Forum Topic

Making London better and safer to cycle in...

The Big Ride, on Saturday 28 April, is a fun event with a serious message calling on London's mayoral candidates to make the capital's streets as safe and inviting for cycling as they are in Holland.10,000 (yes, ten thousand) cyclists are expected. Cycling through closed roads from Speaker's Corner to the Victoria Embankment it is not a protest or a demonstration, but an event that is going to be great fun.Ealing Cycling Campaign will be leading two feeder rides from The Town Hall to the event. Both rides will be marshalled.The first ride departs at 9.00am. This is a slow ride using less busy roads and cycle paths. Great for families and less confident cyclists, but at a nice gentle pace for all, it uses streets that you may have never used! The second ride departs at 10.00am. Slightly quicker, because it is a shorter route, the marshalled ride will head straight down the Uxbridge Road and up Holland Park Avenue. If you are planning to be on this ride, you should be comfortable cycling in traffic.The event is a turn up and go. Bring your friends. It is free too.

Ben Owen ● 5106d37 Comments

I've had an almost instant, very apologetic, response from TNT.They claim that all of their delivery staff are made aware of the prohibition from riding on the pavement and that they all have to pass a cycling proficiency test before they are allowed to use a bike.I was also asked to pass on a direct contact e-mail in order that anyone who witnesses dangerous riding can report it.It is:tntpostdelivers@tntpost.co.uk

Nigel Brooks ● 5090d

Thanks Keith, I found it, I was looking at TNT not 'TNTPost'. Doh!

Nigel Brooks ● 5092d

Have a look on t'Google Nigel. Their email address should have a 'contact us' section.

Keith Iddon ● 5093d

Only resurrecting this thread to ask if I am alone in having real issues with TNT delivery cyclists?In the last two days I have had one ride straight across the road from pavement to pavement causing me to slam on my brakes and pray that I didn't skid (The Grove) one who rode off the pavement at speed a good three feet into the road causing the car coming towards me to swerve into my path (Popes Lane) and the stupid b^^^^^^ who almost knoked me down while riding at 'full tilt' outside my house ON THE PAVEMENT.I wish that I had kept the 'TNT are coming' leaflet in order that I could drop them an e-mail asking that their delivery cyclists simply observe the law of the land.They are giving cyclists a bad name and will, without doubt, cause accidents.

Nigel Brooks ● 5093d

I hadn't realised the cycle path on rthe A4 was in such a state, if that is the case then use of the road is understandable and I am big enough to offer my apologies for my criticism.There is though absolutely no excuse for adult cyclists using the pavement including the cyclist, wearing a black waterproof and with no lights, who routinely rides down Boston Road most evenings.

Nigel Brooks ● 5101d

"Ninety-five per cent of cyclists say they were forced to take action to avoid a collision with a larger vehicle over the past six months." I wonder how many of these were cyclists overtaking vehicles that were stationary at traffic lights, when the lights changed. Many cyclists appear to be ignorant of the fact that if traffic lights are red, all traffic is meant to stop, not just vehicles with 4 wheels. To my mind, half the so-called problem with bendy buses ("they suddenly turn left and cut me up") is that too many cyclists in central London ignore rules of the road and lack common sense. As for the ones that think who switch to the pavement to get to the front of the queue when traffic lights turn red - not to mention those who "want to turn right and it's easier to go on the pavement than on the road" - I just wish the police could issue on-the-spot fines. Most recently it was a young man who wasn't looking where he was going, crashed into me and my grocery shopping and wouldn't have stopped at all if I hadn't shouted out something fairly abusive to him. It was a one-way street in Hammersmith, with a cycle lane on the other side of the road to allow cyclists to ride counter to the main traffic. I am used to cycling in cities outside the UK - but I find London road users just too aggressive to want to take part.

Sue Rowe ● 5101d

Tony - you didnt read Gavin's post corectly - he said that those cyclists who can cycle at 20mph should not use paths that have both pedestrians and cyclists on them

F Stone ● 5101d

> ...those of us who ride at 20mph+...It seems to me that, just as for the roads, different speed limits should apply for different conditions.I hardly think it is reasonable to demand the right to travel at 20+ mph on a path shared with pedestrians.At that speed you should definitely be either on the road or a dedicated cycles-only path.

Tony Colliver ● 5101d

I don't criticise cyclists for cycling on the road.Only on the footpaths.

Keith Iddon ● 5101d

The whole point is that the A4 is the first and I think the only road in london that was built with a separate cycle roadway to the pedestrian and vehicular one. And on both sides of the road.But as I have said before it is never maintained and has been messed about and the Lionel road by Gunnersbury park bit is really dangerous and confusingBut it is not to safe for cars on the A4 wishing to turn left into Lionel road.With fast traffic descending from the M4 above and the need to cut across that lane leaves cyclists vulnerable and unsighted.The only improvement is that the cycle ways are now two-way on both sides of the road but that is at the price of losing some traffic lights for cyclists.

Michael Brandt ● 5101d

I am usually suspicious of cycle paths made on the footway (note not the pavement). On the A4 they satisfy neither pedestrians who have to share it with cyclists, or cyclists who are not seen by motorists turning, as an example, into one of those car showrooms or by cars joining the carriageway at Clayponds Av and Lionel Road. I also echo all the points that Gavin has made.One other thing that I will point out is that the A4 footway / cyclepath is often littered with broken glass and rubbish, which naturally makes the road more inviting.Cyclists are left with the worst of both worlds. We already are very cautious on the ‘cycle path’ because of pedestrians. But, if we don’t use these useless ‘cycle paths’ we get criticised by motorists, such as Keith and Nigel, for being on the road. Cyclists are kind of left with a no win situation. It is this kind of cycle path that is often worse than nothing. And this is a major reason why The Big Ride is taking place so that we are not seen as a public nuisance, but instead better cycle provision is being made for all cyclists - wwhether they want to be on the road or use a shared footway.

Ben Owen ● 5101d

Doesn't the highway code state that if a pedestrian is on the road that he has the right of way?Seems that some cyclists don't even think that a pedestrian has the right of way on the footpath.They seem to think that because they think some drivers treat them poorly,they can pass that on to pedestrians.

Keith Iddon ● 5102d

I have to say that I hope Mr Gilbert was being ironic in his comments.Just because he can ride his bike at 20 mph or faster does not give one the right to do so.My car can do well over 100mph but the legal limit is 70mph where designated.I can drive at the national speed limit on most of Britain's rural roads but do I or most other drivers? No. Simply because the only right one has is that of applying common sense.Yes I can drive at 60mph down a country lane but do I know whats around the corner? Of course not so one applies due caution.So why would you want to exercise the right to ride a bike at speed through an area shared with pedestrians?Why do you not think it sensible to slow down and check junctions?You do not need laws to enforce this it is simple common sense.If you want to ride fast that's fine but you have to exercise the same sense as if you were on a motorised vehicle. I do hope you were joking.

Michael Brandt ● 5102d

I refer you to my earlier answer.

Keith Iddon ● 5102d

Mmm did you not read my post I said that if the pavement was crowded I walked.Quite a few cyclists are colour blind as they do not understand the meaning of traffic lights - red as far as I understand means stop. Now before I get the other cyclists backs up by saying this, motorists also do not understand the meaning of traffic lights.The other day I was cycling (along the road before you ask) following my partner when a car passed us and decided to turn left right in front of my partner without indicating. Thankfully both car and cyclist were going very slow and my partner had to stop on the junction to let the car turn.There are total idiots around be it pedestrian, cyclist or motorist and the only way we can stop it is to be more vigilant to our surroundings and to know the highway code (something that I believe most cyclists are unaware of).Keith - just because someone does not agree with your point of view and is rude does not mean to say you have to be rude back. Common courtesy

F Stone ● 5102d

Enlightening, thanks.

Mark Vale ● 5102d

Well F,When someone is rude to you,I will allow you to react how you wish without making a value judgement about your respose.BTW,if you feel that the road is unsafe for you as a cyclist use the pavement by all means.But get off your bike and walk with it while you do.It is called a FOOTPATH.

Keith Iddon ● 5102d

I think you are a tad harsh Keith and I am not being sarcastic in the slightest.Yes there are very bad cyclists around - I have seen them as both a pedestrian (who does have the right of way at a pedestrian crossing!) and as a motorist. However there are equally bad motorists and pedestrians which I have come across when riding my bike.I admit that I have ridden on the pavement in conditions which I thought would be dangerous to ride on the road, BUT have always done so when there aren't many people about. PLUS I have always got off and walked when the pavement was busy.Whilst I may not agree with Mr Gilbert's very pro cyclist views (and I have disagreed with him in the past) there is no reason for your rudeness.

F Stone ● 5102d

Gilbert,Your gratutitoius rudeness is noted and the fact that you have come a cropper because of some berk does not alter the fact that cycling on the pavement is dangerous for pedestrians.If you can't understand that I will put it down to the concussion,or if it's your right wrist,frustration.

Keith Iddon ● 5102d

Agreed, They are designed for footpaths in parks and flat surfaces like pedestrian areas, but are deployed cleaning gulleys and even though small cannot access properly with pared vehicles and other obstructions. Rarely do they sprinkle as well.But used correctly they can be effective.

Michael Brandt ● 5102d

It is extraordinary that one of the only roads built with a cycle path on both sides of it has been allowed to get messed up.It had a paved pedestrian footpath, a grass verge, a concrete cycle surface and a second grass verge and then the main road for most of it all the way to Ashford and Heathrow.A fair bit of the western end has disappeared. The dedicated traffic lights went, The streetlighting was removed and made central but made the cycle tracks darker. Nothing was ever done to improve the cross junctions as they became busier.As the factories vanished so did the cyclists and it's fair to say that the only cylcists using it from 1970 to 1990s were schoolkids but it was becoming increasingly dangerous by then.I recall the schools complaining to Hounslow but it fell on deaf ears as did the many vehicular accidents and fatalities.Pretty much the same as now, the council was more interested in posture politics than getting anything done and again much as now, conflict over who was responsible for the A4 cycle ways and pavements.Had it been maintained and upgraded in line with the road, it would be a pretty good cycle route but ironically it is safer to use the vehicular highway.

Michael Brandt ● 5102d

"Such simple things like running a scarab sweeper up and down the routes a few times seem totally impossible and yet they can throw loads of money at schemes which simply don't work."The chances of that happening are probably nil, given that they can't even sweep the streets.

Nigel Brooks ● 5102d

There's also the pedestrian risk present with any 'shared path'. Whilst pedestrians and 8mph cyclists can probably mix, those of us who ride at 20mph+ are entitled to do so and its unsafe for both sets of path users.Next up is the number of junctions on the path with access roads for the buildings that line the Great West Road. From a safety perspective a cyclist will need to slow and check the junction is safe at each and the constant braking and acceleration is both irritating and tiring. The sightlines from the path to the traffic coming behind down the road is poor, and in some cases exceptionally poor. It was at once of these junctions that Mike was killed.And unique to this particular path, there is a large roadsign on the east bound just passed the Vantage West building that straddles the cyclepath. It is set at the perfect hight to decapitate any cyclist who does not duck or divert onto the footpath.

Gavin Gilbert ● 5103d

I can tell you as I use it most days.It has not been swept regularly for over 30 years, it is littered with glass and other road detrius that accumulates rapidly so the paths need to be swept at least twice a week.Cars often park on sections of it and the surfaces are worn and lumpy. It is easier and safer to use the main road which I agree seems bonkers.Also back n the 60s and 70s the traffic signals had repeaters for cyclists. These were not renewed and it has made the paths less safe and less roadwise cyclists are more vulnerable as well as they are now more likely to ignore the main road signals.I've written countless letters to the MP, the council and the GLA members on this. Never had one reply in 20 years.Another gaffe is dedicated cycle ways where they are narrow but have kerbs higher than the lowest point of bike pedals one slight wobble and your off.Result: No cyclist will use them despite the high cost. Dozens of thses are all over london.Such simple things like running a scarab sweeper up and down the routes a few times seem totally impossible and yet they can throw loads of money at schemes which simply don't work.

Michael Brandt ● 5103d

Gavin, Can you tell me what is wrong with the A4 cycle lane?I am a non-cycling motorist, but vaguely neutral/pro-cycle... But my daily commute from Ealing to Heathrow on A4/A30 is continually hindered by cyclists on these busy dual cariageways, despite cycle lanes every inch of the way.Can you say why this happens?

Mark Vale ● 5103d

Except the A4 cyclepath is exceptionally dangerous - one of these forums contributors, Mike Fletcher of the Twickenham Cycling Club, was sadly killed whilst using it in 2008.Whilst I fully agree that a majority of cyclists in London seem to be totally ignorant of the behaviour expected of them, asking us to use infrastructure that is patently unsafe by design is unreasonable.  Moreover we seem to be expected to put up with a significant HGV and commercial carrier risk where the operators of these vehicles are fighting tooth and nail to adopt safe working practices and the introduction of (very low cost) safety technology.There is also the considerable issue of the sentencing guidelines regarding deaths and serious injuries resulting from poor road use to be mere collateral. As for Iddons “How many pedestrians knocked down or injured by cyclists on the pavement”..... I am currently nursing a broken wrist, broken ribs and recovering from concussion after some goof of a pedestrian stepped out in front of my bicycle. She was ‘too busy to check the road’ as she was sending a text message.Some people need a test, license and insurance before being allowed a pair of shoes.

Gavin Gilbert ● 5103d

Like you Ben I have no time for the morons who phone or text while driving. Nor do I like thpose who change direction without indicating for they are equally dangerous to other road users.As a (former for the moment) cyclist I like to think that I am cycle aware. I just wish that many cyclists didn't see themselves as 'invincible' and would obey road signals and traffic lights.I could go faster on the Great West Road if the cyclists ALL used the cycle lane provided. It has been there since the early 1970's so there is no excuse not to use the very thing for which cyclists are now campaigning.If I drove on the pavement I would expect to be prosecuted. Equally if I drove at night without lights or reflectors (a legal requirement under the Construction and Use act). Cyclists cannot have it both ways. Obey the law and you may get a lot more sympathy from other road users.

Nigel Brooks ● 5103d

100% of all of statistics don't reflect real life.

Keith Iddon ● 5104d

Nigel and Keith:According to research by The Instiute of Advanced Motorists (of which I am a member), published today, shows that:Eighty-eight per cent of cyclists have been cut-up by another road user who didn’t look properly; Ninety-five per cent of cyclists say they were forced to take action to avoid a collision with a larger vehicle over the past six months. 90 per cent of cyclists believe the only way to reduce these incidences is by improving drivers’ awareness of cyclists;52 per cent of cyclists experienced near misses at a junction and 45 per cent on left turning junctions. Seventy-three per cent of these near misses occurred in 30 mile per hour zones. All road users need to be more aware of who they are sharing the road with, and the risks they present.  On a 12 mile journey to King's Cross using main roads I will see at least four motorists using a mobile. Seeing one driver using a mobile phone every three miles may not sound a lot to you. But when you convert this to one every 12 minutes that is massively high. (It takes me 46 minutes to cycle the 11.8 miles to King's Cross).I expect a car to turn left without indicating. I expect a car to pull out of a side road narrowly missing me. But you won't hear me saying that ALL car drivers will behave that way.If we could get more people on bikes the less cars there would be on the road; this would allow you to go even faster on The Great West Road. Guys, share the road and stop thinking it is always the other persons fault.

Ben Owen ● 5104d

To reply to your 'reasoned' points in order.1. Wrong - all vehicles using fossil fuel or electricity contribute via fuel duties and VAT.2. Wrong. Read the post before you criticise. I acknowledge that cyclists pay general taxation in my original post. So you pay tax - that doesn't warrant any special treatment.3. Partially wrong. Of course some cyclists are insured. That is why I wrote 'largely uninsured'. You really should learn to read posts before you respond. So there, are to quote you, "hundreds of thousands" who have insurance, what about the other millions?4. Partially correct - how many accidents were caused by pavement cycling idiots or those who have no lights or reflective clothing?I have no intention of cycling into central London while there is a perfectly adequate train service and while my disability prevents me cycling which I did with insurance, a helmet, lights and reflective clothing.You score 1 out of 4 - not a great result.

Nigel Brooks ● 5106d

To reply to your 'reasoned' points in order.1. Wrong - all vehicles using fossil fuel or electricity contribute via fuel duties and VAT.2. Wrong. Read the post before you criticise. I acknowledge that cyclists pay general taxation in my original post. So you pay tax - that doesn't warrant any special treatment.3. Partially wrong. Of course some cyclists are insured. That is why I wrote 'largely uninsured'. You really should learn to read posts before you respond. So there, are to quote you, "hundreds of thousands" who have insurance, what about the other millions?4. Partially correct - how many accidents were caused by pavement cycling idiots or those who have no lights or reflective clothing?I have no intention of cycling into central London while there is a perfectly adequate train service and while my disability prevents me cycling which I did with insurance, a helmet, lights and reflective clothing.You score 1 out of 4 - not a great result.I have no intention

Nigel Brooks ● 5106d

Chris,How many pedestrians knocked down or injured by cyclists on the pavement.We have all seen aggressive cyclists who have little regard for anyone else.At least cars stick to the road.Contrary to what seems to be the current culture amongst many cyclists, footpaths(the clue is in the name)are for pedestrians and the highway code applies as much to them as it does to other road users. The only real reason politicians pander to cyclists is because a motorist knows that whoever is in power is going to shaft them with the rough end of a pineapple and it does not matter who they vote for, whereas if a politician promises to do nothing about clamping down on the growing number of errant cyclists and gives them more cycle lanes,there may be a few votes in it.

Keith Iddon ● 5106d

Nigel, your comments are so ridiculous I can only conclude you are deliberately trolling to stimulate discussion:1. Road Tax is a general tax that does not generate revenue for the sole purposes of maintaining roads. In the same way that cyclists don't pay it, many low emissions cars don't pay it either - so perhaps they should be banned from using the road on the basis of your "contribute nothing" viewpoint.2. The tax that pays for road upkeep is paid by everyone who works. So unless you are labouring under the misapprehension that cyclists don't pay any tax, it seems fair that they should use the roadspace and also call for dedicated space given that 1 mile of motorway costs more than the Goverment spends on cycling across the whole of the UK every year.3. Many cyclists are insured - you are completely incorrect on this point. The CTC and LCC and Cycling England have hundreds of thousands of members who get insurance as part of their annual membership.4. The Number of people killed by cyclists last year - 0. Number of people killed by or in vehicles - around 3,500. Draw your own conclusions.May I suggest that instead of criticising  people who travel without polluting the air we breathe, you instead try cycling to central London and back in rush hour and then come back to tell us all how safe you felt and why segregation from traffic isn't a sensible move that would encourage more people to travel under their own steam.

Chris Martin ● 5106d

I cycle everywhere locally on an old bike, that takes a little longer to stop than newer models.I've had a few run ins with cars mainly from drivers turning left. But in over 40 years not many incidents at all.I drive as well and through work have clocked up over a million accident free miles.But other cyclists...frankly embarrassing. Why do so many have no road sense, no spacial awareness. They have all the gear. expensive bikes and can go faster but why oh why can't they signal and look and stop in the right places.They are not just a hazard to motorists but to other cyclists and pedestrians even more so.I apply the same spacial awareness on a bike as when driving. To always expect the unexpected - from my own testimony it works.I'm all for authorities doing as much as possible to help make cycling as safe as possible but the biggest input to safer cyclists is the operator of the machine.A City of London Transport policeman was telling me recently that he regularly stops cyclists who ignore crossings and mandatory signs.Most will say they are experienced cyclists and have passed the cycling proficiency test. So he asks them to demonstrate the correct hand signal for a left turn.To date only 3 have ever given him the right answer.The cycling proficiency test should be a mandatory requirement before one takes to a public road, just like driving a car solo is.And for smaller people (who are often better road cyclists) a mandatory 1.5m orange pennant as in the US so they can be seen in traffic.Very simple, pure common sense, cheap and works. And would not just save lives but improve trust between motorists and cyclists.I would go further and make a cycling test a precursor to driving a car as well.

Michael Brandt ● 5106d

Amen to that Nigel.

Keith Iddon ● 5106d

Perhaps I should have clarified my 'rant' above.In the last twelve months:Elderly parishioner from my church knocked down on the pavement by an adult cyclist who stopped looked down and then rode off.My daughter's car sufferd steering damage caused by her having to swerve to avoid a cyclist who jumped a red light (at night, cyclist unlit).My wife's car had its wing mirror ripped off by a cyclist who thought that he could squeeze past her, stationery, car in traffic. I really hope it hurt him!!Countless instances of being slowed by idiot cyclists on the Great West Road riding in the left hand lane while ignoring the cycle lane that was built for them.Totally fed up with the uninsured non-contributors bleating about their 'demands'. Put up or .... you know the rest!

Nigel Brooks ● 5106d

Oh joy.10,000 largely uninsured vehicles, many with riders not wearing helmets bemoaning their lot.London will never be as safe as Holland. Cyclists demand their own lanes and segregation from other traffic but contribute nothing, save for general taxes, to their 'desires'.Get insured, bear a number plate, wear a helmet and proper clothing (especially at night) and keep off the damn pavements. Do that and I may be far more supportive.

Nigel Brooks ● 5106d