By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The canal is narrow (4ft in some places), slow, indirect and inconvenient. It is eminently unsuitable for cycling at the current levels of demand, let alone more. There are numerous and obvious conflicts between cyclists, dog walkers, pedestrians, children, and boat users. There are also parts of it that are impassible other than by boat - for instance at Islington.
The Thames Path would conflict with some of the busiest pedestrian areas of London like the south bank and London Bridge. Why not aspire to something genuinely transformative not only of physical space? I am all for longer lasting and improvements being made to benefit a much broader range of people who currently do not (and cannot) feel like they belong on the roads.
The British obsession with motorized transport is one of the most miserable aspects of life here.
I wouldn't say Britain has an obsession with motorised vehicles. They do in the US, particularly LA/California where it's positively unheard of to walk more than a few feet.
Britains problem is that it has too many people living in a finite amount of space but they just keep cramming in more people, by many means.... Immigration/indigenous migration from rural to urban areas, encouraging baby boom etc. then wonder why the infrastructure can't cope.
Then it's let's blame the motorist, let's blame the public transport system, let's blame everything except what is the actual problem which is clearly being deliberatly ignored.
But they wouldn't need much to upgrade them. I've cycled the 20 miles from Greenford to Limehouse and it takes two hours. That's because of some bottle necks like Camden with all the tourists drinking their frappocinos al fresco. Then at Angel the towpath disappears altogether.If the canal path was upgraded the travel time would decrease. Going by road would take forever IF all cyclists observed the Highway Code by doing things like stopping at red lights.
If you go somewhere like Assen in the Netherlands you would see that while top speeds aren't as quick as they are in London, cyclists rarely have to stop because they have designed infrastructure that allows people using bikes to proceed away from traffic on paths that do not cross with the motorised sections. Average speeds are higher, without breaking a sweat (or a red, and thanks for helping complete the stereotype bingo - we've had road tax already so we just need helmets for the set now). :-) A 20 mile journey there would take no more than 75 minutes on wide, well surfaced, conflict free paths away from any of the hazards I listed previously.
Cycling in London is a sprint from one set of lights to the next and hope you don't get beeped or worse for delaying a motorist from reaching the back of the next queue 5 seconds earlier. There is only so much upgrading that can realistically be done on the canal. I am more for making the alternatives more attractive than to hope to marginally improve something that's never going to be adequate.
Cyclists already pay tax which would be used to fund the costs of these proposals. Off the top of my head: income tax, VAT, capital gains, inheritance tax, stamp duty. Many cyclists also run a car and so pay the charges associated with that: car tax, duty on fuel etc. All these taxes go to the central fund.
Roads are primarily paid for out of the central fund, and council tax. The additional levies paid by motorists are not hypothecated and have not been since the 1930s.
Everyone would benefit from additional facilities for cyclists even if they don't currently realize it. Numerous studies and empirical evidence shows that where provision is made and journeys become easier by bicycle, motor traffic simply evaporates. If we make cycling a more attractive proposition than it currently is, so many motor journeys will no longer be made as people adapt their travel decisions accordingly. This is not to mention the added benefits to health, reduced pollution, and increased accessibility for a broader range of people to make good travel decisions.
This, basically.
With all the west-east roads there are across London, I think a couple of lanes fewer will make marginal to no difference.
Road space will never, ever meet demand for road space. All that building more roads does is increase demand for cars – thus making little difference to traffic. This is a far more important factor. In the same way, the safer and easier it is to cycle in a city, the more people will get out their cars and onto the bike – beneficial for all as we have a safer, cleaner, quieter and fitter city.
An ex-mayor of Bogotá transformed much of the city when he was there with this principle. It's still terrible in many aspects and subsequent administrations have stalled progress but it's entirely different to 20 years ago thanks to better public transport and more cycle lanes.
I saw him speak at LSE a few years ago... recommended for those who have an hour and a half to kill.
Cyclists already pay tax which would be used to fund the costs of these proposals. Off the top of my head: income tax, VAT, capital gains, inheritance tax, stamp duty. Many cyclists also run a car and so pay the charges associated with that: car tax, duty on fuel etc. All these taxes go to the central fund.
Roads are primarily paid for out of the central fund, and council tax. The additional levies paid by motorists are not hypothecated and have not been since the 1930s.
Everyone would benefit from additional facilities for cyclists even if they don't currently realize it. Numerous studies and empirical evidence shows that where provision is made and journeys become easier by bicycle, motor traffic simply evaporates. If we make cycling a more attractive proposition than it currently is, so many motor journeys will no longer be made as people adapt their travel decisions accordingly. This is not to mention the added benefits to health, reduced pollution, and increased accessibility for a broader range of people to make good travel decisions.
Yeah, but such rationality and factual understanding doesn't quite fit in with the 'what about me' Top Gear, Evening Standard, anti-progressive agenda we've grown to love over the last four years. For pity's sake, how dare you look forward. I'm not a Londoner, so you can vote for who you like, but his position sometimes makes me question the benefits of democracy.
I wouldn't say Britain has an obsession with motorised vehicles. They do in the US, particularly LA/California where it's positively unheard of to walk more than a few feet.
Britains problem is that it has too many people living in a finite amount of space but they just keep cramming in more people, by many means.... Immigration/indigenous migration from rural to urban areas, encouraging baby boom etc. then wonder why the infrastructure can't cope.
Then it's let's blame the motorist, let's blame the public transport system, let's blame everything except what is the actual problem which is clearly being deliberatly ignored.
[Post edited 15 Sep 2014 22:17]
But with only 9% of land actually built on, one could argue that all we need to do is spread out a little more (I'm sure it's not that simple) but the idea that we are too full is only a perception, although I'm sure when you are crammed in the Tube on the way to work, it feels pretty damn full.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 08:28 - Sep 16 with 1290 views
Driving in central London, the biggest problem in cyclists, both at traffic lights and weaving in between the traffic. If this gets rid of that problem, it is better for drivers. The area in the picture in the Embankment is rarely used as three lanes anyway, because of constantly parked tourist buses and bikes, so it won't make much negative difference. As for the person concerned about losing a lane on the Westway, the only bit it seems to lose a lane is the section between the Paddington off ramp and the roundabout for the Shepherd's Bush spur westbound, one of those dumb 2 lanes to 3 lanes and then back to 2, which both causes slow cars to stay in the middle lane and some to dramatically switch lanes.
Any reduction in roadspace will lead to increases in congestion and quite often these roads are locked solid now. We should be looking at alternative ways to have safe areas for cyclists. I know many motorist haters and non-drivers will be in favour of this, but it will cause so many problems particularly with the convoys of buses that will completely block single lanes and lead to gridlock. I think this had been insufficiently thought through and serious traffic studies should be carried out before this is done, otherwise it will make the capital less viable for business, but perhaps that is the plan's aim.
But they wouldn't need much to upgrade them. I've cycled the 20 miles from Greenford to Limehouse and it takes two hours. That's because of some bottle necks like Camden with all the tourists drinking their frappocinos al fresco. Then at Angel the towpath disappears altogether.If the canal path was upgraded the travel time would decrease. Going by road would take forever IF all cyclists observed the Highway Code by doing things like stopping at red lights.
there would be more cyclists and it would be safer if more motorists actually observed the Highway Code by doing things like stopping at red lights.
The canal is narrow (4ft in some places), slow, indirect and inconvenient. It is eminently unsuitable for cycling at the current levels of demand, let alone more. There are numerous and obvious conflicts between cyclists, dog walkers, pedestrians, children, and boat users. There are also parts of it that are impassible other than by boat - for instance at Islington.
The Thames Path would conflict with some of the busiest pedestrian areas of London like the south bank and London Bridge. Why not aspire to something genuinely transformative not only of physical space? I am all for longer lasting and improvements being made to benefit a much broader range of people who currently do not (and cannot) feel like they belong on the roads.
The British obsession with motorized transport is one of the most miserable aspects of life here.
so a few canal boat owners are slightly put out by the thousands of bikes hurtling by there boat each day ! it would be cheaper and easier to expand some stretchs of the canal system to allow bikes space as they tend to have fields etc near by , so less disruption to everyone while this super cycle way is being built . dosnt add to the already knackered road system , less risk of the odd cyclist getting squashed by a lorry when they forget they aren't on the tour de france and actually on a busy main road
Driving in central London, the biggest problem in cyclists, both at traffic lights and weaving in between the traffic. If this gets rid of that problem, it is better for drivers. The area in the picture in the Embankment is rarely used as three lanes anyway, because of constantly parked tourist buses and bikes, so it won't make much negative difference. As for the person concerned about losing a lane on the Westway, the only bit it seems to lose a lane is the section between the Paddington off ramp and the roundabout for the Shepherd's Bush spur westbound, one of those dumb 2 lanes to 3 lanes and then back to 2, which both causes slow cars to stay in the middle lane and some to dramatically switch lanes.
[Post edited 16 Sep 2014 8:44]
You're referring to the westbound section of the embankment which is unaffected. It's the eastbound section that is the problem. Look at the picture again, the right hand side coming towards you. What happens if a vehicle breaks down? Or there is an accident in that single lane, or the road needs to be repaired? How does traffic get past? The road will have to be closed.
I've no objection to them finding space for cyclists, but these plans are not thought through.
But they wouldn't need much to upgrade them. I've cycled the 20 miles from Greenford to Limehouse and it takes two hours. That's because of some bottle necks like Camden with all the tourists drinking their frappocinos al fresco. Then at Angel the towpath disappears altogether.If the canal path was upgraded the travel time would decrease. Going by road would take forever IF all cyclists observed the Highway Code by doing things like stopping at red lights.
"Going by road would take forever IF all cyclists observed the Highway Code by doing things like stopping at red lights."
ummm, cyclists MUST stop at red lights, it's a little thing call the law. They are bound by the Highway Code too.
Didn't somebody who posts on here get taken out last season after a game by a the law dosnt apply to me cyclist ?
Alright, I'll take the bait. Most pedestrians are taken out by car drivers, even when the victim is on the path! 9 people were killed by cyclists from 2008-2012. Which we all agree, is 9 too many, and if the cyclists were culpable, they should get the full force of the law. But this is incomparable to fatalities to peds by motorised vehicles. Cycle fascists are annoying, sometime dangerous, but it's car drivers that will kill you. Please see link for stats.
I can think of maybe twenty colleagues and friends who've said they'd love to cycle in town, but feel it's too dangerous. Finally introducing some proper cycling infrastructure that keeps cyclists safe would go a long way to convincing them cycling was an option.
One of the reasons I started cycling to work was because traffic meant that if I finished work at 6pm, it would often take me up to 70 minutes to travel six miles home on the bus. The alternative was travelling on a boiling, heaving, expensive underground network that operates way beyond it's capacity. I cycle to work now - and whilst still observing red lights and zebra crossings - it takes me anywhere between 25-30 minutes. I lost two stone in the first year - largely down to cycling - and physically, I've haven't felt better in years. Even in the current sh it conditions, it's my favourite part of the day, and I quite often get up at 6am on the weekend for a couple of hours cycling in town whilst the roads are quiet.
I put off cycling for years because a number of my friends had had bad accidents or seen similar and I took the commonly held view that it was too dangerous. But after spending a lot of time cycling in Amsterdam and Utrecht when visiting friends in the Netherlands I actually started to get pis sed-off that we don't have the same conditions at home. Seeing people of all ages - literally kids to 80+ cycling everywhere - work, shopping, nights-out, socially etc - you can't help but see it as the sensible way to go. The air's cleaner, the motorised traffic isn't as heavy, people are demonstrably healthier and fitter, and the city centres are quieter and more pleasant and safer places for pedestrians.
There's no school run to speak of as kids cycle to school from a very early age, there's no parents ferrying their kids everywhere at all, because they all cycle, and no driving to the shops a five minute walk away; all of which drastically reduces the amount of motorised traffic and frees-up space on the roads.
People say that the roads weren't build for cycling - well, the centres of our old cities certainly weren't build for driving. Amsterdam and Utrecht both have narrow, windy streets, the Netherlands is more densely populated than even the UK, and yet, they've managed to develop the best cycling infrastructure in the world. Where there's a will there's a way. Why should out of town motorists always take precedence over people who live in the inner-city? Why is more space always demanded for cars, for parking etc? You may or may not find this interesting:
I don't have a problem with delivery drivers, tradesmen etc driving in town, but the amount of single-passenger cars I see coming in from either affluent central neighbourhoods or in from the suburbs/home counties is unsustainable. I saw some stats on my borough the other day - a significant majority of people here don't own a car, and yet our streets are clogged with cars and the air is some of the worst in London - some of the worst in the west.
There are noticeably many more people cycling these days in the inner boroughs - spend anytime around central London in the week and you can see it for yourself - the potential is there to get huge numbers of people cycling once some of the safety concerns have been addressed. Personally, I think segregated cycle paths would add to my journey time, due to a lack of space for over-taking, but I'd happily accept that if it meant that kids could cycle to school and my Mum could cycle to the shops. It would be great not to live in a city/country full of obese people and the terrifying implications that has for the future of the NHS and benefit expenditure in general.
He wants to close a lane on the Westway/Western Avenue and make it a CSH !! And people think it's a good idea?? What's wrong with developing the Grand Union Canal and Thames footpaths for cyclists, cars can't kill them then. The canal goes from Southall to Greenford, Acton, Paddington, Maida Vale, Marylebone, Camden Market, Kings Cross, Angel, hackney, Mile End and joins the Thames at Limehouse Basin. The Thames covers most areas from west London to Canary Wharf and beyond. Le me tell you, cycling the canal or river is a lot safer than any street in London.
Smegma — I like the idea of the tow paths, but they’re just too narrow and pedestrians should be able to enjoy them too. I find walking along the river or canals at the weekend a complete wear out because every two minutes I’m having to stand aside to let someone through on a bike/with a buggy. Encouraging even more cyclists to use those narrow paths? I just don’t see them having the capacity to deal with the numbers. To avoid a couple of minging roundabouts/stretches of road, I add on five minutes to my journey to go a quieter way, but people’s journeys need to be at least vaguely direct for them to make sense; I don’t think turning over a lane of traffic to bikes is unreasonable — it’s simply clawing a bit of the city back from motorised vehicles.
Smegma — I like the idea of the tow paths, but they’re just too narrow and pedestrians should be able to enjoy them too. I find walking along the river or canals at the weekend a complete wear out because every two minutes I’m having to stand aside to let someone through on a bike/with a buggy. Encouraging even more cyclists to use those narrow paths? I just don’t see them having the capacity to deal with the numbers. To avoid a couple of minging roundabouts/stretches of road, I add on five minutes to my journey to go a quieter way, but people’s journeys need to be at least vaguely direct for them to make sense; I don’t think turning over a lane of traffic to bikes is unreasonable — it’s simply clawing a bit of the city back from motorised vehicles.
I'm all for the expansion of cycle lanes especially if it makes it easier & safer for them to use but it shouldn't be done at the expense of motorists. Shutting down a lane each side of the Westway is ludicrous. The Westway was built SPECIFICALLY for motorised vehicles, it's not some old Victorian horse & cart road that cars have evolved onto. I time to time see cyclists going along the Westway (even though there is a clear 'no cyclists or pedestarians' sign) and I think they are uttely insane.
I use the A316 regularly too and there are clear cycle paths on the pavements to keep them off what is quite a dangerous stretch of road. Clear regular signs showing that cyclist can use the but they don't, the still use the main road. So, there's an example of a nice safe lane for their benefit but hardly used. Great.
As I've said many times before on this subject, cyclists seem to have a death wish by the way I've seen them behave. If they go out with the "it's everyone's elses responsibilty to look out for ME" attitude (me me me, always fking well 'me') then they may as well ensure their will is up to date.
I've been riding motorbikes in and around London for over 30 years and up until recently I've taken my girlfriend to work and back too for nigh on 2 years. I've done my bit in keeping congestion down (no single occupancy car for me), taking the strain off of public transport, keeping pollution down, keeping damage to the roads down etc. Why shoud I suffer?
Cars are a fcking nightmare in major cities now. You can't walk more than 2 feet without having to stop for 5 minutes for thousands of the bastards to zoom past. They're noisy, dirty, polluting, make all cities look like shit and a miserable place to live. Oh yeah and they kill thousands of people a year.
Wouldn't mind if most of them are making vital journeys but let's be honest most of them are for pointless bullshit anyway.
I'd pedestrianise 90% of London between 8am and 8pm apart from bikes and buses. Fck em.
Cars are a fcking nightmare in major cities now. You can't walk more than 2 feet without having to stop for 5 minutes for thousands of the bastards to zoom past. They're noisy, dirty, polluting, make all cities look like shit and a miserable place to live. Oh yeah and they kill thousands of people a year.
Wouldn't mind if most of them are making vital journeys but let's be honest most of them are for pointless bullshit anyway.
I'd pedestrianise 90% of London between 8am and 8pm apart from bikes and buses. Fck em.
and back to the pro-motorist..... my journey is not pointless. If, and it's a big if, the public transport system was better I might consider taking the train & tube to work. It's not. It's cramped, unreliable and costs go up year on year because the companies are profit-driven not customer-service driven. The only way the public transport will improve is if that mandate is reversed and I can't ever see that happening.
and back to the pro-motorist..... my journey is not pointless. If, and it's a big if, the public transport system was better I might consider taking the train & tube to work. It's not. It's cramped, unreliable and costs go up year on year because the companies are profit-driven not customer-service driven. The only way the public transport will improve is if that mandate is reversed and I can't ever see that happening.
No cars on the road means buses would be half decent rather than being caught in traffic for hours on end. Also no cars means loads more bikes on the road as well. Could even bring back trams too as it has worked well in other cities.
Having everyone sitting in traffic jams in their own metal boxes every day seems completely mental to me.
No cars on the road means buses would be half decent rather than being caught in traffic for hours on end. Also no cars means loads more bikes on the road as well. Could even bring back trams too as it has worked well in other cities.
Having everyone sitting in traffic jams in their own metal boxes every day seems completely mental to me.
Me too, Clive. And I cycle past the same fu cking parked cars every single day — hundreds of largely unused cars blocking-up a whole lane of traffic in the middle of one of the most congested cities in Europe. It’s insane. I work with a girl who lives in Paddington, who has done something daft like 2,000 miles in the eight years since she’s had her car. Apparently, she couldn’t live without it though. So it just sits outside her flat taking up valuable street space. We unthinkingly surrender all this space to cars that never go anywhere. I have never owned a car and have still managed to get around town on public transport all my life. If we need to get to somewhere in the middle of nowhere or public transport is massively impractical, we’ll occasionally hire a car. Plenty of my friends do the same. My street is in a CPZ, so doesn’t have people from outside the area parking in it, and actually has loads of spare parking because most of the people who live there, don’t run a car.
Public transport coverage is actually pretty excellent in London — it might be expensive and crammed, but is it any more frustrating than sitting in traffic? I was sat in heavy traffic on the North circular for about an hour the other week and I went from being bored, to being pis sed-off to borderline depression…fu ck doing that every day, however crowded the trains are. My bus journey at 06:00 takes about thirty minutes, it takes more than double that if I go in at 09:00 — similar number of passengers/stop-starting, but a massive increase in cars on the road at the time. That’s what fu cks it up. How many of those are people making short journeys that could easily be done in 10-15 minutes by bike if the conditions were right?
Juzzie — Some cyclists are idiots — as are many motorists. Cycling in at 06:00 this morning, I went past a bloke with no lights, dressed in black, with fu ck-off headphones on; if he got hit, I wouldn’t be overly sympathetic. I’d make lights mandatory. Common sense and drivers should be given all the help they can in spotting us; outside of summer, I always have some hi-viz on, and possibly a bit OTT, but I always have my rear light on even in bright sunshine. I’m not familiar with the road you mention, so can’t comment, but in terms of not using cycle paths — on my commute the cycle paths are full of potholes, glass, parked cars and vans. They also stop suddenly in the strangest places, and so little thought and maintenance has been put into them that they’re absolutely not fit for purpose. Anyone who’s visited Copenhagen or any Dutch city will know that our attempts to date have been shamefully inadequate.
No cars on the road means buses would be half decent rather than being caught in traffic for hours on end. Also no cars means loads more bikes on the road as well. Could even bring back trams too as it has worked well in other cities.
Having everyone sitting in traffic jams in their own metal boxes every day seems completely mental to me.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
