Cyclists have made my home city too stressful to live in any more

But the whole problem with that project is that the infrastructure that was built is still not fit for purpose, despite cost. Honestly, I don't think the designers of the Kingston project have ever actually been on a bicycle. It's downright dangerous.

I actually agree with the article on this one! We need GOOD cycling infrastructure. What was delivered in Kingston is terrible.

If a cyclist is not using a cycle lane, there is a reason. Cyclists really don't want to tangle with traffic or pedestrians. If the lane is good, cyclists will be on it. However, there are so, so many unuseable ones. And yes, a bike lane may look good to someone who doesn't spend a lot of time on a bike, but that does not make it useable.

The problem with that article is that (if like me you don’t actually live there) it’s really difficult work out what’s actually happening.

£30 million sounds like a lot of money - but roads are expensive. Locally to me, we’ve had improvements for a single junction quoted at more than 10 times that. It’s irresponsible for politicians not to put figures in context.

They also don’t say how much of the cycle route is in place - I’ve just quickly checked Kingston Cycle Campaign who say that the network won’t be complete until next year. If that’s the case, then there won’t have been an increase in cycling (because you need routes to link up for that). It does look like there are real questions to answer about the delay - but the Conservatives aren’t really focussing on those.

As for the suggestion just to buy people a bike - I do try to stay objective about road safety, but that type of comment does get to me as it’s so irresponsible. I suspect he wouldn’t be happy cycling along some of the busier routes in his area with young DC - but it’s fine to pretend it’s ok for political gain.

The really sad thing about this is that LTN1/20 was put in place by the Conservatives and it’s really good. Such a shame the party’s members don’t read and learn from their own successes.

But the whole problem with that project is that the infrastructure that was built is still not fit for purpose, despite cost. Honestly, I don't think the designers of the Kingston project have ever actually been on a bicycle. It's downright dangerous.

I actually agree with the article on this one! We need GOOD cycling infrastructure. What was delivered in Kingston is terrible.

If a cyclist is not using a cycle lane, there is a reason. Cyclists really don't want to tangle with traffic or pedestrians. If the lane is good, cyclists will be on it. However, there are so, so many unuseable ones. And yes, a bike lane may look good to someone who doesn't spend a lot of time on a bike, but that does not make it useable.

We have some of the best cycling infrastructure in the country. The LA bid for money for a mini Holland project and was granted £30 million. There is a state of the art cycle storage at the railway station and proper cycle lanes, both directions on the main roads. We have floating bus stops too. They have taken out most of the bus lanes as a result, which clearly impacts the elderly and disabled, who are more likely to use a bus than a bike. Btw I was on a bus going into town earlier and a cyclist was trying to cycle past the bus on the inside but there was so little room, it was so dangerous. But there is a state of art cycle lane on that road and he wasn't using it. Cyclists often won't use these cycle lanes for some reason.

This article may come across as biased but it does include detailed info on the increases on each new cycle lane route https://www.kingstonconservatives.com/news/kingston-cycling-disaster-revealed

This is only partly true.

Geography makes a differernce, I don't know why this is so difficult for some people to accept.

I live in a northern climate. There is a long winter which includes a lot of snow, slush, and icy roads, and quite cold temperatures. It's also very hilly.

Of the people who can cycle (and it's important to remember there are quite a lot of people who cannot cycle, or not cycle their commutes,) only a very small minority of those continue to cycle in the winter. It's not just the "serious" biker - most of those stop cycling for the winter months as well. Most who do it are very fit, and have a second, specialised (expensive) bike with differernt tyres.

I am not sure why people don't understand this. I know several people who live in places where few have cars because they don't make sense due to geography. People seem to understand that well enough, I am not sure why there is such a block about geography affecting biking.

You are speaking as if there is some other place for the cars to park. They already removed half the parking on this street to put the bike lanes in place. The remaining spots are the only parking for people coming to the residences and businesses. Accessible parking isn't a think in that whole neighbourhood because there is just so little of it.

What they should do is use the rear road as the main corridor for bikes, and keep the front road as a corridor mainly for cars, which would encourage them to stay out of the other roads the bikes are concentrated on. It's never going to be a great bike corridor, there are too many side roads branching off of it, and a lot of pedestrian crossings as well. Bikes and pedestrians are both safer if the bikes on that road are in the flow of traffic.

It's people thinking like you that have caused this completely shit design, as if they can simply remove all car infrastructure that gets in the way of bikes and it will be fine, and determined to make bike lanes where they won't ever work well.

But this actually proves my point. The problem here is the parked cars. Remove a few parking spots, visibility is so much better, and we still have space for cars, pedestrians, and bikes. However, the howls of protest if you dare remove a single parking space...

Amsterdam is Amsterdam not because of any Dutch predisposition to cycling - it used to be filled with cars just like our cities - but because of Dutch road safety campaigns like StopDeKinderMoord that were due to children being killed. This led to the development of the Sustainable Safety approach that aims to standardise street design and reduce conflict between users.

Given that this has been so successful in the Netherlands (including higher driving satisfaction rates), then there is a real question about why our country isn’t learning for it to reduce collision rates.

If anyone wants to find out more about the Dutch campaigns (and they are well worth reading about), there’s a good account in Peter Walker’s book Bike Nation.

As for the hills, there are solutions (such as mountain bike gears) and not everyone needs to cycle - but given that not everyone can afford a car or is able to drive we do need safe cycle routes and other ways to travel.

Cars lining every street, makes cities look like shit

No, that isn't the reason here. There are some mainly bike streets, and these tend to work Ok for the most part.

It's the big main corridors, and also traffic circles, where they seem to have fucked up.

I am positive there will be a serious accident at some point, maybe with a car, or maybe with a pedestrian.

If anything it may be the opposite issue - they are putting so many obstacles in the way of cars that it's becoming really fraught to drive in the places they are meant to be. I think their idea is that people will then choose not to drive, but even if many do, they still have these complicated streets for the ones that remain.

For example - for my parents to get their car out of the lane, or for any vehicle coming to the buildings on the lane, they have to turn from a main road through a line of parked cars, a bike lane,and a double wide pavement that is fairly busy as it is near a park where people walk dogs. Coming out, you have to inch through the bike lane to try and see what is coming around the parked cars, and block the bikes while you do that (and part of the pavement too.) Turning in, a similar problem, except you are also trying to avoid running over a pedestrian as well because they are difficult to see until they are right in the way.

It's actually made it almost impossible to access the lane from that end which has a seniors building half way down. As a result, drivers typically now are going to the smaller road at the other end of the lane - which is designated as a road where bikes are supposed to take precedence!

Often it doesn't work because there's a complete lack of willingness to compromise car access or dominance at all.

The Dutch system works because it is expected that cars are "guests" on some roads.

I have never, ever had a car drive at me on the pavement. Not saying car drivers are perfect but at least they use the bloody roads!

We have some of the best cycling infrastructure in the country. The LA bid for money for a mini Holland project and was granted £30 million. There is a state of the art cycle storage at the railway station and proper cycle lanes, both directions on the main roads. We have floating bus stops too. They have taken out most of the bus lanes as a result, which clearly impacts the elderly and disabled, who are more likely to use a bus than a bike. Btw I was on a bus going into town earlier and a cyclist was trying to cycle past the bus on the inside but there was so little room, it was so dangerous. But there is a state of art cycle lane on that road and he wasn't using it. Cyclists often won't use these cycle lanes for some reason.

This article may come across as biased but it does include detailed info on the increases on each new cycle lane route https://www.kingstonconservatives.com/news/kingston-cycling-disaster-revealed

I visit Edinburgh quite regularly and have to say I don't understand why the council insist on all the cycle lanes and traffic lights which let cyclists go before cars etc. With the combination of Edinburgh’s climate and hills, who in their right mind thinks it’s going to be the next Amsterdam??

No, if you have real, safe bike infrastructure, then things become more accessible for most people. In general, people with epilepsy are more likely to be able to ride a bike than they are to be able to drive a car. I myself have had periods of not being able to drive for medical reasons, but could ride a bike.

Secondly, if you have bike infrastructure good enough that people actually want to ride, then there is a lot more room on the road for those who really need to drive. A few extra parking spaces is of no help if the whole city is driving! ( See my earlier post about wanting to park in town as if it were 1983).

Honestly the absolute arrogance, arse in the air so everyone must behold your crack as you race up the pavement (our space!) yet somehow still unembarrassable shit attitude of cyclists gives me the physical disgust shudders.

My point?? We were playing guess the city, that’s my guess.

Your point? The traditional get-away vehicle is a car. Shall we ban those, too?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kn0zlyz1ro.amp

So we get rid of all cars so there is space for bikes? That's unrealistic. The problem is on residential roads, where people live. Round here they take bikes home from say the railway station after a night out. Older kids use them to go to school and leave them outside hoping the bike will still be there next day. People visit the park to go for a cycle but leave it here and get the bus home.

They are leaving the bikes at the point where they don't want them any longer. They are not going to take them to a parking area several streets away.

We can't use these bikes as my daughter has epilepsy. We have to drive her everywhere. I would be very unhappy if the council took away all on street parking to make parking spaces for bikes. They already removed the bus lanes for cycle lanes. It is all about helping cyclists at the expense of the elderly, disabled, people with buggies etc.

I visit Edinburgh quite regularly and have to say I don't understand why the council insist on all the cycle lanes and traffic lights which let cyclists go before cars etc. With the combination of Edinburgh’s climate and hills, who in their right mind thinks it’s going to be the next Amsterdam??

So we get rid of all cars so there is space for bikes? That's unrealistic. The problem is on residential roads, where people live. Round here they take bikes home from say the railway station after a night out. Older kids use them to go to school and leave them outside hoping the bike will still be there next day. People visit the park to go for a cycle but leave it here and get the bus home.

They are leaving the bikes at the point where they don't want them any longer. They are not going to take them to a parking area several streets away.

We can't use these bikes as my daughter has epilepsy. We have to drive her everywhere. I would be very unhappy if the council took away all on street parking to make parking spaces for bikes. They already removed the bus lanes for cycle lanes. It is all about helping cyclists at the expense of the elderly, disabled, people with buggies etc.