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

[valianttortoise]

Cycling on the pavement (on e-bikes, racing bikes, whatever) at speed, silently, no lights often, no pausing for pedestrians to cross at zebra crossings or even green men. An e-bike nearly hit me yesterday while a policeman was literally standing there watching (outside a government building in case you're wondering where on earth I saw a live one) and he did nothing, just looked at me like "wow that was close!"

I can't handle it any more it's miserable. I can't drive so it's not a car thing it's a pedestrian safety thing.

I also think seeing that it's fine to do this, in balaclavas often, is sending a message that crime and bad behaviour in general are ok. No one will stop you.

Some men (boys? hard to tell in balaclavas) on e-bikes provided by the council took an angle grinder into a busy central square last week and just calmly cut out bicycles from stands to steal them (obviously a crime I feel conflicted about in itself but how long until they realise they can just mug pedestrians at knifepoint? It was 3pm, bright sunshine).

I find it kind of hard to believe what we're just supposed to live with now. No safe spaces for walking - forget about it if you're visually impaired.

If you live somewhere with no antisocial cyclists where is it please as I'd like to join you.

A 6 year old was knocked off their bike on the pavement directly outside DS’s primary school just last week. Head injury. Another parent mounted the curb and hit him, and then drove off without stopping. It happens.

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!

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...

They can, but they are at least orderly.

E-scooters thrown around everywhere is another thing all together and they are a real hazard to many pedestrians.

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.

In theory, I agree with you on using the back road. In practice, it's usually poorly done. Unsafe and unsuitable for children.

And yes, too many side roads makes a poor bike corridor.

However, why on earth are we allowing parking on a busy main road? It's insane! We clutter up and obstruct the flow of traffic for the sake of a few spaces. It's not 1983; with modern population density, we physically do not have the space to meet transport needs that way.

Central Europe seems to manage this just fine.

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.

Councils should follow the 5 principles of good bike lanes:

Coherent, Direct, Safe, Comfortable, and Attractive

Too many poor examples. Has to be long and continuous. I am not going to take a big diversion to travel on a beautiful but short 500 metre long path that spits you out at a death trap junction with no connectivity to a network.

Also hate the ones that take you on a wiggly route of back streets rather than building a segregated path straight down the main road. These tend to have much more intersections to navigate, take twice as long, double the distance and are poorly lit going through sketchy back streets. What a cop out from the council they are when faced with opposition and then people say 'Cyclists don't use bike lanes'.

I don't think finishing it off next year will help that much as all it means is that a couple of main roads sections are still to be done, but basically we have a hub town and various roads leading to it from all over the borough and there are unlikely to be that many people cycling from one of the existing cycle lanes onto one of the to be completed ones or vice versa to make a huge difference.

No, they have looked at cycling traffic on the main roads and seen that the expensive infrastructure has made little difference to cycling take up.

You may be right that it's a mess. The London Road section is a particular cause for frustration i believe. But actually, the experience here shows just how hard it is to put cycling infrastructure into an existing town system.

They just took out all the bus lanes to accommodate the cycle lanes for example.

They have also gone for ideas used in Northern Europe like floating bus stops which people here don't understand and which are actively dangerous.

Imo the best thing they have done for cyclists is the 20mph speed limit.

Forget Uber, Waymo’s driverless taxis will arrive in London in 2026 | Top Gear https://share.google/Q5R2hUuqXcT6Fagiw

Huh. I think that they'll start phasing out public parking spaces in London about 12 months after this arrives.

Yes - the removal of the bus lane is particularly irksome - the UK will never compromise on space for cars (including parking) so the bus lane went instead.

You would have to demolish everything and start again. In a very crowded town like Kingston, with its existing road infrastructure, that's not really possible.

I agree OP. Nearly got hit by a bicycle coming from behind me today.

They come behind you on the pavement silently and at speed, just assuming you are aware of them and will know not to (heaven forbid!) take a slight step to the right or left as they come so close to the line you are already walking.

Pedestrians shouldn’t have to assume there’s a risk that a bicycle will be trying to come by close behind them when minding their own business walking along.

Although don’t get me started on other pedestrians who have decided it’s reasonable to “tailgate” others (I am by no means a slow walker - I’m faster than average) rather than walking around those who as a bit slower than them on a wide pavement - so that you have to step to one side rather than them walking around you to prevent them stepping on your heel!

This happens all the time round here (particularly bad near local shops and around the school) and if you challenge the drivers they just look at you as if you've come down from outer space. They mount the kerb and keep the on moving, even if there are pedestrians walking right in front of them.

Wow, 2026!

Been on the horizon for a good few years now but finally happening.

Hope they can be cheap. I would happily go car free if I could get one on demand at a reasonable price.

Error post

Probably because geography is over used as an objection to putting cycling routes in. I can think of one place near me drivers confidently pronounce as being unsuitable for cycling as it’s steep - it is but not impossibly so (I can manage it fairly easily as a leisure cyclist on a basic mountain bike). The real problem cycling that way is the traffic. If somewhere is genuinely too steep it’s also not that hard to get off and push (unless you are using the bike as a mobility aid). There are places that are too steep for cycling - but these are fewer than people think.

Again with weather, it is a real issue but anyone interested in road safety will have seen endless pics of people doing #VikingBiking in the snow or transporting their Christmas trees by bike. Places like Helsinki enable it by gritting and clearing routes. Where I live, people still cycle in poor weather but my council has repeatedly refused requests to grit the main routes. They could do better for both cycle routes and pavements and it would stop people being hurt.

It’s also striking that we talk about “the people who can cycle” but rarely about the “people who can drive” - in my region that’s over a third of households who have to rely on public transport. Even where public transport is very good, there are still places it won’t go (for example between suburbs as most routes head to the city centre). Making it easier to cycle can massively help those people with work and education opportunities. Making it safe for older DC to cycle to school and other activities is also a real benefit for families with cars - ironically I often see the same people who complain about building cycle routes also want people to stop driving DC to school. Financially the benefits of cycling are such that bikes tend to pay for themselves if you use the lm regularly - even with what you describe in your city people would still have these benefits in the summer. Cycling rates amongst women also tend to go up once there are safe routes.

No cycling / road safety groups ever say that people should cycle - just that people should have safe routes so they are able to cycle if they want / have to. That’s really not unreasonable- and would also go a long way to solving the problems in the OP’s original post.

So why aren’t your local Conservatives using LTN1/20 (an easy to read document created by their own party) to audit the Kingston scheme and to work out what has gone wrong? The Walthamstowe Mini-Holland scheme is very well-known as a success so why hasn’t Kingston been able to achieve the same results and why has it taken them a decade just to remodel a few streets?

I don’t know the area so I can’t tell you what has gone wrong, but if your opposition transport lead is claiming stuff that buying people bikes and encouraging them to cycle is the way forward, he doesn’t understand even the basics of road safety. We really ought to be able to expect that if councillors take on a brief, they will educate themselves about that area of local government so they can make informed decisions if they control the council or effectively challenge poor decisions when in opposition.

I think they ran out of money then had to find other ways to fund the rest of the project. Also, this area is entirely Lib Dem controlled - there are only about 3 Tory councillors, so they have no influence. But that's irrelevant tovthe points I'm making, which are around huge spend on cycling infrastructure and little uptake in usage.

Maybe it hasn't been implemented properly but often new town planning isnt a success - and lessons are learned. The Kingston Bypass was the first dual carriageway in the UK, now part of the A3. The exit and entry roads along that section are utterly bizarre - the planners didn't know the most effective system back them. Lessons were learned.

But anyway, cycling is just not that popular for lots of reasons. I use the bus mostly. I won't take my bike into town because of the significant risk that it will be stolen. They can put as many cycle lanes in as they like but while bike theft is as it is, I won't do it.

You don't think that the answer might be for drivers to start driving their metal boxes more considerately?

Yes happens where I am too, with the same uncomprehending look if you suggest they should perhaps stay on the roads. I have no idea what is wrong with people.

But spending on bike infrastructure isn't huge. It's tiny. It's a tiny fraction of transport infrastructure costs. Which is ridiculous, because money spent on bike infrastructure results in net government savings due to decreased health costs etc.

We know that if you put GOOD cycling infrastructure in (which might include bike lockers) people will use it.

It's very clear, from international examples, what works. We don't need to install bad infrastructure (and then shrug our shoulders and say "well, I guess people don't like bikes).