On 5 June, 21:44, Tom Barry wrote:
wrote:

If YOU could be arsed to read you'd find that these are segregated
lanes, i.e. dedicated for cycling.

No they aren't, you bloody fool. *Some of them are existing bus lanes,
some (for instance along the A13 for quite a long way) are high grade
segregated paths built when the road was widened to near motorway
standard a few years ago. *In a few places where the road's too narrow
there won't be a path at all.

Spending money and taking roadspace away from cars are rather un-Boris
things to do. *Taking someone else's work and branding it as his for a
trivial sum of money, however, is par for the course, and that's what
this exercise appears to be.

Tom (who's mapping them at the moment for his own edification and amusement)

Cable Street is a very interesting example, which partly consists of a
raised two-way cycle lane, which prevents cars being parked there, in
a narrow one-way street for drivers. Some of the dedicated traffic
lights for cyclists can take a long time to change but then it is a
pleasure to cross while all the other heavy traffic has to wait. For a
short time there the cyclist no longer feels like a second class road
user constantly under threat of instant death.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:44:16 +0100, Tom Barry
wrote:

wrote:

If YOU could be arsed to read you'd find that these are segregated
lanes, i.e. dedicated for cycling.
No they aren't, you bloody fool. Some of them are existing bus lanes,
some (for instance along the A13 for quite a long way) are high grade
segregated paths built [...]

So, "No they aren't (segregated paths)", followed by "some are
segregated paths". No, you're right, I don't see any contradiction
there at all. LOL!
Boris might as well turf them over and plant geraniums - the 'hard
case' cyclists always, always, ALWAYS ignore areas dedicated for their
use. Ironically, they complain about cars, but then say they only use
the primary part of the road because cars have swept them clear of
debris!


Whoever 'for_chappers' is hasn't been reading the posts carefully for
the past few weeks/ months. There is no "always, ALWAYS".
And 'irony' doesn't come in to it either as there has been a lot of info
about how much crap there is in segregated and even just separately
marked cycle lanes.
I wouldn't drive in that stuff - why should anyone have to cycle in it?

Please keep up, thanks.

And separated by a white line is not 'segregated', it's only got a white
line, not a kerb or pavement or patch of grass that physically separates
cycists from drivers.
--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 23:27:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:

On 5 June, 21:44, Tom Barry wrote:
wrote:

If YOU could be arsed to read you'd find that these are segregated
lanes, i.e. dedicated for cycling.

No they aren't, you bloody fool. *Some of them are existing bus lanes,
some (for instance along the A13 for quite a long way) are high grade
segregated paths built when the road was widened to near motorway
standard a few years ago. *In a few places where the road's too narrow
there won't be a path at all.

Spending money and taking roadspace away from cars are rather un-Boris
things to do. *Taking someone else's work and branding it as his for a
trivial sum of money, however, is par for the course, and that's what
this exercise appears to be.

Tom (who's mapping them at the moment for his own edification and amusement)

Cable Street is a very interesting example, which partly consists of a
raised two-way cycle lane, which prevents cars being parked there, in
a narrow one-way street for drivers. Some of the dedicated traffic
lights for cyclists can take a long time to change but then it is a
pleasure to cross while all the other heavy traffic has to wait. For a
short time there the cyclist no longer feels like a second class road
user constantly under threat of instant death.

I had a click along Cable Street using Google Maps Street View. I was
not particularly impressed.

You can click along he
http://tinyurl.com/o5e2ye from:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF.... 33,,0,-0.68

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:42:33 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:44:16 +0100, Tom Barry
wrote:

wrote:

If YOU could be arsed to read you'd find that these are segregated
lanes, i.e. dedicated for cycling.
No they aren't, you bloody fool. Some of them are existing bus lanes,
some (for instance along the A13 for quite a long way) are high grade
segregated paths built [...]

So, "No they aren't (segregated paths)", followed by "some are
segregated paths". No, you're right, I don't see any contradiction
there at all. LOL!
Boris might as well turf them over and plant geraniums - the 'hard
case' cyclists always, always, ALWAYS ignore areas dedicated for their
use. Ironically, they complain about cars, but then say they only use
the primary part of the road because cars have swept them clear of
debris!


Whoever 'for_chappers' is hasn't been reading the posts carefully for
the past few weeks/ months. There is no "always, ALWAYS".
And 'irony' doesn't come in to it either as there has been a lot of info
about how much crap there is in segregated and even just separately
marked cycle lanes.
I wouldn't drive in that stuff - why should anyone have to cycle in it?

Please keep up, thanks.

And separated by a white line is not 'segregated', it's only got a white
line, not a kerb or pavement or patch of grass that physically separates
cycists from drivers.

Well okay lets not get into a discourse on the definition of a word -
whatever you call it, a part of the road that is only to be used by
cyclists to the exclusion of other traffic ALWAYS falls into disuse
quickly because the riders prefer the part of the road that is 'swept'
by car tyres. So the point remains true - to REMOVE bikes from a road,
make provisions FOR bikes on that road!

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 03:57:45 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

I've never posted as Nuxxy, so (as ever) you're wrong. And if only you
could refrain from crowing about your killfile, you wouldn't give
anyone a clue that they'd need to change their name in order to reply
to your error

If you were not such a knob, you would not need to repeatedly nym-shift.

sigh

*Plonk*

You really don't get it, do you? If you want to toss terms like "knob"
at me, I'll ensure you see a reply. Just k/f me if you feel the need
but don't bother proudly beating your chest about it and I won't know.

[cross-posting to uk.rec.cycling *removed*]

On Jun 5, 5:41*pm, Mizter T wrote:
Mayoral press release:
http://london.gov.uk/view_press_rele...eleaseid=22318

Excerpts...
---quote---
London's Cycle Superhighways - First two routes unveiled
5-6-2009

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today unveiled proposed routes for
the first two of London’s twelve Cycle Superhighways - the corridors
for cyclists that are a key part of his policy to stimulate a cycling
revolution in the capital.

[snip]

OK, I've taken uk,rec.cycling out of the loop now - I hadn't quite
realised what a magnet for trolls said newsgroup is. Nevermind,
perhaps we at utl can manage a more civilised discussion! So if any
other utl-ers want to respond to my original post, might I suggest
they also remove uk,rec.cycling too.

This is the BBC News story on the "Cycling Superhighway" initiative:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8084996.stm

---quote---
Cycle superhighways 'a gimmick'

Cyclists have dismissed Mayor of London Boris Johnson's announcement
of two new cycle superhighways through the city as a "marketing
gimmick".

From May 2010, two corridors of cycle lanes will lead from south
Wimbledon to Bank and Barking to Tower Hill.

But Transport for London (TfL) admitted much of the route would not be
covered by the lanes through lack of space.

The pilot routes are the first of 12 superhighways earmarked to be
developed before the Olympics in 2012.

TfL is consulting with the eight boroughs they will pass through to
finalise the exact layout.

Mr Johnson, who rides to work from Islington to City Hall, said: "I'm
not kidding when I say that I'm militant about cycling, and these
superhighways are central to the cycling revolution I'm determined to
bring about.

"No longer will pedal power have to dance and dodge around petrol
power - on these routes the bicycle will dominate and that will be
clear to all others using them."

Where possible, cycle lanes will be separated from motor traffic and
painted blue.

'Not groundbreaking'

But Transport for London told the BBC space constraints made it
impossible to build cycle lanes the length of the routes.

They said it was too early to confirm what percentage of the
superhighways would comprise cycle lanes.

Andreas Kambanis, who writes the London Cyclist blog, said: "It sounds
cool but it's not exactly groundbreaking.

"It is a bit more of a marketing gimmick than a real help for
cyclists.

"But anything that raises awareness of cycling - and gets drivers to
take a bit more notice of bikes - is a good thing."
---/quote---


I think the comments from Mr Kambanis are are a reasonable reflection
on it all (apart perhaps from the "it sounds cool" bit!). Not quite so
sure about Boris' comment that "on these routes the bicycle will
dominate"... hmm...

[*cross-posting to uk.rec.cycling actually removed this time!*]

On Jun 5, 5:41 pm, Mizter T wrote:

Mayoral press release:
http://london.gov.uk/view_press_rele...eleaseid=22318

Excerpts...
---quote---
London's Cycle Superhighways - First two routes unveiled
5-6-2009

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today unveiled proposed routes for
the first two of London’s twelve Cycle Superhighways - the corridors
for cyclists that are a key part of his policy to stimulate a cycling
revolution in the capital.

[snip]

OK, I've taken uk,rec.cycling out of the loop now - I hadn't quite
realised what a magnet for trolls said newsgroup is. Nevermind,
perhaps we at utl can manage a more civilised discussion! So if any
other utl-ers want to respond to my original post, might I suggest
they also remove uk,rec.cycling too.

This is the BBC News story on the "Cycling Superhighway" initiative:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8084996.stm

---quote---
Cycle superhighways 'a gimmick'

Cyclists have dismissed Mayor of London Boris Johnson's announcement
of two new cycle superhighways through the city as a "marketing
gimmick".

From May 2010, two corridors of cycle lanes will lead from south
Wimbledon to Bank and Barking to Tower Hill.

But Transport for London (TfL) admitted much of the route would not be
covered by the lanes through lack of space.

The pilot routes are the first of 12 superhighways earmarked to be
developed before the Olympics in 2012.

TfL is consulting with the eight boroughs they will pass through to
finalise the exact layout.

Mr Johnson, who rides to work from Islington to City Hall, said: "I'm
not kidding when I say that I'm militant about cycling, and these
superhighways are central to the cycling revolution I'm determined to
bring about.

"No longer will pedal power have to dance and dodge around petrol
power - on these routes the bicycle will dominate and that will be
clear to all others using them."

Where possible, cycle lanes will be separated from motor traffic and
painted blue.

'Not groundbreaking'

But Transport for London told the BBC space constraints made it
impossible to build cycle lanes the length of the routes.

They said it was too early to confirm what percentage of the
superhighways would comprise cycle lanes.

Andreas Kambanis, who writes the London Cyclist blog, said: "It sounds
cool but it's not exactly groundbreaking.

"It is a bit more of a marketing gimmick than a real help for
cyclists.

"But anything that raises awareness of cycling - and gets drivers to
take a bit more notice of bikes - is a good thing."
---/quote---

I think the comments from Mr Kambanis are are a reasonable reflection
on it all (apart perhaps from the "it sounds cool" bit!). Not quite so
sure about Boris' com

On Jun 6, 12:15*pm, Mizter T wrote:
[cross-posting to uk.rec.cycling *removed*]

[snip]

OK, I've taken uk,rec.cycling out of the loop now - I hadn't quite
realised what a magnet for trolls said newsgroup is. Nevermind,
perhaps we at utl can manage a more civilised discussion! So if any
other utl-ers want to respond to my original post, might I suggest
they also remove uk,rec.cycling too.

[snip]

Except of course in my haste I failed to actually remove the cross-
post. FWIW, I have reposted the above message in utl only.

Mizter T wrote:


I think the comments from Mr Kambanis are are a reasonable reflection
on it all (apart perhaps from the "it sounds cool" bit!). Not quite so
sure about Boris' com

Having mapped the routes out on Google Maps and done a bit of research
on existing cycle routes, there really isn't much to the first two
schemes other than taking good existing routes (e.g. LCN Route 15, which
the start of Boris's Route 3 is based on), painting them blue and
possibly putting some signs up. The later routes, for instance in West
London, have not had the same investment and would require a lot more
work to bring them up to equivalent standards, which is presumably why
they're scheduled later, but an eye needs keeping on how much effort is
actually put into this.

In fact, it's quite clear that inner city and east end boroughs plus
Docklands have had a great deal more done for the cyclist in recent
years than us benighted west Londoners. There's actually quite a strong
correlation between Labour boroughs (Lambeth, Newham, Tower Hamlets,
B&D) and the cycle lanes Boris is relying on for the first phase of his
scheme, despite the spin that these routes are 'for the outer boroughs'.
The TfL map shows most of them penetrating only a short distance into
the outer boroughs in the main and several outer boroughs are completely
excluded (Harrow, Croydon, Bexley for instance).

One amusing one is 'Route 9', which follows the N9 bus route, mostly.
Quite who's supposed to cycle to Heathrow beats me - surely only workers
would be able to do this, and is there sufficient secure cycle parking
in such a high-security area? Jon Snow of Channel 4 News wrote in his
blog the other day that his bike is often removed by the police when he
parks it in Whitehall, on security grounds, and I can't imagine cycling
up to Terminal One and chaining your bike to the security bollards would
be looked upon with equanimity.

A final thing - TfL's cycle mapping (http://cyclemaps.tfl.gov.uk/) is
rubbish compared to people like Sustrans
(http://www.sustrans.org.uk/map?searc...archkey=London) and
Camden Cyclists (http://maps.camdencyclists.org.uk/). They appear to be
relying on public contributions rather than informing us of recommended
routes, which is again very typically Boris (cheap + individualistic +
avoids the nanny state + fundamentally not very good).

Tom

On 6 June, 09:22, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 23:27:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:



On 5 June, 21:44, Tom Barry wrote:
wrote:

If YOU could be arsed to read you'd find that these are segregated
lanes, i.e. dedicated for cycling.

No they aren't, you bloody fool. *Some of them are existing bus lanes,
some (for instance along the A13 for quite a long way) are high grade
segregated paths built when the road was widened to near motorway
standard a few years ago. *In a few places where the road's too narrow
there won't be a path at all.

Spending money and taking roadspace away from cars are rather un-Boris
things to do. *Taking someone else's work and branding it as his for a
trivial sum of money, however, is par for the course, and that's what
this exercise appears to be.

Tom (who's mapping them at the moment for his own edification and amusement)

Cable Street is a very interesting example, which partly consists of a
raised two-way cycle lane, which prevents cars being parked there, in
a narrow one-way street for drivers. Some of the dedicated traffic
lights for cyclists can take a long time to change but then it is a
pleasure to cross while all the other heavy traffic has to wait. For a
short time there the cyclist no longer feels like a second class road
user constantly under threat of instant death.

I had a click along Cable Street using Google Maps Street View. *I was
not particularly impressed.

You can click along hehttp://tinyurl.com/o5e2yefrom:http:/...4,-0.042057&sp...

Wrong end of Cable Street. Try exploring the street view further from
the Royal Mint Street end. You will notice no cars parked anywhere on
the cycle lane.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF.... 33,,0,-0.68

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.