Southwark reverses away from ‘Going Dutch’

In the wider policy context of how cycling should be catered for on London’s streets, there’s some fairly astonishing guidance being drafted by Southwark Council on cycle lanes. It’s so weak that I think it is fair to say, as Southwark Green Party are arguing, that it represents a ‘U-turn’ on the council’s prior commitment to Going Dutch.

The Greens write

Cllr John [Labour leader of Southwark Council] promised to change the council’s approach last year following a campaign of tens of thousands of cyclists calling for more protection on main roads. In March 2012, Cllr Peter John appeared to sign up to the “Go Dutch” principles, telling Southwark News that the existing policy of integrating cyclists with main traffic “was not the best strategy”, and said his change of heart came “since the meeting with Southwark Cyclists” where they presented a new set of policies including proper, protected cycle lanes.

Last year’s change of heart does not appear to be reflected in this guidance, which seems to go out of its way to ‘integrate’ cyclists in Southwark with motor traffic.

On the very first page, we have this table, setting out Use Requirements.

Screen shot 2013-08-21 at 16.23.55

The important points to note here are that, in principle, no cycle lane is to be provided at all on any street with a 20 mph limit, apparently regardless of the volume of motor traffic on that street. Worse, on 30 mph streets cycle lanes are only to be used ‘potentially’, on a ‘case specific basis’ – and that if employed they should only be advisory, rather than mandatory, meaning motor vehicles are free to drive and park in them.

These proposals are explored in greater detail in the guidance, which states, in Section 2.2 –

With-flow cycle lanes should not generally be necessary on two-way 20mph streets. Other methods to improve the carriageway environment to make it safe and comfortable for cyclists should be used in preference.

‘All alternatives’ to cycle lanes on these streets should be fully explored, and indeed if cycle lanes are encountered in a project area, ‘they should be reviewed with the intention of designing them out if appropriate’. The only reasons given for actually retaining cycle lanes on streets with a 20mph limit are if other options are prohibitively expensive, or for ‘legitimate safety reasons’. And the sole permitted exception for cycle lanes on 20 mph streets is purely for bypassing mode filters; these cycle lanes ‘should not be longer than around 6-8m’.

It’s worth reinforcing, at this point, that cycle lanes on 20 mph streets (good cycle lanes, of course) are extremely common in the Netherlands.


This residential street in the city of Assen, which has a 30km/h (19mph) speed limit, also has wide, continuous cycle lanes. One of the main purposes of this kind of arrangement is to ensure vehicle speeds are kept low, by narrowing the carriageway and removing the centre line, which creates uncertainly with oncoming motor traffic. But these kinds of arrangements – highly beneficial for cycling – are being explicitly ruled out in this Southwark guidance. 20mph limits mean no cycle lanes.

Indeed the guidance seems really quite keen to do away with cycle lanes on 30mph roads too; it states that ‘it will need to be demonstrated that… – on balance – a lane is the best means of addressing the needs of cyclists’. Likewise

any existing instances of mandatory or advisory cycle lanes encountered within a project should be reviewed to check that they remain both necessary and are still the best way of meeting cyclists’ needs.

In a cop-out, the guidance states that mandatory cycle lanes (lanes that are illegal to drive in, unlike advisory lanes) should not be introduced, because they are

problematic in terms of cost, street clutter, order making and enforcement. They are also unlikely to provide substantial additional benefit compared with advisory cycle lanes.

Why mandatory lanes cost more, or create more clutter, than advisory ones is not explained.

Concern with visual appearance extends to cycle lanes being painted a particular colour –

Generally, this is only likely to be permitted where cycle lanes on 30mph roads pass side road junctions and an evidenced safety need that could not otherwise be avoided (else addressed via less visually intrusive means) can be demonstrated

And the Appendix states that

guidance also emphasises that – even where providing cycle lanes or cycle tracks would appear justified – they may not always be appropriate for design and safety reasons. This is especially so in urban streets where the road environment can be very complicated because of the frequency of side roads, vehicle crossings, parked vehicles and other turning movements. This is supported by research. In relation to cycle lanes, this suggests that lanes encourage riskier overtaking of cyclists by other road users in some circumstances – even when cyclists are not using them.

Well, the road environment need only be as complicated for cycling as you are willing to make it. Bad cycle lanes will have problems with turning conflicts and parked vehicles, as well as encouraging close overtakes. This isn’t, however, a universal problem with cycle lanes, which can be designed properly.


The hostility to cycling provision that seeps from this document extends to the ‘segregation’ of cycle lanes, using kerbs. It states

In instances other than [the use of splitter islands to provide occasional physical separation] cycle lanes should not be separated from other vehicle lanes by lengthy kerbs or extended reservations/traffic islands. [my emphasis]

The reasons given for this policy are quite remarkable –

Creation of kerb separated cycle lanes is generally discouraged by national guidance owing to the considerable road safety issues that they pose – both for cyclists themselves and other road users. In addition, feasibility is likely to be limited within busy London streets owing to various factors. These include: spatial and engineering constraints; the considerable additional cost of adapting roads to accommodate such facilities (compared to other interventions to assist cyclists); and likely opposition from other street users to proposals (for instance in relation to loss of parking. [my emphasis]

At a time when separated tracks are now being adopted as policy across London (and indeed at a national and international level), Southwark have chosen to insist that they pose ‘considerable road safety issues’, based presumably on the opinions of dinosaurs like John Franklin.

The second part of the explanation essentially amounts to ‘we can’t be bothered.’

It is most interesting that the justification in this guidance for the refusal to build infrastructure, or to provide cycle lanes, lies with the Hierarchy of Provision (cited, wrongly, in “LTN 1/10 Cycle Infrastructure Design”, rather than LTN 2/08). Southwark’s guidance refers to it as follows –

Designers are encouraged to consider first reducing traffic speeds and volumes so that cyclists can share the carriageway with other vehicles without the need for any form of special facility. Designers are advised to consider the reallocation of carriageway space to create cycle lanes or the creation of segregated off-road routes only where reducing traffic speeds and volumes would not be possible

I think this is a textbook example of how the Hierarchy of Provision is open to exploitation by councils who find it difficult to bring themselves to cater for cycling in any meaningful way. They can point to LTN 2/08, and reference it, copying its argument that cycle lanes and tracks should only be considered last after other measures like speed reduction or traffic volume reduction – conveniently ignoring how 20 mph limits, in and of themselves, do little to create subjective safety, and how (as in this document) no mention is made of traffic reduction, or removal. Southwark seem to think that a 20mph limit on a given road is enough, and that nothing else is required to make cycling a safe and pleasant experience.

The Hierarchy desperately needs replacing by a network-based guidance approach, which sets out precisely how cycling should be accommodated on a given road street, with a certain volume of motor traffic travelling at a certain speed, and a particular function. That is, guidance which maximises the degree of separation of people riding bikes from motor traffic, either through the removal of through traffic from side streets, or through the physical separation on main roads. I’m hoping this will come in the new revised version of the London Cycle Design Standards; but, at the moment councils like Southwark seem to be able to get away with it.

This entry was posted in Cycling policy, Go Dutch, Infrastructure, London, Subjective safety, The Netherlands. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Southwark reverses away from ‘Going Dutch’

  1. Paul M says:

    I must say that when I heard that Councillor John had suddenly had a Damascene conversion to “Go Dutch”, I didn’t believe it then so I am not surprised now.

    Making the trip from Blackfriars to LCC Bermondsey St I have to say that while there is some quite nice provision (Union St?) for the most part it is really quite horrid, and has poor permeability to the point that really the ONLY way to progress south-East towards Bermondsey St involves salmoning on a couple of one-way streets. Otherwise you either make a massive diversion or you throw yourselves to the wolves on some unpleasant busy roads.

    What is it about certain Labour-controlled boroughs, (eg also Newham and Tower Hamlets) that they seem so hostile to cycling? It’s what you’d expect of Westminster, where household car ownership is equally low (barely 40%) but extensive use of taxis and minicabs is the likely alternative. But Southwark must surely suffer from extensive transport poverty, for which the bicycle is a part of the solution. Why is Councillor John so deaf to the needs of the people he purportedly represents?

    • @angus_fx says:

      It’s an odd one this.. parts of Southwark are genuinely good for cycling (at least by London standards), and there are areas where at some stage, someone has obviously put quite some thought and effort in to making the streets more people-friendly & faced down the car lobby to get some reasonably effective filtered permeability installed. Not perfect, but good enough that it gets kids aged 10-11 playing out in the street unsupervised. Greendale and Surrey Canal Path are lovely. There are some great routes around Dulwich (though I’m not sure whether credit there is more due to the council or the Dulwich Estate) and the cycling culture there is strong – lots of kids cycling to and from school, mums with babies on bike seats etc.. very healthy indicators. Even the Elephant Cycle Bypass is, well, safe and functional, and a recognition of how bad the Elephant junction itself is for cyclists.

      And yet.. for every good bit, there’s a cop-out. No attempt to challenge car dominance on the residential streets around Peckham Rye. Unfinished bits of what should have been nearly-Dutch-quality cycle lane along “A” roads. Stop-start shared-pavement nonsense on fast roads with acres of space for segregated lanes. Junctions on major routes that are unacceptably dangerous & acknowledged as a barrier to cycling.. yet that they’re reluctant to fix properly because “numbers of cyclists are relatively low at that location”. (Of course they’re relatively low at that location – it’s an awful junction and people will go a mile out of their way to avoid it). Conflict-by-design on Bermondsey Street because they haven’t the gumption to remove parking bays which put contra-flow cyclists on a direct collision course with oncoming traffic. No cycle tracks across enormous green spaces bordered by fast, busy, narrow roads.

      What puzzles me most though about this document though is that Southwark’s councillors voted for blanket 20mph almost a year ago..

      (see )

      .. So why are they spending time & money developing design standards for 30mph roads, when those are supposed to be a thing of the past in the borough?

      Islington went from voting for 20mph to big banners on all the lamp posts in what seemed like 3 or 4 months, Southwark it’s been more than 8 months since the vote and.. nothing.

      This is not to say that 20mph limits are a panacea, but if the borough is supposed to be 20mph, it makes no sense to write design standards for anything faster.. I sincerely hope they’re not trying to backtrack on their commitment to 20mph in the same way they clearly seem to be doing on Go Dutch.

  2. Patrick ONeill says:

    Councillors don’t write traffic planning guidelines so is this not a case of someone within the planning department doing things the way they always have done because nobody has told them not to?

    So the next time a politician comes out with a sound bite in favour of cycling, great, but nothing will happen until that translates into an actionable policy change for the people planning the roads.

    Like worker bees the world over, I suspect there is a lot of cynicism about waffle from the people at the top and they will just keep on doing what they are doing until there are clear and unequivocal instructions that there needs to be change.

  3. Andrea says:

    Another example of #NastyBritain’s attitude towards children; rather than cherishing them, as in most European countries, they are resented and very seldom thought of when designing urban environments.

  4. cycleoptic says:

    They just don’t care about cycling.
    Here is a reply from last November re the closure of Upper Ground, No thought then , none now?

    I am sincerely sorry for the delay in responding to you, but please be assured that a great deal of time and commitment has been devoted to getting this situation right within the condsiderable complex constraints that we are dealing with.

    Can I start by saying that I agree with you. Not enough consideration at the early stage was given to the impact that closure of Upper Ground would have on commuter cyclists.

    Furthermore having looked back on the planning papers for both the Sea Containers House and the Kings Reach Tower developments I can see no mention of either rail or river removal of the excavated soil. You may be aware that from 30th July a group called “Local Dialogue” was set up to consult on the proposals. This group has been chaired no doubt with the best intentions by Cathedrals Ward Councillor David Noakes – – who may be in a position to say whether alternative removal methods were raised in that forum post- planning permission stage?

    ( This was late in planning stage and he says non were discussed)

    We have been working with TfL with cycling safety as an absolute priority. This is why the decision to close Upper Ground to through traffic was reluctantly taken. I acknowledge that Upper Ground west to east is a national cycling route; however, sadly it has proven to be just not possible in that location to create an alternative cycling route to the standard of Upper Ground.

    Whilst we may sometimes be justifiably criticised for the speed of our responses to public enquiries, I wish to absolutely assure you that all of us in this authority treat deaths or potential deaths on ours or anyboy else’s roads with the utmost gravity.

    All best wishes,

    Councillor Barrie Hargrove
    Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment & Recycling
    London Borough of Southwark

  5. fonant says:

    I really don’t understand why authorities hate providing for cycling and walking and children and residents, instead always prioritising people who are driving motor vehicles.

    There must be money or votes in it for them, but where?

    • Andrew K says:

      It is just because they are unwilling to admit that their old approach was completely wrong. It’s good old path dependency.

  6. Hester (@hesterkw) says:

    “Why mandatory lanes cost more, or create more clutter, than advisory ones is not explained.”

    I believe this is because mandatory cycle lanes require Traffic Regulation Orders, but advisory ones do not. However a single TRO can cover multiple lanes if they’re putting a lot in. In any case, it’s a naff excuse is a mandatory cycle lane is what is needed.

    No idea what they mean by clutter – in fact the fact that people can’t park in them must surely reduce clutter.

  7. rob says:

    Apologies for the length of my post but the same applies in the city, here is my email correspondence with planning offier for holborn circus re lack of ‘Go Dutch’ segregation and the reasons why it will never happen

    From: Rob
    To: ‘PLN – Holborn Circus’
    Subject: RE: holborn circus and bike lanes

    Dear Mr Wallace

    What I am beginning to understand is that any commitment to segregation of cyclists is never going to be a priority and never going to happen. I fully appreciate that we need a balanced provision for all users but it appears that priority is given to powering cars, buses and HGVs through the junction in favour of a safe cycling environment.

    This presumably means that all of the promises made to create better more cycle friendly junctions will always be subjugated to other road users with the cost/benefit analysis giving a low value to the health and wellbeing of cyclists who will be killed or seriously injured (KSI) by the dangerous design of the junction.

    You say

    ‘The provision of wide, segregated cycle lanes would have required either a significant reduction in traffic capacity (by losing a traffic lane), or significant reduction in footway width. Through the design process, TFL had made it clear that they would not approve a junction design which impacted negatively upon vehicle journey times through the junction.’

    This argument will be used every single time any ‘go dutch’ segregated provision of road use is suggested and as such we will continue to accept hundreds of KSIs per annum as a matter of course and not change the proportion of road space available to cyclists in spite of the substantial increase in the proportions of people cycling to driving.

    You further say

    ‘With regards to the HGV left turn issue, this is a well-known and recognised problem throughout London. Priority signals can provide some improvement for cyclists, although clearly these provide no protection when cyclists and HGV’s go through the signals at the same time on a green light.’

    So you clearly accept that this junction is sub-standard and dangerous. Your redesign of the junction has exacerbated this problem by funnelling bikes down the left hand side of traffic a large proportion of which can be expected to turn left at speed.

    How can this be allowed to happen when there is so much emphasis being placed on safe cycling provision according to elected officials. Do I gather that all these assurances are rhetoric, merely for the general public when you, TFL, the mayor and the individual local authorities have no inclination to make any meaningful improvements in cycling provision.

    So to clarify the first priority of TFL that trumps all other considerations is traffic flow. Any other consideration is to be subjugated to this aim. Safety of Cyclists, pedestrians as vulnerable road users are of less importance. Further that there is little chance of any truly segregated cycling provision to ever be instigated by any road planning within the capital.

    Your sincerely


    Dear Rob

    Thank you for your email, and for the photographs.

    Before addressing your comments, it is probably worthwhile if I clarify that the Holborn Circus scheme aims to balance the needs of all users of the junction. Therefore, while a key deliverable for the scheme was to make the junction safe for cyclists, there are also measures to improve conditions for pedestrians (who are, and will continue to be, the heaviest users of the junction). In addition, certain elements of the design aim to protect journey times for motorised vehicles, particularly buses. Given the complex interactions between all of the different types of people using the junction, any measure to improve conditions for one particular user group could impact negatively upon another user group. Hence, the need to achieve a balance amongst the different users of the junction. I strongly believe that we have achieved a good balance amongst the different users of this junction. This is confirmed by what we have observed on site so far and much of the feedback received; the junction is working far better for users.

    You are correct in identifying that there is a political will to improve conditions for cyclists throughout London, and the City of London shares in that vision. However, as pointed out above, when developing infrastructure schemes in congested areas, implementation of measures specifically aimed at a particular user group will inevitably affect other user groups. As such it is necessary to consider the impacts upon all user groups when evaluating any particular change, to ensure that an appropriate balance has been achieved. With this in mind, the provision of wide, segregated cycle lanes would have required either a significant reduction in traffic capacity (by losing a traffic lane), or significant reduction in footway width. Through the design process, TfL had made it clear that they would not approve a junction design which impacted negatively upon vehicle journey times through the junction. This was partly due to the desire to protect bus journey time reliability though the junction, which of course is important to the many thousands of people who rely on buses. In addition, TfL were also concerned about the potential for queuing vehicles on Charterhouse Street, which could have tailed back to affect Farringdon Street (which is on TfL’s priority road network). With regards to footway widths, given the high pedestrian flows on these footways (which are projected to increase owing to Crossrail opening and on-going local office redevelopment) it was considered unacceptable and unsafe to reduce footway widths in this location.

    With regards to the HGV left turn issue, this is a well-known and recognised problem throughout London. Priority signals can provide some improvement for cyclists, although clearly these provide no protection when cyclists and HGV’s go through the signals at the same time on a green light. When the Holborn Circus scheme was being designed, priority signals were not approved for general use in London and so were not designed into the scheme. Instead we extended the length of the ASL reservoirs to the maximum permitted length (7.5 metres) to provide some assistance to cyclists. It may be possible that cyclist priority signals could be installed at Holborn Circus at some future point, but I would note that these could have an impact upon the overall capacity of the junction, which TfL may object to.

    I note your concerns regarding motor vehicles encroaching into the mandatory cycle lanes, and the very useful photographs. I will ensure that this information is passed onto my colleagues that deal with enforcement of cycle lanes. Enforcement of the eastbound lane on Holborn is the responsibility of LB Camden, so I will advise them accordingly, and will send your photographs to them.

    I thank you for your feedback, as we are in the monitoring and commissioning phase of the works it is particularly useful. Your comments have been logged and will feed into our reporting process.



    Jon Wallace
    Highways & Traffic Programme Manager (Contract)
    Department of the Built Environment
    Tel: 020 7332 1589

    From: Rob
    Sent: 13 June 2014 10:19
    To: PLN – Holborn Circus
    Subject: Re: holborn circus and bike lanes

    A few pictures from this morning commute, parking in the ‘mandatory’ cycle lane going east, a very regular occurence
    From: Rob

    Dear Mr Wallace

    Thank you for the full description of the improvements of the new junction. They were most informative although many of them related to all road users and were not cycling specifc. What concerns me is that supposedly we have commitments to segregated cycleways (Go Dutch) at the highest political level whilst at the same stage we have no segregation beyond a white line painted on a road on a brand new road scheme. This suggests to me that there is no will at any level to develop infrastructure that truly reflects the increased importance of cycling to transport in London.

    This white line is no deterrent to cars, lorries and buses from either straying over the line when driving or parking over the line, something that tightening of the roads is likely to exacerbate. Why was it not considered desirable to have some sort of raised curb or other means of stopping this happening. It is similar to the cycle super highways where vehicles can and do easily stray across the lines and if anything these spaces give dangerously wrong assurances to cyclists that they may have some sort of protection. Further the road space available to cyclists is very limited. In a road that has substantial width and large pavement widths it would better reflect the volume of cyclists today and in the future by having a 2 metre width of properly protected space.

    We have an initiative from TFL suggesting that cycling on the left hand side of an HGV is unsafe and this sort of junction is a typical example of that danger with, going east, a heavily used and fast left turn down to Farringdon. As it stands the unprotected cycle feeder lane is putting the cyclist directly into this vulnerable space and there is no provision for the cyclist to have priority signals when starting off from the junction. If there is a queue or a left turning HGV pulls up alongside after you have stopped, both likely scenarios, then you are at severe risk in spite of any actions you may have taken to protect yourself.

    Can you please explain why these well known risk factors are not considered as part of a flagship road scheme such as this. I am very disappointed with the revisions to the Holborn Circus Junction and I have been used to the inadequate cycling infrastructure we have had for the past 25 years in London.

    Best regards


  8. 30 km/h is just the speed that happens to be where about 95% of the victims of a crash who are not enclosed in a car shell survive, and about 15% go completely uninjured, and is the speed at which a conflict is unlikely to be fatal or cause severe injury. Good for where you have conflict points, in fact, in a completely Sustainably Safe system, at no place would there be a conflict between vulnerable road users and motor traffic where the 85th percentile speed is over 30 km/h, and this means that creating central reservations or pinchpoints to slow down cars to 30 (without the cars getting in the way of parallel cyclists of course) and roundabouts are extremely effective means at doing this, but it’s still not going to make me feel like I am safe because they are still there. Even in Assen, there are a few places where there is a completely separate cycle path parallel to a 30 km/h road.

    It depends largely on the volume. The Dutch consider it OK although it wasn’t the ideal speed (40 was considered, but ruled out for some reason. On the country lanes, actually yeh, 40 actually probably makes a lot of sense given that if the volume is that low then the road is likely very narrow and it won’t be far to the nearest distributor road) to mix 60 km/h traffic in the rural areas with cyclists (and pedestrians, but those are uncommon) provided that the volume is extremely low.

    And seriously Southwark, you don’t understand that if you provide parking, you must first have ensured that you are not preventing other road users to have at least their minimum required space given the speed and volumes?

    • Mark Williams says:

      Knowing one of the permanent civil servants employed at Southwark council (currently in the `thieving money from the cycling budget to waste on non-cycling projects’ department, since you didn’t ask), the answer to your question is a very definite `no’.

      The only reason Southwark has any cycling infrastructure at all to speak of, as described by Angus_fx, is probably that the HQ of London Cycling Campaign’s (LCC) central office is nearby and it is desirable to have them for photo’-opportunity purposes. Even then, it’s only of the `lip service’ type where they cannot `get in the way’ of the much more important and long-standing motoring encouragement policy.

      It is worth re-iterating and expanding on what Patrick ONeill said. A UK council’s policies and practices are entirely independent of the politicians in its debating club. The politicians do not write these documents or make anything other than a Hobson’s choice when it comes to `decision making’ and then take all the `credit’ afterwards. It’s merely fortuitous that, as other have hinted, they are almost always as anti-cycling as the people who actually do run the council.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.