London taxi drivers back Cycle Superhighways as plans for judicial review dropped

Paul99 wrote:

As a regular London commuter the thing that worries me about this is that if something now happens to a cyclist on one of the roads with segregated lanes (i.e. the cyclist is on the road, not in the cycle lane), then it's going to be instantly labelled the cyclist's fault, so what he's actually done is realised it benefits his taxi drivers who will still drive dangerously if cyclists happen to not be using the segregated lanes but feel like they have carte blanche to do so because cyclists "should be in the bike lane"- and believe me, this will happen because the volume of commuters is going to mean a lot of the guys who like to ride quickly and not pootle along will opt to use the main part of the road with the faster traffic anyway.

I'm sure there will be some element of this however considering various attributes such as experience, bike-craft and handling ability, road craft etc... if you take the set of people involved in KSI incidents in London (and probably other urban areas) and the set of people who don't want to pootle and intersect them, I wonder how big that resulting set is ?

They are also trying to encourage a lot more people to use bikes, in all likely-hood less skilled or experienced on average than those you're worried about - people who just want to get about and aren't worried about their speed.

Paul99 wrote:

Controversial, but this is why I have mixed feelings about the segregated infrastructure because in the eyes of the other road users, it gives them more right to the roads and the cyclists less right.

Undoubtably some will feel that way, but I don't think it's an compelling argument against the introduction of more segregated cycleways if that brings more people on them. As more people use them, the chances of the motorist also being a cyclist may also increase - which may partially improve things... probably a long way off on that, but it's a start.

I'd argue that Captain Kirk is probably wrong in this case...

fukawitribe wrote:

Paul99 wrote:

As a regular London commuter the thing that worries me about this is that if something now happens to a cyclist on one of the roads with segregated lanes (i.e. the cyclist is on the road, not in the cycle lane), then it's going to be instantly labelled the cyclist's fault, so what he's actually done is realised it benefits his taxi drivers who will still drive dangerously if cyclists happen to not be using the segregated lanes but feel like they have carte blanche to do so because cyclists "should be in the bike lane"- and believe me, this will happen because the volume of commuters is going to mean a lot of the guys who like to ride quickly and not pootle along will opt to use the main part of the road with the faster traffic anyway.

I'm sure there will be some element of this however considering various attributes such as experience, bike-craft and handling ability, road craft etc... if you take the set of people involved in KSI incidents in London (and probably other urban areas) and the set of people who don't want to pootle and intersect them, I wonder how big that resulting set is ?

They are also trying to encourage a lot more people to use bikes, in all likely-hood less skilled or experienced on average than those you're worried about - people who just want to get about and aren't worried about their speed.

Paul99 wrote:

Controversial, but this is why I have mixed feelings about the segregated infrastructure because in the eyes of the other road users, it gives them more right to the roads and the cyclists less right.

Undoubtably some will feel that way, but I don't think it's an compelling argument against the introduction of more segregated cycleways if that brings more people on them. As more people use them, the chances of the motorist also being a cyclist may also increase - which may partially improve things... probably a long way off on that, but it's a start.

I'd argue that Captain Kirk is probably wrong in this case...

You make excellent points sir, and I agree entirely. My fear here is that the segregated lanes are hailed as THE solution by those who don't understand the nuances and all the sides of the argument and the issues, meaning that the need to address other problems like driver attitude get sidelined.

Paul99 wrote:

Controversial, but this is why I have mixed feelings about the segregated infrastructure because in the eyes of the other road users, it gives them more right to the roads and the cyclists less right. Attitude readjustment through things like presumed liability is the only way I really see any major change happening.

You often see arguments like this from fans of "vehicular cycling", but to me it seems unlikely that taking space from private motorised traffic and allocating it to dedicated cycling facilities will marginalise cycling. If anything it should be a clear statement to drivers that they are less of a priority, and cycling is more acceptable and promoted. Do you think Dutch cyclists worry that the high-quality safe cycle facilities they have undermine their rights?

*If* it turns out that the new cycleways are so popular that they get congested then it will be a win of sorts - it will justify the decision to install them, and highlight the fact there should be more (wider) cycleways.

As for presumed liability, it's been discussed elsewhere that while it's not a bad idea, it does little in practice to change attitudes. Drivers don't go out intending to run over cyclists (usually) and all drivers think they're more competent than average.

Paul99 wrote:

Attitude readjustment through things like presumed liability is the only way I really see any major change happening.

In what way will presumed liability adjust attitudes?

I'm a strong supporter of presumed liability, but there does seem to be a level of misunderstanding of what it is, and what it can do on both sides of the argument. We have both the Daily Fail headbangers who think innocent motorists will be locked up and some cycling campaigners who think drivers will suddenly feel a significant extra duty of care.

Presumed liability will probably make almost no difference to the attitude of drivers. There's no real evidence to suggest it has done so in other countries, in fact the causality seems to be the opposite way around. The countries that already have drivers with a better attitude towards other road users are more likely to introduce it because of public support.

What it will do is ensure compensation for those who are injured or suffer other losses from the burden put upon society by motor vehicles.

Paul99 wrote:

... because cyclists "should be in the bike lane"- and believe me, this will happen because the volume of commuters is going to mean a lot of the guys who like to ride quickly and not pootle along will opt to use the main part of the road with the faster traffic anyway. .

I'm sure it will fall victim to its own success. Particularly in the bits they made too narrow to please the road traffic concerns.

But if the faster bike commuters can't use the bike infra then the bike infra isn't up to the job. On main/busy routes its got to be able to let people overtake and travel at 20mph on bikes.

Its going to be difficult for the cycling pressure groups to get this accross. If "we built it and they don't use it" comes up then the response needs to be "we told you it needed to be higher capacity". Lets face it - they have added more lanes to roads when they got full so the same will have to happen to these routes.

Before we get to that point lets wait and see how popular this route really is - I hope its really successful.

Back on topic: I suspect the cabbies union has quietly realised that this is goign to be a road where they won't have to fight with bikes all the time and told the boss to shut up.

P3t3 wrote:

But if the faster bike commuters can't use the bike infra then the bike infra isn't up to the job. On main/busy routes its got to be able to let people overtake and travel at 20mph on bikes.

In countries with high levels of cycle commuting/active transport, this is not what a commute looks like. But rather a steady, uninterrupted 12 mph or so, which given the infrastructure is quite quick (i.e. green wave for bikes).

And if the infra lets those who now don't dare cycle to work etc do so (grannies, kids, unfit people, those who aren't willing to risk their lives every single ride...) then it's highly successful.

I'm a (sorta-ish) quick commuter, but the attitude that my and your style of riding needs to be catered for blows: It's just as entitled as drivers going "It's my road because I pay Road Tax".

[Edit: I agree with the rest of your posting.]

Ush wrote:

It's easy. Taxi drivers recognise that nasty little bike ghettos which force cyclists off the roads are in their own interest.

Instead of a real solution which sees motorized vehicle use drastically reduced they hope to eke out another 20 years of privilege.

Taxi drivers prosper rather well in cities which drastically reduce private motor car use. See Singapore.

I look forward to using this nasty little ghetto next year, away from the endless construction vehicles and with its magnificent views across the Thames!

Ush wrote:

Instead of a real solution which sees motorized vehicle use drastically reduced they hope to eke out another 20 years of privilege.

What is this "real solution" of which you speak? People still need to move around the city, so how do you "drastically reduce motorized vehicle use"? Invent a teleporter? Force people to live under their desks at work? Kill half the population?

Or is the solution to enable people to use non-motorized transport safely and conveniently?

bikebot wrote:

Call me a cynic, but right now I'm wondering what the LTDA have quietly been promised.

Maybe they have been given the right to use the garden bridge?