CTC asks for a vehicular cycling solution again

Note: The post below makes much the same point as this post on ‘As Easy as Riding a Bike’, and he mentions some stuff that I haven’t, so both posts are worth reading. I suspect we were typing simultaneously!

I thought we were making some progress. I was feeling pleased with the good-natured discussions with Roger Geffen, the Campaigns & Policy Director of the CTC. I was really happy to see the CTC officially announce that they would be supporting good quality Dutch-style infrastructure.

Well, today they had a chance to offer their support to a campaign which is demanding good quality cycle infrastructure, and they fluffed it.

When I read CTC’s response to TfL’s dreadful proposals for the roundabout on the Westminster end of Lambeth Bridge, my heart sank. I didn’t want to have to write another piece criticising the CTC (well, not yet, anyway) but I have to call them out on this one.

The problem is this:

Our preferred option in this situation would be to redesign the layout of the roundabout along ‘continental’ lines – that is, with a single lane roundabout and small curve radii single exits and entry lanes. Such a design is recommended in the London Cycle Design Standards.

So the CTC – who, let’s remember, recently declared support for quality segregation – are telling TfL that their design choice would be simply to reduce the roundabout approaches and exits to one lane each way, to be shared by cyclists and motor vehicles. To my mind, that is not “support for quality segregation” but more of the same “marginal improvements for existing cyclists” ethos.

What they’re suggesting here is a solution which is fine for vehicular cyclists who can hold the lane and ride in a primary position (i.e. those who have the balls to get in right in front of the buses and taxis) but it will do absolutely nothing to attract people who don’t currently cycle.

When my partner read the CTC’s solution, her first words were “I still wouldn’t ride there,” and I can’t argue with that. Most people don’t want to ride amongst motor vehicles. That’s an entirely reasonable and rational decision to make.

So if we can’t even make it easy for bike riders to turn right at a fairly simple junction like this, then why would anybody who doesn’t already cycle on the road choose to use this route? Will the CTC’s design be attractive to those who don’t currently cycle? The Dutch solution is good for everyone – hardened VC commuters included – whereas CTC’s preferred solution merely improves conditions for those who are brave or stupid enough to cycle there anyway.

The odd thing is, the very next paragraph goes on to acknowledge the vastly superior Dutch-style proposal which everyone else wants:

Whilst we understand that the London Cycling Campaign have proposed fully segregated cycle tracks around the roundabout, we feel this is sensible only if priority over entering and exiting traffic can be provided to cyclists. This could be achieved by extending the zebra raised table to the mouth of each exit and entry way, enabling priority cycle crossings to be provided in accordance with TfL and DfT guidance. Dutch guidance on the provision of cycle tracks at roundabouts is clear that cyclists must have right of way in these circumstances.

Well yes, of course right-of-way is an important part of the Dutch-style roundabout! So you can now put this as your preferred solution, right? No need to suggest some sort of half-measure as your favourite.

The CTC are still doing much better than they would have in years gone by – at least the Dutch design is suggested as a second-best option, and with a reasonable caveat too. Maybe there are internal politics at work in the CTC and this two-tiered statement is a reflection of behind-the-scenes tussles for power. (If there is someone there who tried to get the Dutch-style roundabout as the preferred option then I salute you, keep up the good work!)

A ‘continental-style’ gift to Boris

Oddly enough, the LCC said pretty much the same thing about a ‘continental-style’ roundabout. You can find it at the end of this article (although it was their second choice, not their preferred solution).

Why on earth would they do that? Why give Boris the chance to say “what-ho chaps, we installed the roundabout that cyclists wanted, both the LCC and CTC asked for it!” You know he will. And when the first cyclist is killed at the new roundabout TfL will tell everyone that the design was recommended by the LCC and it was the CTC’s first choice.

However, if everyone asked for the proper, high-quality design – no watered-down “continental” roundabout – then they could at least say to the press, “we told TfL it was dangerous, but they refused to install the safe, proven design we asked for.”

We campaigners need to stop asking for half-measures like this. Suggesting compromises is what TfL will do anyway, so let’s not offer them up on a plate. Would you go into a job interview and immediately say “I’d like £30,000 per year but if that’s too much then I’ll accept £15,000″? Because that’s what the LCC and CTC have done here.

But the thing is, everyone else is asking for the good-quality Dutch-style roundabout. I’m pretty sure that readers of this blog (I love each and every one of you, by the way) have also read this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and I’m sure there’s others. It seems to me that on this specific issue pretty much all cycling campaigners are united, while the CTC still say that they’d prefer cyclists to stay on the road, thanks very much for asking.

Yet Roger Geffen (who seems pretty decent) tells me about 1996, when the CTC were working at getting the government to invest in cycling:  “At the very moment when we needed to focus on securing funding … the cycling lobby instead broke into a big argument about segregation. This merely provided Whitehall with a perfect excuse to allocate no funding to cycling – “if cyclists can’t agree what they want, what’s the point of funding it?” In other words, we allowed ourselves to be divided and ruled… and we’ve been living with the consequences ever since. … Will we now learn from history, and work together to mobilise the political support we need for cycling to flourish – or are we condemned to repeat it?”

Based on their Lambeth Bridge roundabout statement it seems that the CTC are the ones who haven’t learned from history. Theirs is the voice which will cause the government to ignore real improvements for cycling. Currently, there is near-unanimous agreement about which is the best option for the Lambeth Bridge roundabout, and the CTC is the odd one out asking for more of the same old vehicular crap.

Taking a step back

Why are we campaigning? Who are we campaigning for? Do we only want marginal improvements for current cyclists, or do we want cycling to become a simple and safe transport option for the whole population?

Asking for better vehicular cycling conditions is not going to induce more people to ride a bike – those of us who already cycle do so despite the conditions. We need improvements to infrastructure so that many more people will take up cycling because of the conditions; because it will be an appealing transport option.

Demand the best, and who knows, we may even get what we want one day.

 


Footnote:

It’s not all bad, however. They “strongly disagree with the proposal to deposit cyclists onto a ‘shared use’ footway before and after the roundabout … very few of the current users are likely to use such a fiddly and inconvenient means of negotiating the roundabout” which is spot on. (Though I’d love to know if TfL used the CTC’s very own advice to justify these shared zones, as they’re a perfectly acceptable option according to the Hierarchy of Provision.)

They’ve also pointed out the weakness of TfL’s “cyclists can use zebra crossings” line (which is obviously a sop to try and placate us): “Current regulations do not permit cyclists to use zebra crossings. Although TfL’s observations have previously found drivers do give way to cyclists on zebras, we do not think it acceptable to use these as priority crossings for cyclists until regulations change to formalise this approach.”

They’re right to point this out – to me, the “bikes on zebras” thing is a cynical ploy by TfL to get cycling campaigners to accept their design, as it looks like you can ride around the roundabout with priority, of sorts. But once the dust has settled and the Met stops a cyclist from riding over the zebras, TfL will say “sorry we didn’t realise, we’ll look into it” and we’ll be pushing our bikes over the zebra crossings for the next five years while we wait to hear back.

About these ads

12 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

12 responses to “CTC asks for a vehicular cycling solution again

  1. Mark

    Again, TfL has a closing date 7 days before work starts? I don’t think any traffic orders or notices are involved and so there will be no legal time limit, but they have made up their mind?

  2. Thank you for pointing out how again it’s the CTC and LCC—those organisations that should be pushing most vocally and authoritatively for high quality infrastructure—who are making timid, appeasatory suggestions, while it falls to those outside these organisations to push for a true Dutch-style solution.
    I have to say I share your concern about the zebra proposal, and the cynic in me wonders how long it will be before we see ‘Cyclists dismount’ signs appearing at each crossing.
    Thanks for the link, by the way; I sincerely hope TfL actually listen to our submissions!

  3. Spencer Harradine

    Apparently an OLD friend of mine recounts how the CTC campaigned against cycle lanes back in the 1930′s for fear that cyclists would be marginalised!!!!!!!
    Btw I am a member of CTC – LCC and BC – please let us see some ‘Joined up Cycling’

  4. Paul

    I think the problem is that the Dutch style solution requires a change in traffic laws – a lot of the markings making it clear that the cycle lane has priority are not legal in this country. Perhaps that is where campaigning needs to go.

    • Not so. Cycle tracks can and do have priority across junctions in the UK, with existing appropriate markings. The CTC themselves state how this can be achieved – by placing the cycle track on the same raised table as the zebra crossings. The hump has to be marked with triangles, and the standard ‘give way’ markings painted in advance of the track, but that is all.

  5. Pingback: How sincere is the CTC’s support for quality segregation? | As Easy As Riding A Bike

  6. Thanks for the comments on CTC’s proposal.

    The danger with: “[d]emand the best, and who knows, we may even get what we want one day” is that it is exactly right – we don’t know, and we may not get what we want. We may get ersatz segregation, which could be far worse.

    In this case, demands for segregation in TfL’s junction review have been answered with this design, which tells cyclists to get on the footway and then return to the road via an unsheltered leap-of-faith dropped kerb.

    We’ve pointed out in our response how a better quality segregated route could be built, but we have considerable scepticism that TfL could ever achieve this given their initial thinking.

    Here are a couple of other quotes from our response:

    “The current design of the roundabout is extremely hostile for cyclists, encouraging high speeds and inappropriate overtaking manoeuvres.”

    “Given the high proportion of crashes that involve cyclists on this roundabout, we feel that the merely cosmetic changes proposed by TfL will do little to improve user safety and we urge a more fundamental redesign of the geometry of this junction…”

    Chris

    • Chris

      It’s good of you to respond on here. However, you don’t adequately explain why you’ve not fully supported the LCC proposal. Surely this is what the Go Dutch campaign is about?

    • Hi Chris,

      You say:

      “The danger with: “[d]emand the best, and who knows, we may even get what we want one day” is that it is exactly right – we don’t know, and we may not get what we want.”

      Well we definitely won’t get it if we don’t ask for it! What you’re saying is that we should aim low in case we’re disappointed. Can’t win, don’t try.

      What a defeatist attitude. Tell me, exactly why are you involved with cycle campaigning? Do you have the same attitude to everything in life?

      “We may get ersatz segregation, which could be far worse.”

      Would that be the ersatz segregation that’s perfectly acceptable according to the CTC’s beloved Hierarchy of Provision?

      I know it’s the bottom option on there but it’s the cheapest and easiest one so the authorities are nearly always going to choose it, that’s why so many of our pavements are covered in paint. Why did you even give them that option?

      When the CTC recently declared support for good quality infrastructure, I didn’t realise you meant it would be grudging and half-hearted.

      Vehicular cycling will not increase the numbers of people riding bikes. It’s time to try a different tack, or accept that cycling will forever remain in its niche, along with the CTC.

      S.C.

    • Chris,

      The problem, as the commenters above me have said, is that you haven’t even stated that a high-quality segregated track, with priority, would be your preferred option.

      This is what the LCC have done, quite explicitly. But you haven’t.

      It’s very easy for TfL to continue plonking cyclists on the pavement if the national cycling organisation aren’t demanding quality segregation.

  7. Pingback: Up, down and around the Hierarchy of Provision | As Easy As Riding A Bike

  8. Andrew

    I recon the real reason here is money! The budget given to redesign the roundabout properly is not enough and they’ve been forced to compromise. It’s just sad that they have made such a compromise rather than have the balls to fight for more money!

    These knids of decisions are what keep motorists like me firmly out of the saddle! I tried cycling in london once, it scared the shit out of me!

Leave a reply...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s