Pavement parking in Horsham

Pavement parking is on the rise in Horsham. A few recent examples –

Apparently the very idea that pedestrians might actually want to use these pavements, without having to move out into the road to get around their vehicles, has obviously never occurred to these drivers.

Pavement parking is an insidious menace – the more it occurs, the more unpleasant it becomes to walk, and the more people are inclined to drive. And the more people that are inclined to drive, so the greater likelihood of an increase in pavement parking.

Conversely, if the pavements were actually kept clear of vehicles, the road itself would become more unpleasant to drive on, what with it becoming increasingly clogged with those same vehicles.

But that isn’t happening. So we have a situation in which greater mobility for motor vehicle users is being bought at the expense of pedestrians. It needs stopping.

I can, at least, report that Horsham police are doing their bit to stamp it out.

Horsham District Council are also helping out.

Reasons to be cheerful, then, with the powers that be taking such a rigorous approach to enforcement.

Cycling across Vauxhall Bridge

I strapped a new camera to my bicycle handlebars yesterday, and decided to venture south across Vauxhall Bridge. It’s a journey I’ve made only few times before (like black cabs, I don’t go south of the river) but I thought it would be worth recording how desperately awful it is to cycle on this bridge. The stills below are from a video taken at about half past three in the afternoon – so a reasonably quiet period. I can confidently predict that the road conditions would be significantly worse a few hours later.

The approach, with the bridge in the distance.

Notice that there are three lanes for going ahead onto the bridge, despite there being only two lanes on the bridge itself. This is a consequence of Transport for London’s mordid fascination with stacking. TfL like to fit in as many traffic lanes as they can at junctions, so they can pump the maximum number of vehicles through the junction when the lights change. The unfortunate side-effect, of course, is ‘jostling’ on the other side of the junction, which hardly makes for a salubrious cycling experience.

Setting off into the intimidating open space of the junction. (Note how many vehicles are still passing through the junction, despite my green light. Of course none of these vehicles could possibly have jumped the lights, because as we all know, that is something that only cyclists do).

The jostling for position I was talking about earlier. Notice how the road is narrowing on me while this ‘sorting’ is taking place.

Safely ensconced in my cycle lane as a cement lorry passes me.

See how far this cement truck has had to move into the adjoining lane to give me an even halfway decent amount of clearance.

This image shows how close an unscrupulous HGV driver would pass me if he chose to remain in his lane (see here for a graphic illustration of this kind of driver).

In short – a pretty unpleasant, not to say intimidating, experience, even for someone who has spent many years cycling in and around London on major roads.

Fortunately, and not before time, this road design is changing, once the ‘Superhighway’ arrives. Unfortunately, while some of the danger will be removed, the change involved is hardly an improvement for cyclists.

The Cyclists in the City website has the details. The positioning of the southbound bus lane is not changing (the solid white line you can see to the right in the final image). All that is happening is that the cycle lane is being removed, and the entire space between the kerb and bus lane is being carved up into two vehicle lanes. That’s all. The dividing line between the two existing vehicle lanes is in fact moving nearly a metre to the left.

At the moment, there’s a 1.4metre bike lane (not very wide) plus a 2.5m motor vehicle. So, 3.9metres for traffic to get past you. Under the scheme that will shrink to a 3metre lane with no cycle lane.

I think this is an improvement for faster, more assertive cyclists – they can ‘take the lane’ while no longer worrying about whether they might be intimidated into the cycle lane.

But I think it’s actually making the bridge worse for more nervous cyclists, because they will probably cycle in a similar position to where they currently cycle (in the cycle lane), while the dividing line of the vehicle lane adjacent to them is moved nearly a metre closer to them.

Bridges are crucial parts of the London road network for cyclists, because they almost always have no choice but to use them. Vauxhall Bridge, as currently configured, is a massive barrier to the take-up of cycling in this part of London. Few novices are ever going to opt to cycle in and out of London on a bridge that is this hostile. And I fail to see how shuffling the vehicle lanes to the left, while replacing a dangerous cycle lane with blue ‘elephants feet’ bicycle symbols every ten metres is going to make the blindest bit of difference.

Spot what is wrong with this contraflow facility

Clue – it might have something to do with the positioning of the parking bay.

Cardigan Street, SE11, yesterday.

‘Safety In Numbers’? Or ‘Numbers from Safety’?

The CTC – among others – are quite keen on the ‘Safety In Numbers’ effect. A couple of years ago, they produced a pdf on it.

It contains this graph, showing an attractive correlation between the cyclist death rate, and the amount of distance cycled per person, in a number of European countries.

The CTC argue, in the document, that

Countries in Europe with high levels of cycle use tend to be less risky for cyclists. In Denmark, people cycle over 900 kilometres a year and it is a far safer country to cycle in than Portugal, where barely 30 km is covered by each person by bike annually.

Clearly, there is a correlation here between distance cycled, or number of cycling trips, and safety. That much is undeniable. But are we so clear about the the direction in which the correlation runs? The main thrust of the CTC argument seems to be based on the assumption that an increase in safety will arise from a greater numbers of cyclists making trips. In their words

Cycling gets safer the more people do it.

I think this is generally true. More people cycling should mean more awareness of cyclists, and so the averaged risk to a given cyclist will probably decrease.

But there is an alternative explanation that could lie behind the correlation exhibited in that graph, that the CTC don’t seem to focus on. Namely, that more people will cycle when they feel safe. Or, to invert the CTC slogan,

More people cycle when it gets safer.

This gives us two possible interpretations for the data point for the Netherlands in the graph above.

1) Dutch cyclists are safe, because the Dutch, as a nation, cycle a lot. 

2) The Dutch, as a nation, cycle a lot, because they feel (or are) safe.

Likewise, for the UK –

1) British cyclists are not as safe as their Dutch counterparts because, unlike the Dutch, we do not cycle a lot.

2) The British, as a nation, do not cycle a lot, because they are not (or do not feel) safe.

To be clear, I don’t think these two interpretations of the correlation are mutually exclusive. There is probably a great deal of interplay between them. But it is interesting how the second interpretation figures so little in the conventional explanations of the ‘Safety In Numbers’ effect. 

There are now significant numbers of cyclists at peak commuting hours on arterial roads in and out of London – the ‘Superhighways’ seem to have had the effect of concentrating cyclists’ movements on these roads. I suspect that this increase in numbers has indeed led to a decrease in the average cyclist’s exposure to risk. Nevertheless, the road environment doesn’t necessarily feel any safer for a cyclist, simply because of the greater numbers. And I think that is quite important if we are ever going to get the ‘numbers’ the CTC talk about.

For instance.

Eight cyclists are visible in this short clip, yet this seems (to me, at least) to be a deeply hostile and unpleasant environment to cycle in. All the regular motorists in this clip probably encounter hundreds of cyclists on a day-to-day basis, so they are certainly ‘aware’ of them. But the general attitude exhibited seems to be one of dangerous complacency, rather than consideration. They are used to cyclists – but only as objects they need to get past as quickly as possible.

Now, to be fair, the CTC do stress the need to make the road environment more welcoming and safe for cyclists. I suspect this is a tacit acknowledgement that a strategy of simply talking about how safe cycling actually is –

cycling isn’t as risky as commonly thought, with just one death every 32 million kilometres – that’s over 800 times around the world. Indeed not cycling is more risky than cycling: cyclists on average live two years longer than non-cyclists and take 15% fewer days off work through illness

– just isn’t going to cut it when it comes to getting people out there on bikes in significant numbers. Statistics about how they are actually going to extend their lives, on the basis of probability, by cycling aren’t really going to make up anyone’s mind when they are confronted with cycling conditions like those in the video above, ‘numbers’ or otherwise.

The starting point for cycle campaigning should be to make cycling seem safer and more attractive. The numbers will come.

By contrast, we shouldn’t simply endeavour to boost the numbers of people cycling in the hope that, somewhere down the line, cycling will become safer and more attractive.

Let’s not get the cart before the horse.

Horsham Cycling Review – Route 1 (High Priority)

In a recent post, I described how Horsham District Council commissioned an independent review of cycling in Horsham, back in 2008, with a view to assessing where ‘gaps’ existed in Horsham’s cycling network, and how to go about improving the attractiveness and safety of cycling in the town.

This review was presented to the Council cabinet on 2nd April 2009, and can be found here (beginning on p.194). There were 235 separate recommendations for improvements in the report, covering the main potential routes for cycling in the town. I will document those recommendations on this blog, noting precisely what has been implemented at the relevant locations in the intervening two years.

We start with the Cycling Review’s Route 1 – a high priority route, from the north of the town, along a major arterial route into the town centre. It is the green route marked as 1 on the map below, taken from page 21 of the Review.

Each recommendation has a measured ‘Practicality’, namely

M Best carried out as part of the maintenance programme (e.g. resurfacing) or when other highway works are being undertaken 

1 Relatively inexpensive to introduce in both design and implementation, and should provide good return for minimal cost 

2 Could be more expensive but generally should provide a reasonable return in giving more advantage to cyclists and pedestrians 

3 Potentially expensive with the level of return uncertain 

4 May be desirable but may also be impractical/very difficult to implement, or have negative outcomes beyond the area to be treated. 

The first recommendation –

Pondtail Drive/ Pondtail Rd roundabout – Redesign roundabout to continental design (Practicality – 2). Reduce circulating space and entry/exit speeds by introducing hatching/overrun areas (Practicality – 1).

No change has been carried out at this (enormous) mini-roundabout. There is some hatching here, but it pre-dates the Review, and does nothing to limit vehicle speeds across the roundabout, which is so wide upon entry and exit vehicles do not slow at all. See the van in the picture for evidence.

Next recommendation –

Pondtail Rd (Pondtail Drive – Pondtail Close) – Reallocate roadspace and remove centre line to provide cycle lanes (min 1.25m) in both directions and 2-way central lane (min 4.8m) for motor vehicle flow (Practicality – 2). Introduce cycle-friendly traffic calming measures (Practicality – 3). Remove parking where this affects visibility at junctions (Practicality – 1).

None of these 3 measures implemented.

Pondtail Rd/Pondtail Close Roundabout – Redesign roundabout to continental design (2). Reduce circulating space and entry/exit speeds by introducing hatching/overrun areas (1). Increase deflection northbound with cycle slip (2).

None of these 3 measures implemented.

Pondtail Rd (Pondtail Close – Warnham Rd) – Reallocate roadspace and remove centre line to provide cycle lanes (min 1.25m) in both directions and 2-way central lane (min 4.8m) for motor vehicle flow (2). Introduce cycle-friendly traffic calming measures (3). Remove parking where this affects visibility at junctions (1).

None of these measures implemented. No parking restrictions at this junction, for instance.

Pondtail Rd junction with Warnham Rd – Signalise junction (4). Move signalled crossing towards junction and convert to Toucan to allow use by cyclists. (3). Convert crossing to Toucan w. linking cycle tracks.

This junction has not changed.

The crossing is still distant from the junction (seen in the background), without any linking cycle track, and is not a Toucan.

Warnham Rd – Trafalgar Rd – Create a new link path across open space to signalled crossing of Warnham Rd (2).

No linking path across this open space.

Trafalgar Rd/ Rushams Rd (Warnham Rd – North Parade) – 20 mph limit (2). Sign cycle route (1).

No 20 mph limit, but it appears some signage has been put up.

Crossing of North Parade – Replace island crossing with single-stage Toucan crossing (with link paths) (2). Replace central island crossing with build-outs (with cycle lane continued) and wide cycle/zebra crossing (2). 

No change here. (I have already covered the potential danger for cyclists of this island feature in a post here).

North Parade (Rushams Rd – Springfield Rd) – Widen cycle lanes to min 1.25 m (1). Create cycle tracks on both footways (3). Create cycle track on east footway (2). Create cycle track inside park (3). Convert existing Pelican crossing to Toucan. (2).

Cycle lanes still desperately narrow. No cycle tracks created on or alongside either footway.

The crossing is not a Toucan. No cycle track has been created in the park, but in the interim, cycling is now permitted on the footpaths already extant in the park.

Springfield Rd (N of Albion Way) – Remove parking on west side to allow northbound cycle lane (min 1.25 m) (2). Colour existing southbound lane at j/w London Rd (1). Move centre line to allow northbound cycle lane outside parking (2).

No cycle lane northbound, only parking bays.

The southbound cycle lane is not coloured across the entirety of the junction.

Springfield Rd j/w Albion Way – Realign southbound cycle lane to run straight ahead at left turn (1). Install ASLs at junction with Albion Way (1).

No realignment of the cycle lane.

No ASL at the junction.

Springfield Rd (S of Albion Way) – Remove upstand in southbound cycle lane (1). Allow contraflow cycling southbound (1). Clarify situation re. cycling on western footway (1). 

Upstand not removed.

No southbound contraflow cycling.

Lack of clarity about pavement persists.

Springfield Rd/Worthing Rd (pedestrian priority area) – Formally allow cycling at all times and sign appropriately (1). 

No cycling allowed, no signage.

Worthing Rd (bus station access) – Reallocate road space to create wide cycle track on W side with table crossing at bus station to Route 3 (3). Create shared use cycle track on ex. west footway (2).

No cycle track in the road space here.

No shared used on this path (although this would undoubtedly be a bad idea, given the narrow and constricted nature of this footpath).

So, in summary, only one of the 35 recommendations for this route into Horsham town centre has been acted upon – and that was the erection of a few signs. No lower speed limits, no wider cycle lanes, no removal of parking – not even the simplest, easiest and cheapest measures have been implemented.

How the Cycling Review’s recommendations for the other routes in Horsham have fared will be assessed in due course.

RAC driver helpfully adds realistic road conditions to a Bikeability lesson

My Bikeability class were practising right turns into a junction yesterday, on a reasonably quiet back street.

While we were doing this, an RAC breakdown driver – sensing that the road conditions under which we were performing this manoeuvre were decidedly unrealistic compared to the road environment UK cyclists would ordinarily have to deal with – considerately chose to help us out.

He rolled up to the junction, and then proceeded to park right on the apex, on double yellow lines, and on the pavement – at the most inconvenient point for visibility both into and out of the junction.

Try executing your right turns now, cycling novices!

I am sure that RAC drivers are fully aware what double yellow lines are for, but this employee no doubt made an exception for a Bikeability class, deciding that it was, on balance, better to provide a helpful lesson in what the roads are really like than to keep junctions, and the pavement, clear. (Note also that this driver could have parked, very easily, in the empty parking bay I was standing in when I took this photograph).

Get used to it, learners.

Lethal Superhighway Design

Gaz545 – who also blogs at Croydon Cyclist – has recently posted this excellent video, showing a particularly poorly thought-through section of ‘Superhighway’.

Notice how the blue paint encourages cyclists to progress down the side of vehicles, at a point where the lane narrows, and a pavement build-out encroaches from the left. It’s potentially lethal.

The dashed line bordering the ‘Superhighway’ disappears at the danger point, so the people who designed this ‘facility’ are obviously aware that there is a problem here – unfortunately, simply removing that dashed line is a totally superficial and inadequate ‘solution’ to a serious accident risk.

Not good enough.

More on the ‘primary position’

(This is a follow-up to this post.)

UK cyclists are a curiously self-flagellating species.

The cyclist in this recent video is subject to not one, not two, but three ‘left hooks’ in succession, from a series of motorists who cut dangerously across his path instead of pausing, for what would only be a brief moment, behind him.

In the description below the video, the cyclist muses that he

Probably should take primary position here.

I think that would, on balance, have been a good strategy. Positioning yourself further out in the road would mean that any driver planning on cutting it fine across your bows when they take an exit would have to take even more of a chance to swerve out around you. I think it would – maybe – have discouraged the last of the three overtakes in the video, although probably not the motorcyclist.

What I find interesting, however, is the strong whiff of self-criticism that appears in these videos. You often find the poster writing comments like, ‘my positioning was not good enough’, ‘I left the door open’, or ‘I wasn’t fully aware that the driver was about to do something completely stupid.’

The reckless driving itself seems to take a back seat in the analysis.

To repeat the point that I made in the earlier post, the attitude being reflected by these cyclists is that the onus is on them to prevent other people’s stupidity. But we don’t expect this kind of behaviour from other road users. To give a parallel example to that in the video, I don’t think there is going to be any official advice appearing any time soon that suggests motorway drivers should start straddling lanes to prevent dangerous late overtakes/exits onto slip roads, for instance. A ‘primary position’ for motorists, if you will.

So why should it be different for cyclists, especially when they are one of the most vulnerable road users?

What is compounding the problem is the total lack of awareness of the reasoning behind ‘assertive’ road positioning. Take a look at this video.

Again, we see a cyclist taking a strong position, to prevent what would be a stupidly close overtake into oncoming traffic. This ‘provokes’ the driver behind into honking, squeezing through anyway, then swerving, braking, and blocking the cyclist.

The cyclist quickly reported this driver to the Met Police’s Roadsafe scheme.

The outcome? A letter was sent to the cyclist which, as well as – slightly astonishingly – reprimanding him for his ‘aggressive behaviour’, also advised him that he should have been further over to the left.

I’m one of those who once got warned via letter for overly aggressive behaviour, and I thought that was a little over the top as the woman concerned had just nearly wiped me out. I thought I’d been incredibly restrained, to be honest, and didn’t even swear…. Of course this particular letter rather cut themselves, as its main point advised wrongly that I should be riding to the left instead of taking the lane up Leaves Green hill.

So it’s not just your everyday driver who doesn’t have a clue about why cyclists might be cycling ‘in the middle of the road.’

Apparently the Met Police also know nothing at all about the ‘primary position’, and in fact write letters to cyclists informing them that they are cycling too far over into the road.

It’s enough to make you weep with despair.

‘Britain you can drive your car’

It was the Sun that triumphantly broke the news.

March 24th, 2011.

The day that Britain’s frustrated motorists – indeed, all Britons – could at long last get back behind the wheels of their cars. The roads – empty for so long – began to trickle back to life.  The glorious stench of diesel particulates once again began to settle over our beautiful gyratories. The throaty roar of revved engines reverberated gloriously off our multi-story car parks. The traffic jams began – finally – to clog our narrow urban streets.

Normality was restored.

But I have recently become aware of one brave individual, who managed – against all the odds – to keep driving during this extraordinary motoring winter of discontent.

Yes, one of my work colleagues, I have found, has spent the last decade driving.

And not just driving. Oh no.

They managed to keep driving  for no apparent reason at all – in glorious defiance of the futile war declared on the motorist.

They spent that decade cutting the mile it would have taken them to walk or cycle* to work in half, by driving circuitously across town for nearly two miles.

I salute this courageous individual, who at extraordinary expense, and with great difficulty, insisted on lengthening the time it took them to get to work – just so someone, anyone, would still be driving.

Chapeau.

*Thank God none of us will ever have to do that again.

It’s the UN’s ‘Decade of Action for Road Safety’, brought to you by Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button

Today marks the start of the UN’s ‘Decade of Action for Road Safety.’

The campaign was launched in the UK by the serial speeder Jenson Button (bonus points for being caught speeding in three different countries, surely?), and the reckless driver Lewis Hamilton.

Perfect.

Forgive me, then, if I am already underwhelmed by the proposals, which promise to focus on ‘protecting vulnerable road users’, but are still getting things arse-about-tit by attempting to achieve this through ‘greater helmet use’ and ‘safer road infrastructure’, which to me smells suspiciously like a safer road environment for faster car drivers.

The official slogan of the UN’s campaign appears to be

WEAR. ACT. BELIEVE.

and I can only sigh with despair at what the ‘wearing’ part of this road safety equation involves.

Meanwhile, The Nottinghamshire Road Safety Partnership have wasted no time in getting in the act. They note that

Last year three cyclists were killed and another 63 were seriously injured on Nottinghamshire’s roads

So – time for action.

We are fully committed to reducing cycle accidents on our roads.

Sounds good. What do they think is the problem?

With a rise in the number of cyclists on our roads due to people wanting to become fitter or for economic reasons, we want to reduce the increased possibility of road collisions by ensuring that people know how to navigate the road on their cycles.

Ah yes. Of course. All those cyclists are being killed and injured because they do not how to how navigate the road. On their cycles.

But poor navigation skills can’t be the only reason for the high cyclist KSI toll on Nottinghamshire’s roads, surely? There must be some other reason?

We are really happy to support both the United Nations global campaign ‘Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020’ – which also encourages cyclists to wear helmets – and Nottingham-based charity Headway’s ‘Action for Brain Injury Week’, as they help to raise the profile of all the work and awareness campaigning that’s being done to improve road safety.

Ah, of course.

Bicycle helmets.

It’s so comforting to know that those in power – from the UN, right down to Nottinghamshire County Council – are focusing on the real road safety problem.

(Thanks to Amsterdamize for drawing my attention the the Nottinghamshire piece)