How about a national cycle network?

Good news - the Highways Agency has earmarked £20m over two years for national cycling network improvements:

According to the Highways Agency, the money will provide new road markings, cycle lane and crossing points, new fly­overs to connect existing national cycle routes, dropped kerbs and vegetation clearance refreshed and new signage for cyclists and drivers.

Obviously this is good. Extra money is always good, assuming it is spent wisely, but compared with Highway Agency's £1.9b annual budget for maintaining the roads the sum does seem rather, well, mean.

Setting aside the appalling state of much of the current National Cycle Network (a tangled mess of poorly constructed or unsigned routes interspersed with short pieces of brilliance), wouldn't it be better to think a bit bigger and go for something more inspiring than dropped kerbs and vegetation clearance (which, surely, is no more than annual maintenance dressed-up as "improvements")? How about building an actual network of cycle routes that could be used, safely, by riders of all experience levels?

Here's what we need to do. Whenever we plan roads, add lanes or conduct non-trivial maintenance we should also build cycle paths. We should include cycle paths by default and they should be built to a high standard; segregated, metalled, lit and sign-posted. We should aim to make it possible to cycle easily and safely between our towns and cities using a network of paths that mirrored our motorway and A-road network.

It's a simple vision with huge benefits. Objections?

Sometimes Change is Easy

Sometimes it's just not that difficult. Sometimes small changes can make big differences. Sometimes.

Like changing the timings on the lights at the north end of Waterloo bridge. At rush hour, 50+ cyclists get maybe 8-9 seconds to pass through the lights at the southern end of Wellington Street as the head south toward the bridge.

Four things happen:

1. The large queue of bikes on the cycle lane outside the Wellington pub impedes pedestrians and, at very busy times, covers the lower part of the road,
2. Bikes crossing toward Waterloo Bridge are immediately stopped by the pedestrian lights on the other side of Strand leaving them sitting awkwardly in the junction,
3. Buses turning right to cross the bridge get stuck here at the same time creating an immediate conflict as bikes swarm around the bus,
4. A big bulge of bikes then surges across the pedestrian crossing as the lights change, effectively blocking one or both lanes of the bridge until the pack spreads out.

Fixing this properly should involve new bike-specific lights, cycle lanes and various other improvements to infrastructure and layout. If instead we merely wish to improve the situation enormously we could fiddle with the existing traffic lights:

• Stretch the green time on the southbound cycle light to an extravagant 25 seconds. It's controlled by a manual switch anyway so presumably it isn't part of the sequence if there are no cyclists around.
• Release east/west pedestrians either before the bike light goes green or after bikes have had time to clear the junction so that passage across the junction isn't impeded by the pedestrian crossing,
• Adjust the timings so that buses turning right onto the bridge aren't in the junction at the same time as bikes,
• If we want to be really daring, give bikes two spots in the light sequence to reduce the accumulation of bikes and speed the southbound flow.

These changes could be made quickly and with relative ease but their impact would be huge. Sometimes it really is easy to make a difference.

London, Cycling and HGVs

The Metropolitan Police Service run fairly frequent sessions on Wellington Street in Covent Garden (that's the street just north of Waterloo Bridge outside the Lion King theatre) to give cyclists a driver's-eye view from the cab of an HGV. I've always been deeply cynical about these exercises, regarding them as little more than a sophisticated way of blaming the victim (i.e. cyclists) for accidents that have yet to happen.

It turns out that, although not entirely wrong, there were some fairly big gaps in my knowledge and I'm very pleased that the MPS took the time to explain. Let me elaborate.

The cab of the police HGV they were using was quite new and it had all the required mirrors - six, in total - creating an apparently comprehensive image of the surrounding road. The demo is done by two guys, one with a bike, one in the cab. The guy with the bike walks it around the outside of the cab and guy in the passenger seat explains what the driver can and can't see; it's a great demo. 

As soon as they finish it's obvious that it's very easy for a cyclist to find a blind spot. Worse, it's possible for both cyclist and driver to follow all the rules, take care about their positioning, check their mirrors, look around them, signal clearly and still collide because one simply can't see the other in his completely legal and correct position on the road. Legal, in this instance, doesn't coincide with safe.

There are (at least) two problems. First, even with six mirrors the driver can't see enough of the space around the cab to be sure it's safe to move off. Second, it takes about 330 milliseconds (see page 8) for a driver to scan each mirror so reviewing six and the road in front provides plenty of time for cyclists to move into the already scanned area.

Mirrors clearly aren't the answer so what options are left? Cameras could be used to eliminate blind spots but this just worsens the mirror-scanning problem. Transparent doors or lowered cabs might improve visibility but aren't easily retro-fitted into the existing fleet; changing legislation to force these improvements could take years. Banning HGVs entirely would probably encourage a proliferation of smaller delivery vehicles, exchanging one body of professional drivers for ten times as many half-trained amateurs (not to mention increasing pollution and congestion); not ideal.

We could try to solve the problem by educating cyclists and asking them to avoid HGVs but even with the best efforts of the police (and the demo really was very good) they're never going to reach a significant proportion of the cycling population. 

From what I can see there is only one real solution; we must stop forcing bikes and lorries to share the same road. They must be segregated, either by time (HGVs in the city centre between 23:00 and 05:00, maybe?) or by space. Time might be easier to implement but isn't a total solution and it would create an organisational nightmare for hauliers and their customers; it's probably a non-starter.

And that leaves us with segregating the roads to physically separate bikes and other road users. This isn't a short-term option so it doesn't help with today's problem but, long-term, it's by far the best option. In reality, though, we're probably going to need to improve drivers' visibility, change the way HGVs use the roads, reduce the size and number of goods vehicles in our city centres and make various other changes if we're to make significant improvements to road safety.

While we wait for things to improve, I'm going to change the way I ride around large vehicles. More specifically, I will be keeping away from HGVs on the assumption that, no matter where I am on the road, the driver won't be able to see me. Like wearing helmets and hi-vis jackets, this shouldn't be necessary but I think riding defensively is, at least for now, vital. 

And if you get the chance to sit in the Met's HGV cab you should take it and reset your thinking on HGVs and their drivers.

Nightrider

Nightrider. 100km around the sights of central London by bike in the middle of the night, starting and ending at Crystal Palace (or Alexandra Palace, if you fancy). It's an interesting experience; let me tell you what I learned on the 2014 ride.

The first thing, and this was a bit of a surprise, is that 100km doesn't seem so far when broken into 20km chunks and cycled with a bunch of like-minded people. You share the joys of the descents and the pain of the hills, the frustration of the red lights and the dangers of the unexpected right turns, and life seems just a little better as, together, you overcome adversity (self-imposed adversity, it is true, but still a challenge to be defeated and a victory to be shared).

Also surprising was the variety of bikes in use. Lots of road bikes, as you'd expect, and large numbers of hybrids but also an awful lot of mountain and downhill bikes as if climbing hills or riding over smooth Tarmac were things that happen only to other people. There were also some tandems (including one crewed by two chaps in tutus and brightly coloured stockings), at least one tricycle tandem and a modest number of folding bikes. All, it seems, are welcome.

The organisation was good, the route was (mostly) well signed and the break points were clearly labelled and well-stocked with food (except, strangely  for the one at the Imperial Museum, which had only a small selection of strange crisps and children's sweets). The start and finish were well organised and we got away on time and in good order.

The roads, even in the small hours of the morning, are not free of traffic. It's mostly taxis, buses and delivery vehicles and although you might hope that professional drivers would be used to seeing cyclists on the roads this doesn't mean they're prepared to give way or, even, to drive safely. As always when riding around London, care must be taken to avoid motorists.

And the drunks, of which there are many. Most were supportive, many clapped, some cheered. Others just stared, bemused, as 20-30 riders in identical hi-vis jackets rode past in search of the bright yellow signs that would indicate the next turn on the route.

A few memories stand out. Crossing Tower Bridge amongst traffic but in a huge crowd of cyclists. Reaching Alexandra Palace without stopping on the hill. Riding through an eerily quiet Canary Wharf. Seeing the start of the dawn across the city from Hampstead Heath. Stopping on Waterloo Bridge to capture the sunrise above a glass-smooth Thames. Reaching the finish line.

Rain or wind might have spoiled the day but for us the ride was dry and the night clear. It was chilly in the small hours but shorts, t-shirt, mitts and jumper were sufficient.

Next year? I think I'll be signing up for the 2015 ride.

My Least Favourite Type of Road User is...

Let me say straight off that, in general, I don't like other road users. Cars, buses, taxis, HGVs and in fact other cyclists annoy, frustrate and generally disrupt my riding and my life would be much easier, on a day-to-day basis, if nobody else used the roads while I was on them.

Unfortunately, until I run the country and can ban everyone else from the roads, I recognise that I have to share the space with other more-or-less-legitimate road users and that we all have to rub along together as best we can. C'est la vie.

Most of the time this isn't too onerous but there is one class of road user whose behaviour regularly scares the willies out of me; motorcyclists. The problem is that motorbikes combine the worst elements of both two and four-wheeled vehicles. They're nimble, slim and quick like bikes but they're often also heavy, fast and staggeringly noisy (seriously, are Harley-Davidson incapable of designing proper engines for their idiotic vehicles?).

Particularly hair-whitening is the way some motorcyclists roar along the bus lanes when passing slow-moving traffic. The noise of their engines strikes fear because it's impossible to predict what sort of moronic move they're going to make next. If you assume that the cretin on the crotch-rocket is going to pass you at high speed with inches to spare then you probably won't be far off.

So what should be done? It's tempting to do nothing and just to try to ignore the problem but I think that's missing an opportunity. My suggestions are easy and simple and would benefit pretty much everyone (possibly with the exception of motorcyclists, but that's not my problem):

1. Low-powered motorcycles, like those used for pizza delivery, should be allowed in the bus lanes; all other motorcycles should use only the main carriageway.
2. All motorcyclists should be required to have passed at least a basic safety test before taking to the road. If this is already the case then the test should be revised to ensure that safe bus lane usage is covered.
3. Deliberately anti-social machines, like those made by Harley-Davidson, should be banned; they're utterly pointless and horrific to anyone who doesn't wear leather underwear.

That ought to do it, I think. Anything else?

Junction Review : East Dulwich Library

The theme of my last blog was the need to change the way we move around London. I suggested some broad themes - cut car usage, build cycle lanes, pedestrianise shopping areas etc. - but now I'd like to start talking about specifics; what, where and how.

I'm going to start with junctions that I use regularly. I travel to work by bike and I have developed some fairly strong opinions about junction design and the prioritisation of motor traffic in particular so finding junctions about which to write (complain) shouldn't be tricky.

Here's a nice easy one to start off with:



This light-controlled junction is the first that I hit on my way to work and the last on my way home. Most of the roads around here are mixed use with a predominance of residential streets. From this junction the east (Barry Road) and west (Eynella Road) are both residential; Lordship Lane runs north and becomes East Dulwich high street and south till it meets the South Circular.

Like most reasonably sized road junctions in South London it features multiple lanes of traffic, left/right turn lanes and erratic width changes to accommodate car parking and bus lanes (several routes run along Lordship Lane and Barry Road). Lordship Lane in particular is very wide featuring 4 lanes on the north side and 3-4 on the south.

All four roads have Advanced Stop Lines (not great infrastructure, by the way) and narrow feeder lanes for bicycles but it's not a friendly junction for cyclists turning right because traffic moving is released in both directions at the same time so you're always turning across the path of oncoming vehicles or sitting in the middle of the junction waiting for vehicles to pass. Not fun and a source of conflict between cyclists and motorists.

And the problem is that the layout doesn't really work. It's poor for motorists, who must navigate a badly signed and ill-marked junction in the face of oncoming vehicles, buses trying to get into their stops pedestrians heading to and from the library and nearby Dulwich Park and parked cars. It's awful for cyclists who, facing the same onslaught of vehicular traffic, often jump the lights or simply walk or ride around them using the pedestrian crossings and pavements.

So what do we do? Here's a brief list of things we could change:

• Firstly, let's get rid of the ASLs and replace them with bike-specific signals that give cyclists time to clear the junction before the motor vehicles are released. Simultaneous Green lights might be worth considering, especially as there aren't all that many bikes using this junction at the moment.
• A protected cycling lane on Barry Road, which is 3-4 lanes wide along its full length and could easily accommodate the change, would help ease congestion and encourage cycling. This is something the London Cycling Campaign has requested as part of its 2014 campaign.
• Northward link to and from the centre of East Dulwich where most of the shops are situated. Lordship Lane is 3-4 lanes wide along most of its length so bi-directional protected cycle lanes would be possible for only a modest loss of parking and/or road space and this would help alleviate the congestion caused by private cars.
• Southward cycle lanes to Forest Hill to connect it with East Dulwich; improving the flow of traffic along Lordship Lane, particularly where it meets the South Circular, would have benefits for all road users.
• More cycle stands would be useful. There are some at the moment outside Lloyds Bank but there aren't really enough.
• If the above changes are too expensive (and I concede that building a few miles of cycle lanes might be a bit challenging) then let's at least extend the 20mph limit currently in force on the northern end of Lordship Lane so that it covers both this junction and the road down to the South Circular. Average speed cameras and light enforcement cameras at the junction wouldn't hurt either.

It would also be nice to sort out the parking around the junction since all the roads are clogged with parked cars. The cars you can see at the junction of Eynella Road and Woodwarde Road on the left-hand side aren't queueing to turn left, they're parked in clear breach of Highway Code Rule 243 which says you mustn't park within 10m of a junction. Obviously there has to be space for people to park their urban tractors but most of the houses are large with decent front gardens; a bit of concrete, some lowered kerbs and on-road parking space is suddenly free for other uses.

Make all these changes and the junction suddenly gets a lot better. Linking East Dulwich and Forest Hill with high-quality cycle lanes would reduce cyclist-motorist conflict, encourage cycling, reduce congestion and generally make life better for everyone using or living near the junction.

London's Transport Problems and How to Fix Them

Ok London, let me tell you how it has to be.

The road network doesn't work for anyone. It doesn't work for cars, vans, lorries, buses, pedestrians, emergency vehicles or cyclists and everybody hates it. We've built our city around the internal combustion engine and it's time to admit that we've lost something along the way; it's time for change.

So what's next? How do we unclog our cities, cut the pollution, encourage visitors and tourists, boost trade, help small businesses and generally improve the way the city works?

It's actually not all that difficult, it just requires a change of mindset. We have to stop building infrastructure based on the needs of cars, taxis and buses and focus instead on the needs of their passengers. We do this by making it easier to move around the city without using motorised transport, by encouraging walking, cycling and, for longer journeys, tube, tram and train. 

There are a few things we can do:

1. Pedestrianise the busiest shopping and entertainment areas, like Oxford Street, Regent Street, Trafalgar Square etc.
2. Cut the motor traffic on routes that can't be pedestrianised, like Whitehall, Parliament Square, Charing Cross Road, Strand, Kingsway etc.
3. Build fully segregated cycle lanes on the busiest roads, like Victoria Embankment, and add cycle infrastructure at junctions, crossings, stations and bridges,
4. Increase the congestion charge and extend the coverage area to further reduce private vehicle use, 
5. Extend the tram system that operates around Croydon and push it north through Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham where underground coverage is light,

Not easily done, especially in the face of concerted opposition from car drivers (who will call it a "war on motorists") and other vested interests, but it would make the city far more pleasant for everyone who lives in it. 

TfL currently spend £400m a year (source) maintaining the 5% of London's roads for which they're responsible and their brief, for years, has been to keep the traffic moving; they've interpreted "traffic", in this context, as "motor traffic". Anyone who has walked, cycled or driven around some of TfL's major junctions, like Elephant and Castle, can see how poorly this approach has worked.

If roads and junctions aren't pleasant or efficient for drivers why on earth do we continue to build infrastructure based almost entirely on their needs? We have to change the approach. We have to build a network that works for the majority of people using it even if that means discouraging the behaviours that some people currently rely upon. 

Let's aim to get some of the cars off the streets by making it easier to make different choices. There will always be a need for some people to drive around the city but, for the rest of us, for the rest of the time, let's provide some viable alternatives. Let's take the difficult decisions now, start the process and get the city moving.