Why we need more cycle lanes
As I pull out from the cycle lane on Amwell Street into the busy stream of traffic because of an illegally parked van, the news last week that the Olympic Development Authority will be pumping ‘multi millions’ into new cycle lanes in the capital couldn’t be more welcome. Although they will only concentrate on the areas to and from the Olympic sites, anything that improves the situation gets my seal of approval. Those thin green pathways visible on far too few roads are a woeful excuse for the joined-up network of routes to which cyclists should be entitled.
Because nothing but a painted white line segregates the cycle lane from the rest of the traffic, it’s all too easy for motorists to drift on to them squeezing us cyclists into the gutter. What is needed is a fortification of low-level bollards to repel the invaders or at the very least a raised pavement-style trim beyond which their wheels cannot pass.
A perfect example of how well a properly protected cycle lane can work is in gentle Bloomsbury, particularly on Montague Street and Bedford Place, where cyclists glide in single file on their side of the divide with motorists on the other. Here, with a place for everyone and everyone in their place, there is a natural harmony to which road users in other parts of the city can only aspire. Fiona McAuslan
Route rating
Miles 1.3 (Amwell St to Montague St)
Calories burned 50
Obstacles negotiated Four
Feature continues
|
|
The best of London in your inbox
Up to the minute picks of the best things to do in London, delivered to your desktop.
|
|
6 comments
'Why adhere to a law that endangers me?' (re illegal pavement cycling) The same stupid selfish comment could possibly be made about knife-carrying. Get off the pavement, you selfish git - even if people say nothing to you don't take it as tacit acceptance, it's probably because they're frightened. Read letters in the local press and reports of local community and police meetings - it's you and others like you who are making the pavements in London a no-go area for old, disabled and vulnerable people. What a stupid and irresponsible article for Time Out to endorse - I will not be purchasing it again.
I was with a cyclist who was catapulted off her bike in an accident last week. She landed on her head and shoulder. Result: Helmet severely dented, concussion, face had a nasty case of road rash, broken collar bone. Without a helmet I think it could have been much worse.
Re: amazing statistics - the trouble with accident statistics is it is impossible to measure all the accidents that don't happen...
Did the writer really mean;
'Anarchic behaviour under the guise of protest is selfish and self-defeating.'
Or perhaps;
Selfish behaviour under the guise of protest is self-defeating.
Or maybe;
Selfish behaviour under the guise of anarchy is self-defeating.
Clean up on the stereotypes mate.
I ride through that road system most days and, as I've found generally with cycling in London at all times of day and night, if you ride with your wits about you, it isn't a problem. A cycle lane past Central St. Martin's would be safer and there's loads of pavement but in the mean time the author should grow a pair and use the road.
LB 's Southwark and Lewisham provide free Adult Cycle Training for all those who live, work or study in the borough. Available via www.cyclinginstructor.com. Online Booking!
Statistics show that amazingly cyclists who wear helmets have more accidents than cyclists who don't. This is because, the study says, drivers of cars and other vehicles tend to take it "slightly easy" when they see a cyclist wearing a helmet as opposed to when a cyclist is unprotected. A model Catch-22 situation innit?