Improving cycle safety

Safety does not appear to me TfL's major concern. The major concern seems to be to get as many motor vehicles through any point. I want a safe city where my children can cycle around, not where cycling is for fit confident males and everyone else is too scared. We need routes to cycle where motor traffic and bikes don't need to mix if the elderly, more timid women and children are to cycle around. How pathetic is it that children cannot cycle to school? And in a place where a "cycling revolution" is apparently happening.

From the comments it's clear that people are not satisfied with what has been done in London, nor with what is proposed to be done.

London's designs for cycling infrastructure are, quite frankly, appalling. Strong words are being used because the situation is so horrendous. People are dying on the streets due to your inaction.

Words are not enough. Do you want to be remembered for improving the safety of cyclists in London, or just talking about it ?

We run tours of Dutch infrastructure precisely in order to show people like your planners how the Dutch achieve a safe cycling environment for the whole population.

Many campaigners, planners and politicians come on our tours. There is much positive feedback. Sadly, no planners or politicians from the UK have yet shown an interest. They're "too busy", "unavailable on that date", or simply don't reply.

Britain needs to take notice of what has been achieved on the other side of the North Sea. Please send a delegation.

'Olympic-related cycling improvements'?

You mean the world-class embarrassment that's Cycle Superhighway 2? A couple of miles of paint splashed on a busy dual carriageway, then a roundabout that has killed 2 people already, then the cyclists' paradise that's Stratford High Street?

Forget cycling for a minute. I'm sure you'd like to. The issue our roads face is that there is an ever increasing number of vehicles. This leads to traffic jams, potential grid lock and, pollution.

The mistake that TFL are making is the misconception that the solution is to "ease traffic flow" by designing larger roads at junctions to enable more traffic through each phase.

Unfortunately this won't work because of the rather obvious issue that motorized traffic will continue to increase and therefore you are simply delaying the inevitable at the same time as making our roads more dangerous to non-motorized users and increasing pollution.

So, TFL needs to have a radical policy change similar to the dutch in the 60's and 70's. And that is to actively discourage motorized traffic from our roads. This will have the knock on effect that we Londoners all want - friendly, pleasant, safe streets that are free from chocking pollution.

It can be done, the overwhelming majority of car journeys in London can be walked, cycled or achievement by public transport.

Looking at the non-standard signage using the black on yellow banner signs hurriedly erected at Bow I dug out TSRGD Chapter 4 Warning signs to see if there might actually be a more appropriate delivery of warnings to HGV and cycle traffic and it would appear to be so.

With the Cycle route rejoining the carriageway at the apex of the bend in the approach - itself a detail which enhances the risk - the Use of Diagram 950 with plate Diagram 572 to the effect that the cyclists join the main carriageway at a point XX metres ahead seems to be the appropriate sign for the approach. At at the apex of the bend where the potential for conflicting movement is introduced Diagram 562 with a plate Diagram 563 worded to warn both HGV and cycle traffic to be aware of merging and turning.

Finally the illuminated 6-sheet advertising hoarding sits right where it masks any cyclists on the final approach to the roundabout to the driver in the cab of a truck approaching down the slip road. A road sign at this point would need to be raised to have its lower edge 2.3 metres above the footway to provide a clear sightline. The advertising billboard requires planning consent and the roads authority can object, but it is often the case that such signs get a block consent which leaves some flexibility in the positioning, which can lead to some very bad positioning that blocks (pedestrian) traffic and sightlines. At night the illumination will 'blank-out' the weaker lights of many bicycles nearby. The rail industry spends time to eliminate such hazardous confusion (although SN109 at Paddington showed they also get it wrong) That poster site should be removed as the £1000/year or so that comes to the Council for site rental is not worth the risk to lives.

"Physical improvements such as side bars [on trucks]" - they'll be useful when trucks run people against the railings that TfL is so keen on using to make sure people cross at the fewer and fewer pedestrian crossings.

Under you and Boris, TfL still can't accept that if you want a step-change in the number of people cycling, you have to accept that most people don't want to play chicken with taxis and trucks every morning.

What is it that stops you from just looking across the water to Amsterdam or Copenhagen? Because I can tell you that everyone I speak to who wants to take up cycling says "It's too dangerous", and no amount of mis-leading tripe about bendy buses, or people being nicer to each other on the roads is going to change that perception.

Until you put in some worthwhile infrastructure dedicated to cycling, you're going to be stuck with poor modal share and an excess of lycra and aggressive road behaviour.

Well, it's good to see that you propose listening more to cyclists' views, and I like that you are offering email updates about progress towards safer cycling measures. But your blog reads oddly in the light of the removal of a pedestrian crossing at Blackfriars, the refusal to countenance a 20mph limit on bridges, and the trumpeting about 'smoothing' traffic flow by making people scuttle faster across pedestrian crossings. All of which sounds more like a 'devil take the hindmost'(including cyclists)approach to planning. I'm hoping, though, that you really will consult with cycling groups at the planning stage, and start developing an infrastucture (look at LA! Amsterdam! Munich!)that people other than motorists can genuinely feel safe on.

Im sorry Mr Ranger, but this just reads as empty platitudes.
What cyclists need are safe places to cycle. That means changing the design of our roads and junctions to create cycle lanes and separate signals for cars and cycles. There is room for this.
Pleading with lorry drivers to take more care is not going to make things better.
Your lack of real action is criminal.
TfLs actions to derestrict roads have just encouraged more cars and created more congestion. Your priorities are wrong.
Tom

"safety has been the most important consideration in everything we have done."

Really? That's a hard sell my friend.

The reason we keep getting badly compromised (from a cycling perspective)junction designs out of TFL is because they won't sacrifice through put of motor traffic for safety improvments suggested by their own research and by cycling groups. That is what TFL have said. They said it at Bow and they have made the same point at Blackfriars. My local disaster is Henlys Corner which is now MUCH worse for cyclists and it was pretty poor before. Capacity has trumped safety again and again in the face of expert advice.

IMO as a Acredited Cycling Instructor, the design of the CS at Bow is at fault. The blue paint marks out exactly the wrong line to take and this problem was made clear to TFL ages ago but they were unwilling to do anything that might cause delay, no matter how slight, to motor traffic.

It is time to stop tinkering around the edges and change what we are doing. Look at New York or better yet look at Los Angeles, the most car centric of cities. What are they doing? Bike lane network.... Never too late to start. ;-)

Cycling isn't getting safer really. Until now the domain of fit men, it is quickly becoming popular among all ages and fitness level. Let's see if it becomes safer when kids, elderly and other groups start cycling. I really hope no one else has to die for you to realise that mixing cycles with motorised traffic will never be inherently safe and that no amount of training and mirrors is going to change it.
My sour tone stems for the fact that I have been let down by promises and cute posters, but the reality people on bicycles have to face is quite different. Not tragic, but definitely far away from cycling city London is aspiring to be.
Kind Regards
Andrew

I am looking forward to the review. But more keenly I am looking forward to implementation of the findings. Copious amounts of research and studies have been done for Superhighways yet they have been mosly ignored, which is why the CSs will remain paint on tarmac and give people a false sesne of safety while putting them in conflict with motorised traffic they cannot compete with.
People drive and cycle badly - this is the reality, because humans make mistakes. A good road design means that results of these mistakes are limited and do not cause peopel to die. Adding mirrors to HGV is all well and good but it still doesn't take the human error out of equation. Roads can be a place of peace and serenity when you design them in a way that removes the conflict between different modes and don't hope to be able to accomodate every Londoner driving - current policies tend to the opposite.

Dear Kulveer Ranger
As a person that cycles through London every day I must say that your view of what has been done differs considerably from what people who cycle can see.
You say safety has been the most important consideration - how was it then possible to accept designs such as Bow Roundabout. This isn't an isolated case and 99% people who cycle will tell you that "Smoothing traffic flow" prevails over safety at most CS junctions - places which are most dangerous for people on cycles.