind of any other lazy, reluctant shopper).<br />
<br />
3) I don't drive to get to the shops at Christmas. No matter what size of present or shopping I am picking up, multiple cycle trips are better than using the car.<br />
<br />
To illustrate no. 3, I remember driving to my local Tescos, which was barely half a mile away, to pick up some shopping. I couldn't park in, or indeed get anywhere near, the supermarket car park. I couldn't park anywhere else either. The roads were gridlocked. The journey took 30 minutes simply to circle the supermarket. My wife got out and did the shopping whilst I inched my way around the vicinity. Apparently two people were having a fight in the supermarket, according to my wife. I knew how they felt.<br />
<br />
But on a cycle things are very different. My journey takes me about as long as it always does to get to the supermarket. And if the supermarket has run out of what I need, I simply get on the cycle to the next shop. Not something easily done in a car at the best of times, and infuriating when the traffic means any journey is done at less than walking pace. Christmas Eve around Walthamstow illustrated the point wonderfully. This was my journey through the town centre.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN56q8DQC0MMoNo1K9LlwCa124h16RK6wM5nv3fY5AyNqU1BzRg6mMJpqFSjP-CcVmIYnx2huwetoovsHz1aesx6XPjodgUm8C9Wa3Pfubr8CNvSzBanF1A5MnSLzF6O-_B5DQlQEna_g/s1600/IMG00020-20111224-1414.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN56q8DQC0MMoNo1K9LlwCa124h16RK6wM5nv3fY5AyNqU1BzRg6mMJpqFSjP-CcVmIYnx2huwetoovsHz1aesx6XPjodgUm8C9Wa3Pfubr8CNvSzBanF1A5MnSLzF6O-_B5DQlQEna_g/s320/IMG00020-20111224-1414.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxS9UnQ5FesI_ccnVvxzu96huBkqQIOamzTUVEL6u01xNiCwbIefJPiA72PQWW7EBWhYEKRTFln4LIpPC3vvtp0p75VwGG8zHgUEOsQ28GUBJc5-xXRufmdVhIi-FlNWfSBjAfOom3s14/s1600/IMG00021-20111224-1422.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxS9UnQ5FesI_ccnVvxzu96huBkqQIOamzTUVEL6u01xNiCwbIefJPiA72PQWW7EBWhYEKRTFln4LIpPC3vvtp0p75VwGG8zHgUEOsQ28GUBJc5-xXRufmdVhIi-FlNWfSBjAfOom3s14/s320/IMG00021-20111224-1422.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The two pictures actually show one very long traffic jam pretty much circling the centre. I don't know how long it took these drivers to complete their journey, but none of them looked particularly full of Christmas cheer.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_pj6xbKmRoloMfnc6xVqBf8y_rDMvt7rnEflDeGXAxW50uyEVTGZ-kmm-FPfmavUpOu1lo-DcUsMCk8YF2ARR6ND7_aVLda8OqBrMstbkI9bVLHDhKIF_Imzxyeou6q2wQLKJrHAmBy8/s1600/IMG00019-20111224-1413.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="169" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_pj6xbKmRoloMfnc6xVqBf8y_rDMvt7rnEflDeGXAxW50uyEVTGZ-kmm-FPfmavUpOu1lo-DcUsMCk8YF2ARR6ND7_aVLda8OqBrMstbkI9bVLHDhKIF_Imzxyeou6q2wQLKJrHAmBy8/s320/IMG00019-20111224-1413.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
And to make matters worse, some had to spend their time queuing under the watchful gaze of Mrs Thatcher. I, on the other hand, was only delayed by trying to find a stand to lock the cycle against - a problem which actually made me happier since it means there were many more people deciding the cycle was the only sensible transport option that day.<br />
<br />
It might sound slightly silly, but not having the prospect of spending an age in the car to simply get some shopping makes the Christmas chores much more bearable. The suitability of the cycle for local trips, and the stupidity of the car for the same, cannot be better illustrated than during the run up to the festive holidays.GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-13150107526575874292011-11-23T23:09:00.001+00:002011-11-24T00:04:34.581+00:00Grumpy Cyclist? Depressed Driver!<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The other day, <a href="http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/uk-cycling-blogs/">I happened upon a reference to this blog</a>. Cycling Info is a blog written by someone far more knowledgeable about cycling that I, so I was really quite flattered that I was listed among a whole series of much more informed blogs than mine. Although the comment against Grumpy Cyclist is :<i> </i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #555555; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #555555; line-height: 24px;">The title says it all, if you fancy reading a rant.</span></i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #555555; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;">I have to admit this may be true - my posts are not particularly inspiring for would be cyclists..</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;">But it got me thinking, firstly that maybe I need to be slightly more upbeat with my posts, and secondly, why exactly do I cycle?</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;">Clearly, I consider there is much wrong with the way cycling is treated as a mode of transport. I often feel that those people who make the transport decisions think of cycling as a jolly oddity that should be encouraged, but not at the expense of <i>important </i>modes of travel. So, in the face of patronising and half-baked campaigns from government and often outright hostility from car drivers why would I persist?</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;">One of the reasons for cycling was brought home to me the other day, when I decided to do a local journey of around 2 miles by car instead of cycle. Driving a car anywhere is London is <i>simply horrid</i>. It is slow - junctions that I get through in one traffic light phase on a cycle took three phases by car as we all collectively crept forward to the next queue. It is stressful - narrow streets, parked cars everywhere, high pedestrian numbers and dense traffic mean that I remain on edge for the whole journey. It is frustrating - a journey of 5 minutes takes 30 minutes because a lorry is unloading, the car parking spaces at the destination are all full, an idiot in a BMW decides to use an active bus lane to get 3 car lengths ahead and then blocks two lanes when pushing back in.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;">In short driving in London isn't pleasant. And this is simply local driving - start using a car in zone 1 and the experience becomes 10 times worse.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;">Compared to this, cycling is quick and predictable. A 10 minute journey might take 12 minutes if I am feeling lazy or 8 if the wind is behind me. It is liberating - when I get to the shops I generally can tie the cycle to something (although more proper stands would be jolly nice), and I don't need to circle around small car parks trying to fit my transport choice into a gap which is too narrow. Cycling, even popping to the shops, makes you feel just a bit more refreshed and healthy than sitting in a metal box for the same journey. And, in spite of the best efforts of local transport departments and errant drivers, cycling is usually remarkably stress-free.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;">But more than this, it is actually quite a lot of fun. A trip to the shops isn't so much of a chore. Realising that one has to go to Stratford or Leyton or Tottenham, isn't wasted time, it is an opportunity to get a little exercise and interact with the local area. Because, in a car, one is isolated from the streets one traverses in a haze of junctions and traffic. On a cycle I wave to people I know, I stop to have a chat, I smell the bakery and hear the market. In a car you fight through the local area, on a cycle you are <i>part </i>of the local area.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;">So why don't more people cycle instead of drive? I think a big part is due to conditioning. It took me <i>years </i>of frustration to try something else. Another big part is the way cycling is considered and treated on our roads. In spite of good words by those who wield power over our street design, the way they treat cycling in places like Blackfriars and Bow gives a message that cycling is in theory good, but hardly a <i>grown-up</i> way of getting around. And by letting our roads - even residential ones - become a car choked mess, they not only make driving utterly miserable but dissuade many from thinking that there are alternatives to sitting in a metal box.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;">So there are many reasons to be jolly about cycling. There are many reasons to give it a try. But it is frustrating when such a super mode of urban transport is compromised by policies that try making driving a car, a naturally poor mode of urban transport, easy. Not only do these policies fail to make driving easy but, in pursuing them, more natural urban transport options become much more difficult. So this is why I remain a grumpy cyclist despite all the wonderful things about cycling. </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px;">Or maybe I am just a glass half empty type...</span></span>GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2969791928952941604.post-6115254690209774392011-11-20T23:43:00.001+00:002011-11-23T23:00:02.872+00:00Neutrinos and post office vansThere is currently uproar in the world of Physics. Particle physicists in Italy have measured Neutrinos that appear to break the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?DCMP=EMC-thewrap08">fundamental principle of Einstein's theory of special relativity </a>- namely that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Such is the incredulity at this result that one physicist, Professor Jim Al-Kalili,<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/18/neutrinos-still-faster-than-light?newsfeed=true"> has committed to "eat his boxer shorts on live TV"</a> if the results are proven to be correct. Since a second experiment seems to show the same results as the first one, I am intrigued by the possibility that we may be treated to the sight of a respected physicist eating his undergarments live on the small screen. Still, I guess it beats X-Factor..<br />
<br />
Living in the UK, I struggle to understand why anyone would be astonished at anything breaking the speed of light. Those physicists should have had a holiday from their lab under a mountain in Italy and popped across to the UK and tracked our Royal Mail vans - some of whom seem to be able to achieve such amazing speeds with ease. In fact such is the velocity of some of our post vans that I find it difficult to understand why it can sometimes take so long for post to arrive - I would expect that, at the speed of some of their vehicles, the Royal Mail could travel back in time and I would be receiving my post before it was sent.<br />
<br />
Take the example below.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V8_8q2GcMxY/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V8_8q2GcMxY?version=3&f=user_uploads&c=google-webdrive-0&app=youtube_gdata" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V8_8q2GcMxY?version=3&f=user_uploads&c=google-webdrive-0&app=youtube_gdata" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div>
<br />
Bow Flyover at around 8:30am. Clearly, although a 30mph zone, neither the laws of physics or the road apply to this driver for the Royal Mail. For reference, I estimate the black car at the beginning of the sequence is driving a little over 30mph as I am doing over 20mph. I would estimate the van is travelling at least at 50mph? Note the deft undertake of the black car towards the end of the sequence - the driver actually went on the slalom between several cars (avoiding the joining slip road traffic) before ending up at the queue for the red lights a little further on.<br />
<br />
I have seen a number of post vans driven with reckless abandon on our roads. Enough to wonder why Royal Mail doesn't install cameras or tracking equipment in them. This might pay for itself in less fuel consumption and body shop repairs. I have seen a post van drive so quickly up my 20mph road that one of the doors flew open. I saw another one on my road run an elderly cyclist into a parked car. Apparently they have a "how is my driving" sticker on some of them, but, frankly, the ones I have cause to report are travelling so quickly there is no way I could note the number before they have disappeared into the distance.<br />
<br />
Still at least this post van was only speeding on the Bow Junction - an area well known for being safe and pleasant for vulnerable road users...<br />
<br />
<br />
*PS - I am sure there are many safe and courteous drivers employed by RM. Its just the reckless ones are also driving big red lorries which are instantly recognisable, and therefore stick out like a sore thumb.GrumpyCyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870343841388421714noreply@blogger.com2