Should drivers in London start paying for the damage, deaths and misery they cause?

[ill tonkso]

On average... what about cheeky buggers like me? I don't even have a drivers licence.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by spindrift

Compared to Berlin?

Let’s look at a selection of main roads, mostly in central London.

Uxbridge Road -

You're taking liberties if you're trying to argue that London's streets are very wide on the basis of that picture.

What you see there isn't Uxbridge Road. It is the junction of Shepherds Bush Green with Shepherds Bush roundabout. Shepherds Bush Green is triangular shaped and its two longest sides, I would guess, are in the region of 300 yards long. So it's not a good example for your purposes. - especially since there are cycle lanes through the park / green itself.

Uxbridge Road is a standard, two lane road (one heading east, one heading west).

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by spindrift

Once again, that isn't going to happen, the population of London is increasing and traffic and congestion forecasts are grim.

Again, try bringing that point up in a debate about caps on immigration. Some people want to double the population of the capital, because they think it'll have huge benefits.

I see the opposite. When everyone clears off for the summer holidays, the city is absolutely brilliant - low congestion, fewer people running around in a stressful huff.

Can't we just try it for a couple of decades and see if we're less or more unhappy with fewer people around? Just imagine. People might one day be able to afford a decent place to live in London!

One can but dream!

[spindrift]

Take a look Jim:

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress...dth-available/

Perhaps what people should be asked should include:
1. Would you like your children to be able to get around on their own instead of via the parental taxi?

2. Would you like to save money by only running one car?

3. Would you like to get fitter without spending the time & money on the gym?

and so on.

Measures such as one-way streets for cars, with two-way cycle lanes -



Restricted access for motor vehicles -




Filtered permeability -



Or indeed roads that are have become cycle paths, in entirety -

[NCT]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

And you conveniently ignore the fact just how much space is being wasted on pointless traffic islands. Spindrifts photos illustrate this perfectly.

Only pointless in a handful of instances, for example Victoria Street where the crossings aren't actually staggered, but providing continuous bus lanes is a higher priority there. There's a church on the island on the Strand behind the photographer. Where there is a staggered crossing the island needs to be at least 3 metres wide to be safe.

It's not as though the Berlin picture I posted doesn't have islands either.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by spindrift

Take a look Jim:

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress...dth-available/

Perhaps what people should be asked should include:
1. Would you like your children to be able to get around on their own instead of via the parental taxi?

2. Would you like to save money by only running one car?

3. Would you like to get fitter without spending the time & money on the gym?

and so on.

Measures such as one-way streets for cars, with two-way cycle lanes

Not quite sure why you've addressed this post to me. If it was supposed to be a response to my post, it's a complete non sequitur, I'm afraid.

My post was concerned with nothing more than pointing out that you were trying to construct an argument about how wide London's roads are by claiming, among other examples, that a brief stretch of road leading off Shepherds Bush Green was a long, arterial road.

Your other arguments might be perfectly valid and highly compelling but they aren't relevant to my post.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by NCT

Only pointless in a handful of instances, for example Victoria Street where the crossings aren't actually staggered, but providing continuous bus lanes is a higher priority there. There's a church on the island on the Strand behind the photographer. Where there is a staggered crossing the island needs to be at least 3 metres wide to be safe.

It's not as though the Berlin picture I posted doesn't have islands either.

No, pointless everywhere and everytime. They serve no purpose whatsoever other than ruin the look of the urban realm and waste precious space.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by JimB

My post was concerned with nothing more than pointing out that you were trying to construct an argument about how wide London's roads are by claiming, among other examples, that a brief stretch of road leading off Shepherds Bush Green was a long, arterial road.
.

Not really, lots of London roads could easily take the changes to infrastructure I mentioned. Triumphantly pointing out that some roads can't doesn't substantially change the point.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by spindrift

Not really, lots of London roads could easily take the changes to infrastructure I mentioned. Triumphantly pointing out that some roads can't doesn't substantially change the point.

Another non sequitur.

What's going on, spindrift? Surely I don't have to explain my every post to you? Come on, fella! Just think about it, eh?

Once again, while your broader points might or might not have merit, my post was concerned with nothing more than pointing out that you were trying to construct an argument, in part, on the basis of a falsely labelled photograph.

[spindrift]

Yes, an inaccurately captioned photo doesn't prove or disprove anything. The point is that the fallacy that London's roads are too narrow to accommodate changes to layout changes perpetuates in planning decisions.

It can be done, the example of Berlin is a good one, similar levels of car ownership yet Berlin cycling rates beat London hands down, and the courtesy afforded cyclists is astonishing, cars will overtake to your left when you're on a bike, the vehicle is indicating right, and will then wait for the cyclist! It's amazing, I even waited a few times because I'm used to numpty London drivers! It's wonderfully pleasant and civilised and we have the space to do it, we have the impetus to do it with cycling rates doubling in the last ten years (and the accident rate halving) but we lack the political will because our mayor is a penis.

[spindrift]

That's what we have in London. Seriously, someone got paid to design that.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by spindrift

That's what we have in London. Seriously, someone got paid to design that.

'Cycle lanes' are to councils what wind turbines often are. A placebo 'tick' in a box which makes them feel they've saved the planet, whilst being eff all use.

This lot below is quite funny (well sad really). The people in charge of our built environment aren't just responsible for pig-ugly streetscapes. Someone actually thought this was a good idea:

Not just stupid, but dangerous.

More here:



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...anuary2009.htm


http://www.asyf99.dsl.pipex.com/croy...cle_lanes.html


This metro article points out a 'dumb' cycle lane, explaining that workmen put a cycle lane down the *middle* of a road because parked cars stopped them putting it on the side! Well, yes, in truth, putting the cycle lane at the side is dumb then too! Cycles can't travel through cars, so actually the middle of the road was the only place for it to go, not that there was any point to painting the sign as it's clearly a bit of the road that cars have to use!

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/898399-c...d-an-epic-fail

[PadArch]

Cycle lanes are only pointless and stupid if badly implemented like they are in London. There is absolutely no good reason why London could not have cycle lanes like Amsterdam and become the first cycle friendly mega city in the world.

[GEwinnen]

Originally Posted by NCT

Which ones? If you are going to compare to Berlin, then give me a road that is wide enough to fit 1 uninterrupted cycle lane, 1 uninterrupted bus lane, 2 lanes for general traffic in each direction for at least 3 miles.

btw, not all commie buildings in East Berlin were ugly! I like the wedding cake stile on KMA and FA in East Berlin

I can't remember a boulevard like Karl-Marx Alle/Frankfurter Allee in London,
89 m wide, enough space for sidewalks, bike lanes and an underground line in the middle of the street.




You can't compare the population density of Berlin and London: Berlin 10,000/sqm - London 14,000/ sqm

[spindrift]

The population density of Amsterdam is similar to London's.

The UK is densely populated similarly to that of NL and London is as well almost exactly as densely populated as Ansterdam.

In 2008 the average number of people per square kilometre in Britain was 253, rising to 395 in England.

Latest figures from Holland show that its population density was 395 a square kilometre in 2002 and 393 in 2005.

The densest area of population in NL is the region known as "Randstad Holland” in the west of the country, which comprises Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht, with an average of 1,000 people per square kilometer.

If the Dutch can make this transformation why can't the British?

Are we British less intelligent than the Dutch? Or are they less capable than the Danes?

The fact is that it would be extraordinarily easy to transform London's infrastructure to accommodate cycling and cycling lanes to that experienced in Denmark or NL.

It could practically be done overnight if the political will were there.

http://road.cc/content/news/62426-ta...rhighway-looks

[Core Rising]

Population of Amsterdam: 820000

Population of London: 8.2 million

[Loathing]

Originally Posted by PadArch

There is absolutely no good reason why London could not have cycle lanes like Amsterdam and become the first cycle friendly mega city in the world.

Beijing is a mega city by all accounts and is extremely cycle-friendly. Shanghai is cycle-friendly in the areas where it's possible; Tokyo's not bad (not to mention other Japanese cities).

[NCT]

The biggest problem with cycles is bus stops. At busy ones bikes and buses blocking each others' paths can be very frustrating and quite dangerous, and given the frequency of bus stops (usually no more than every 400 metres) this alone could render cycle lanes almost useless. What you really need is some buffer between traffic lanes and the cycle lane and bus shelters put on this said buffer, but there are extremely few places where there is enough width for this.

[Spikespiegel]

Originally Posted by NCT

The biggest problem with cycles is bus stops. At busy ones bikes and buses blocking each others' paths can be very frustrating and quite dangerous, and given the frequency of bus stops (usually no more than every 400 metres) this alone could render cycle lanes almost useless. What you really need is some buffer between traffic lanes and the cycle lane and bus shelters put on this said buffer, but there are extremely few places where there is enough width for this.

This is how you deal with that in Copenhagen (image is from copenhagenize.com):
image hosted on flickr

Bus lane with bus stop, then a wide buffer and the cycle lane that goes around it on the inside.

Fomerly, the bus lane was another lane for normal traffic and the buffer itself was a bus stop.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by Spikespiegel

This is how you deal with that in Copenhagen (image is from copenhagenize.com):
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/...4db4580780.jpg
Bus lane with bus stop, then a wide buffer and the cycle lane that goes around it on the inside.

And the elephant in the room? Road width, of which on London's roads there is usually none. In this picture the cycle lane and the bus stop island take up 5 metres - most pavements manage half that, so unless one embarks on mass demolition of road-side buildings there is very little chance of these things adopted in London.