The excuse has always been that they need to be able to stop next to the kerb, and that means that they need to be able to stop in bus lanes, and therefore they have been allowed to drive in them. Some bus lanes in London are virtually useless as they are constantly filled up with taxis.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
TfL is planning cuts in bus services: cycling causes ridership decline
- Thread starter Adlington
- Start date
- Status
The excuse has always been that they need to be able to stop next to the kerb, and that means that they need to be able to stop in bus lanes, and therefore they have been allowed to drive in them. Some bus lanes in London are virtually useless as they are constantly filled up with taxis.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Again it’s politics. Can you imagine the black cab drivers protest?
I don't need to - I've been in the middle of them protesting about Uber before now.
Lock the helmet to the bike and get one that fits properly in the first place.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Quite.
Radamfi said:
It might be very safe, but accidents are just that. You can have the best segregated cycling infrastructure in the world and still have a low-hanging tree branch or escaped dog cause you to fall off and hit your head.
And the German words are "Radfahren" and "Radrennen". I'm not sure what the linguistic interpretations of the types of cycling adds to the discussion.Radamfi said:
TheGrandWazoo said:
Exactly. The "consultations" were rammed through with little concern for other road users, including pedestrians (see the complaints regarding road crossings at St Thomas' Hospital as a prime example). Perhaps if the infrastructure was installed for everyone's benefit, rather than at the expense of another user, the general behaviour surrounding cyclists would also have improved. You have to engage people that something is better, not just make the other alternative worse and presume they will change of their own accord. If that was actually the case, congestion would have gone down as fuel prices have gone up. As it is, people just swallow the extra cost. That speaks for a failure of the cycling lobby to make it attractive, even given teh cycle superhighways.
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,645
Uber, electric vehicles, and Google maps are steadily revolutionising transport in this and other countries. The convenience they offer is already causing many young people in cities to question the need to buy their own car. Once you have bought a car, you are very reluctant to do without it. The change is happening with young people, who increasingly are doing without a car, particularly in cities where public transport (and I include Uber as public transport) is increasingly convenient.
As petrol usage drops, so the support costs will rise. Petrol stations already run on very thin margins - as fewer and fewer people use less and less petrol, so the number of petrol stations will drop. It will become increasingly inconvenient to refuel, and with less competition, and less sales paying for all the supply infrastructure, petrol prices will surely rise. And as petrol becomes more expensive and more difficult to obtain, so fewer and fewer people will use it, in an ever decreasing spiral. The change will happen quickest in the cities, but will inevitably spread outwards.
I saw somewhere recently two photos taken in central London. In one photo, the street was gridlocked with horse traffic. In the second photo, the same street was full of motorised vehicles, with only one horse-drawn vehicle left. The astounding thing was that the two photos were taken only ten years apart, 1909 and 1919. I suspect that if you had suggested to one of those carters in 1909 that horse traffic would be all but gone in 10 years time, I suspect he would have scoffed. I think that we are on the verge of the same kind of transformation now, both in the move away from petrol, but also in the move away from personal car use.
The bus network is only going to survive if buses can offer something better than Uber. As a previous poster has pointed out, people now travel home from night events by Uber rather than night bus, because Uber is far more convenient. OK, it might be more expensive, but people will pay the extra for a one-off event. For rush-hour travel, Uber is never going to have the capacity to compete with the buses, and most people are unlikely to pay the extra on a regular basis. So while the peak-hour traffic is likely to survive,, the number of one-off off-peak journeys by bus will likely take a big hit. Which will mean the buses will inevitably need more subsidy if you want to keep the peak-hour services, even if you leave them all sitting in a garage for the rest of the day.
Uber is likely to be good for long-distance rail travel (or lead to even more overcrowding, depending on your point of view). As more people rely on Uber for short-distance travel, and so do without a car, so they are more likely to use rail for long-distance journeys, using Uber to get them to the station.
Integrated journey planners, like Google maps, are also helping these trends. In the past, people who used the bus to get to work would also tend to use the bus for other journeys, as they were familiar with the bus network, and getting information about other modes could be a right phaff. Now, they can use Google maps to plan their journey, and it will point out the rail and Uber alternatives that may be much more convenient.
The inevitable introduction of driverless vehicles in the future is going to significantly reduce the cost of Uber and suchlike, making personal car ownership less and less attractive. Again, as fewer and fewer people own their own car, so the costs for the fewer and fewer who do want their own vehicle will inevitably rise. Again, the number of private vehicles went through the roof in little more than a decade, who is to say it won't drop back again in the same kind of timescale.
As petrol usage drops, so the support costs will rise. Petrol stations already run on very thin margins - as fewer and fewer people use less and less petrol, so the number of petrol stations will drop. It will become increasingly inconvenient to refuel, and with less competition, and less sales paying for all the supply infrastructure, petrol prices will surely rise. And as petrol becomes more expensive and more difficult to obtain, so fewer and fewer people will use it, in an ever decreasing spiral. The change will happen quickest in the cities, but will inevitably spread outwards.
I saw somewhere recently two photos taken in central London. In one photo, the street was gridlocked with horse traffic. In the second photo, the same street was full of motorised vehicles, with only one horse-drawn vehicle left. The astounding thing was that the two photos were taken only ten years apart, 1909 and 1919. I suspect that if you had suggested to one of those carters in 1909 that horse traffic would be all but gone in 10 years time, I suspect he would have scoffed. I think that we are on the verge of the same kind of transformation now, both in the move away from petrol, but also in the move away from personal car use.
The bus network is only going to survive if buses can offer something better than Uber. As a previous poster has pointed out, people now travel home from night events by Uber rather than night bus, because Uber is far more convenient. OK, it might be more expensive, but people will pay the extra for a one-off event. For rush-hour travel, Uber is never going to have the capacity to compete with the buses, and most people are unlikely to pay the extra on a regular basis. So while the peak-hour traffic is likely to survive,, the number of one-off off-peak journeys by bus will likely take a big hit. Which will mean the buses will inevitably need more subsidy if you want to keep the peak-hour services, even if you leave them all sitting in a garage for the rest of the day.
Uber is likely to be good for long-distance rail travel (or lead to even more overcrowding, depending on your point of view). As more people rely on Uber for short-distance travel, and so do without a car, so they are more likely to use rail for long-distance journeys, using Uber to get them to the station.
Integrated journey planners, like Google maps, are also helping these trends. In the past, people who used the bus to get to work would also tend to use the bus for other journeys, as they were familiar with the bus network, and getting information about other modes could be a right phaff. Now, they can use Google maps to plan their journey, and it will point out the rail and Uber alternatives that may be much more convenient.
The inevitable introduction of driverless vehicles in the future is going to significantly reduce the cost of Uber and suchlike, making personal car ownership less and less attractive. Again, as fewer and fewer people own their own car, so the costs for the fewer and fewer who do want their own vehicle will inevitably rise. Again, the number of private vehicles went through the roof in little more than a decade, who is to say it won't drop back again in the same kind of timescale.
Incidentally, and not related to cycling (no more than how great the Netherlands is, mind), I walked over London Bridge this morning. The northbound bus lane was a near static queue of red buses: 17 in one bloc, then after two taxis 5 more, and the next batch of 7 approaching the bus stop to join the end.
How so?
Cannon Street is closed for more allegedly emergency roadworks (See commuter coach thread). Bank junction is restricted (for the benefit of cyclists and pedestrians with little thought given to alternative traffic flow... oh yes there was... Cannon Street.). The bus lane comes to a sudden end at a building site, forcing buses to merge into the normal traffic lane (with difficulty) rather than having priority right through to Monument junction.
And they wonder why bus use is declining.
A good handful of cyclists, meanwhile, think it is perfectly acceptable to ride on the pavement. Illegally. And they wonder why there is such opprobrium.
How so?
Cannon Street is closed for more allegedly emergency roadworks (See commuter coach thread). Bank junction is restricted (for the benefit of cyclists and pedestrians with little thought given to alternative traffic flow... oh yes there was... Cannon Street.). The bus lane comes to a sudden end at a building site, forcing buses to merge into the normal traffic lane (with difficulty) rather than having priority right through to Monument junction.
And they wonder why bus use is declining.
A good handful of cyclists, meanwhile, think it is perfectly acceptable to ride on the pavement. Illegally. And they wonder why there is such opprobrium.
So are you saying that the Dutch are crazy to cycle without helmets? What about accidents that don't involve the head? Are you saying that cycling should be discouraged (or at least not promoted) because of the danger? Having a gentle breeze blow through your hair is one of the most pleasurable things about cycling and helmets ruin that. Should running without a helmet be banned?
The point is that in British modern culture there is huge confusion between utility and sports cycling, possibly because of the use of the same word for the two distinct activities in the language.
How would you have created cycle superhighways without taking road space from other road users? In much of the Netherlands they managed to squeeze in cycle paths by converting wide lanes into narrow lanes, but at other times it is necessary to remove full traffic lanes. Although they will even do radical things like move canals, or close a road to general traffic to fit in a cycle path and a dedicated busway.
Erm... no. I'm merely suggesting that accidents can happen anywhere, even on "secure" infrastructure, in contrast to what you appear to be suggesting, which is that helmet use would be unnecessary if we all had segregated cycle paths. I think it is widely agreed that head injuries are among the most serious you can suffer no matter what their cause. That's why we promote wearing a helmet, and not full Motorcycle-style leathers, for example.
In your opinion. I don't particularly care whether I have a breeze in my hair or not.
Context is key. If the cycling fraternity haven't managed to detangle the confusion, that is their problem. I can differentiate clearly between cycle racing and cycling for leisure purposes, or cycling to and from work.
Nothing in my post suggested that I said you shouldn't remove any road space, merely that all road users, including pedestrians, should be taken into account when deciding what to do. The approach adopted in London was that cycling is king, attempting to somehow create a culture that isn't there purely by provision of facilities, and I am of the firm opinion that this attitude has damaged, rather than improved, the opinion of cycling in London. I regret that for all your constant references to the Netherlands, which I appreciate has some aspects of best practice, you cannot simply import Dutch culture and say "there, do it". Why have we not, for example, imported the German "Stehcafe" (tables but no chairs)? Or the (former?) Viennese bylaw that gave you the right to stay in a coffee house all day if you bought a single cup of coffee. Or taught the Swiss ability to speak four languages fluently, at times in the same sentence?
The East-West superhighway was installed AFTER road users were encouraged to use Upper and Lower Thames Streets for through traffic. Indeed, it was the only road in the City of London that retained a 30mph speed limit (ha! fat chance!) for that reason. So you encourage traffic to use one route to free up elsewhere for "nicer" users, then put the cycle lanes on that self-same route rather than the one you have freed up... left hand/right hand?
When you have pedestrians complaining about how they are expected to cross the "cycling motorways" in the same consultation as 'cautious' cyclists mentioning the superhighways do nothing for them because of the 'lycra brigade' and road users complaining about loss of road space, that implies something is seriously wrong with the (dogmatic) plan.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I think the effects of Uber are much more mixed. There may be some who are persuaded to abandon car ownership but it may also make life more difficult for those who have already chosen not to have a car or can't afford one.
In the States, where Uber (and its rival Lyft) is that much more established, it has significantly increased traffic in major cities like New York. The demographics of such large places are such that they do not work without mass transit, resulting in low car onwership. However which is currently being parasitised by those who can afford to hail a ride, with the resulting congestion damaging bus services further. This drives more people onto ride-hailing or makes their travel more difficult if for those that can't afford to do that.
In smaller cities Uber and Lyft are trying to get into partnership with the local public transit, probably aiming to drive fixed-route services out of business.
Also the stock market treats Uber as a technology stock and is prepared to pump virtually unlimited amounts of cash into it, so fares are currently below economic cost. There are only two ways I can see this coming good for Uber's investors - if driverless takes out their major cost element or if they effectively secure a monopoly. Neither is likely to be in the public interest.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Well, then, wear a helmet!
The point is not to tell anyone they should or shouldn't. The point is that the Dutch segregated cycleway system, which sees utility cycling as an extension of pedestrianism rather than as a sport or attempt to be a motor vehicle under your own power as London cycling feels, makes many people feel safe enough not to wear one. That perceived safety, regardless of the stats, is what is needed to get Old Mrs Jones on her bike to the shops instead of in her ageing Austin Metro.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,078
I don't happen to believe the Dutch are 'crazy' to cycle without helmets, but I do believe it'd be crazy to cycle on London roads without one. I do believe, on the other hand, that it's crazy for anyone anywhere not to wear a seat belt on a car journey and likewise to ride a horse without a helmet.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
A car seat belt[1] has no significant disadvantage (such as overheating in summer) and one sits far higher up on a horse, so I would by and large agree with this analysis.
[1] Seat mounted coach seat belts *do* have such a disadvantage, though, as because they are not adjustable upwards for tall passengers they push you down uncomfortably into the seat. There really is a need for a revisit of this design so that doesn't happen.
That is not the UK however where cash strapped councils jumping on the cycling bandwagon make, often quite ridiculous, contributions in terms of cycle safety and then pay no attention to its maintenance. Two local cycle tracks to me have the compulsory lamppost smack in the middle of one, and a complete lack of painting or identification on a shared pavement that crosses a busy petrol station exit. Add in the ability of pedestrians to wander all over the place and out of control dogs makes anyone attempting to cycle without the necessary protection one braincell short of joining a Darwin Award IMO.
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,645
In the UK, we perceive cycling to be risky, and hence feel the need for cyclists to wear a helmet. The Dutch perceive cycling to be generally safe, and therefore they do not feel a need to wear a helmet.
No doubt their segregated cycle network has a large part to do with it, but they do still have to cycle on the roads. Having worked on the Continent, I think that they also have a different perception of risk to the UK. We seem to be much more risk-averse in the UK. I can remember watching the skaters on the river, and asking how safe it was. "Oh yes, there are always some who die each year, but that is to be expected." was the reply.
No doubt their segregated cycle network has a large part to do with it, but they do still have to cycle on the roads. Having worked on the Continent, I think that they also have a different perception of risk to the UK. We seem to be much more risk-averse in the UK. I can remember watching the skaters on the river, and asking how safe it was. "Oh yes, there are always some who die each year, but that is to be expected." was the reply.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The amount of cycling places like the Netherlands probably also means that drivers are more aware and considerate of cyclists. This may be because many drivers are cyclists themselves or know people who cycle, or because they encouter cyclists frequently while driving. Also I believe the Netherlands has a presumption that the driver is responsible for any accident with a cyclist.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, but note that this presumption doesn't mean "all car-cycle accidents are the fault of the driver", it just means that if there is any doubt the driver is assumed to be at fault.
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
If the £1.50 fare is unsustainable what about the free travel afforded to around half the people who travel on buses in London ?
Teflon Lettuce
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 1,750
one thing that makes cycling safer in the Netherlands is the generally slower pace of life than here in Britain... a fact prevalent across Europe... in all my travels as a coach driver I have found that, generally speaking, drivers, pedestrians, cyclists... in fact every road user... are in a lot less of a hurry and are far less impatient than here in Britain.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm not sure pace of life in general really influences it that much. As a general socety Italians are very laid back, but very much *not* on the roads. I've driven in Italy, and I would very much not want to be riding a pushbike there. At least in London people by and large follow the traffic rules.
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,645
I have just come back from a weekend in the Netherlands. Not a single cyclist I saw wore a helmet - not even children. But then, as Teflon said, it was also noticeable how sedately they all seem to cycle. I didn't see a single BMX or mountain bike, only traditional push-bikes, with the rider siting bolt upright, wearing everyday clothing. I am not sure if there is any speed-limit on the cyclists there, but I don't think I saw one doing anything much above 10mph, even on reserved cycle lanes. At that kind of speed, cycling is relatively safe. Certainly the Dutch don't see any need for helmetshelmets (or Lycra).
We need helmets in the UK, because our cyclists are lycra-wearing lunatics travelling head-down at stupid speeds weaving through traffic.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
And it's that kind of cycling we need to be having a lot more of, as it's the only way it will ever make being a day to day mode of transport for anything other than the fitter / braver end of mostly male, mostly teens and twentysomethings. Cycling as a hobby/pursuit is rather separate from this and probably needs to be handled separately - e.g. someone riding a three grand road bike at 40mph in full lycra is best off on the road than on a cycle path, but the cycle path still needs to be there for Old Mrs Smith going to the shops and her son's kids off to school unsupervised. Maybe we like the Dutch need different words for the very different types of cycling, the only thing in common they have is involving a metal human powered vehicle of some kind with two wheels, not a lot beyond that.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Indeed, and that most certainly happens. However, even at a basic level, cycling infrastructure is often poorly designed and poorly maintained.
The British way is, all too often, to draw a large white line down the middle of an existing footpath and put a few signs up. Bosh - job done! This article, albeit from 2009, shows some of the farcical bits of design that are made https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2009/nov/05/readers-worst-cycle-lanes
This other article really does sum things up quite nicely https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/n-sandhu/cyclists-cycle-paths_b_5466209.html
The speed limits are in the Dutch "highway code" (pages 15-18)
http://dsint.nl/carinfo/nl-traffic-manual.pdf
As you can see, there is no speed limit for regular bicycles. Motor-assisted bicycles, generally electric bikes, have a 25 km/h limit.
In the countryside you can occasionally see racing cyclists in lycra cycling at speed, usually in the evening or weekend.
- Status