Assembly member Tracy gives his views on cycling infrastructure

On the 5th of January I asked our Assembly member Richard Tracey the following questions, to save you reading too much I've edited the email, with the full copy of the letter and responses at the bottom of the post.

1. Do you not think that the shape and size of the blind spot of an HGV is almost identical to the layout of cycle infrastructure?

2. Given that TfL is aware of physical segregation methods used in Holland, and their impressive low casualty rates for cyclists and indeed pedestrians, why aren't we using their knowledge to make London's roads safer?


3. Do you think that given their success both in the limited locations where they have been implemented here in London, and nationally in Holland that providing a kerb between the cycle and other forms of transport and separate light phases at junctions for cyclists and other vehicles should be something that TfL should implement across London?

Mr Tracey originally forwarded me TfL's response without his own views. I asked if he could cover that, and he was kind enough to send through this.

"I think I should make it clear that I am not a cyclist, nor have I ridden a cycle for very many years. I travel by public transport, buses and trains, most of my time, as well as walking a good deal, although I do own a car and have many years of experience as a road user.


...The only areas on which I will comment are safety and respect among road users, and to that extent I have supported the Times conducting its debate.


...I hear very often from pedestrians and others that they find cyclists extremely aggressive to them. I think the Mayor's point about avoiding conflict are very relevant in all this.


I hope this is helpful to you, both in passing on what I hear from others and giving you my own perspective."


First point to make is the very welcome support of our Assembly member for The Times campaign. Secondly we have further clarification from TfL on the issues raised.

So TfL's abridged answer to query no 1 (full copy, at end of post)

"Any cycle lanes or surfacing implemented as part of Barclays Cycle Superhighways are a minimum of 1.5 metres wide, so we do not think it is correct to say Barclays Cycle Superhighways encourage cyclists to "hug the kerb".

Cyclists are most at risk from left-turning HGVs. At the junctions mentioned, the approach is commonly a full-blue nearside lane, which encourages cyclists arriving at the junctions at green signals to move out from the kerb when continuing straight on, therefore discouraging last minute overtaking by left turning motor vehicles. Furthermore, as the Mayor points out, five-metre Advanced Stop Line areas are installed as standard at all signalised junctions on the Barclays Cycle Superhighways, allowing cyclists arriving at red signals to wait well ahead of queuing traffic."

Now I've heard a picture tells a 1000 words, so what do you make of this:

I haven't yet measured the space from the kerb to the solid white line, i.e. the triangular approach, but I'm prepared to bet that it isn't 1.5m in width. And unless the 5m is starting from where the blue bit starts to come out from the kerb, I'm also quite confident that there isn't 5m from the front of the box to the back of it.

TfL's abridged answer to query no 2 & 3

"There are approximately 300km of segregated off-carriageway tracks and paths in London, mainly along faster main roads.

However, many locations are not suitable for cycle tracks. For example, limited available road space, together with high levels of shop frontage activity, frequently prevents segregated or off-carriageway provision. Furthermore, it is often not desirable from a safety perspective to provide off-carriageway facilities, as conflicts can occur at side roads."

Back to some pictures to help illustrate the matter. I did blog the other week about how there is the space at Tooting Bec for segregated cycle lanes. There is so much space that a car has been able to break down, helpfully leaving the cycle lane clear, and the rest of the motor traffic is able to fit between the car and the traffic island. Not enough space???

This second illustration was after an incident the other week. First thing is it highlights that the current layout encourages irresponsible drivers to go too fast through the junction. We were lucky no pedestrian was standing in the island and not able to get out of the way when the car approached and hit the traffic light.

Secondly, we can see that there is a police van parked up in what is normally the outside lane on Garrett Lane westbound approach to Tooting Broadway. The rest of the traffic is still able to avoid this disruption and continue on it's way.


Email to Assembly Member Richard Tracey 5th Jan 2012

Subject: Queries following MQTs written answers on cycling


Dear Richard,


Some queries for you to raise with the Mayor on the following written answers to Mayors questions which I've just received.


1. Do you not think that the shape and size of the blind spot of an HGV is almost identical to the layout of cycle infrastructure?


Some local Wandsworth examples in my opinion would be the CSH at Tooting Broadway / Tooting Bec / Balham Station / Balham Waitrose lights.


As much of the Cycle Superhighways are only advisory lanes, motor vehicles do not have to keep out of the vast majority of the Cycle Superhighways. Along the superhighways, cyclists are mainly encouraged to "hug" the kerb, and if they weren't aware of the danger that HGV's represent would follow the blue paint to stop in the drivers blind spot infront of them. As a result we have the unfortunate high death toll caused because of drivers not being aware of cyclists in their blind spot, and cyclists having followed "guidance" painted on the road in the form of cycle lanes putting themselves in a dangerous position.


2. Given that TfL is aware of physical segregation methods used in Holland, and their impressive low casualty rates for cyclists and indeed pedestrians, why aren't we using their knowledge to make London's roads safer?


3. Do you think that given their success both in the limited locations where they have been implemented here in London, and nationally in Holland that providing a kerb between the cycle and other forms of transport and separate light phases at junctions for cyclists and other vehicles should be something that TfL should implement across London?


Every road shares commonalities, and it seems to me irresponsible not to use best practise where it has been shown to work. Indeed the Mayor comments, "these [segregated] facilities have proved successful under the conditions and at the locations where they have been used."


I'm interested to know your views on these points, particularly with the Mayoral election approaching I'm sure that both your opinion as well as the Conservative party line will be of great interest to local residents.


Best regards,
Jon


Questions listed below:


----------------------
Cycle Superhighways (1)
Question No: 3839 / 2011
Caroline Pidgeon
Do you consider that there is a contradiction in providing guidance to cyclists to not cycle on the inside of HGVs yet this is an inherent feature of the Cycle Superhighways?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.


Written answer received on 21 December 2011:


I do not agree. Five metre Advanced Stop Line areas are installed as standard at all signalised junctions on the Superhighways, allowing cyclists to wait ahead of queuing traffic.


The scheme also includes various other measures designed to reduce conflict between cyclists and left-turning HGVs. These include the provision of blind spot safety mirrors at all signalised junctions, the delivery of training to cyclists and HGV drivers, and campaigns advising cyclists how to minimise the risks posed by HGVs.


----------------------


Dutch style cycle lanes
Question No: 3841 / 2011
Caroline Pidgeon
What steps, if any, are TfL taking to evaluate the effectiveness of the widespread use throughout Holland of cycle lanes which routinely provide a kerb between the cycle and other forms of transport and where there are separate light phases at junctions for cyclists and other vehicles?
Does TfL have any plans to implement any of these cycle lanes which have proven to improve cycle safety?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.


Written answer received on 21 December 2011:


TfL is aware of physical segregation methods used in Holland. In London, measures to be provided for cyclists are considered on a junction by junction basis depending on the need at that particular location.


There are already examples of segregated cycle facilities on the Transport for London Road Network and on the Barclays Cycle Superhighways. These facilities have proved successful under the conditions and at the locations where they have been used.

------------------------

Response from Mr Tracey on 6th March

FYI from TfL








Thank you for your email and I am very sorry for not replying sooner.


In response to the constituent's first question:


Any cycle lanes or surfacing implemented as part of Barclays Cycle Superhighways are a minimum of 1.5 metres wide, so we do not think it is correct to say Barclays Cycle Superhighways encourage cyclists to "hug the kerb".


Cyclists are most at risk from left-turning HGVs and other motor vehicles at standing starts, and when arriving during a green phase. At the junctions mentioned, the approach is commonly a full-blue nearside lane, which encourages cyclists arriving at the junctions at green signals to move out from the kerb when continuing straight on, therefore discouraging last minute overtaking by left turning motor vehicles. Furthermore, as the Mayor points out, five-metre Advanced Stop Line areas are installed as standard at all signalised junctions on the Barclays Cycle Superhighways, allowing cyclists arriving at red signals to wait well ahead of queuing traffic.


TfL works extremely hard to make its roads as safe for cyclists as possible and recently announced details of a review of all junctions on existing Barclays Cycle Superhighways - including those mentioned by the constituent. Please see www.tfl.gov.uk/junctionreview for more information.


However, this is only part of the solution. The Mayor's answer also highlights some of the other measures that TfL is undertaking to reduce conflict between cyclists and left-turning traffic, both in terms of infrastructure and education. TfL will continue to pursue and develop this work. In addition, TfL's Cycle Safety Action Plan highlights some of the measures TfL is taking in order to improve cycle safety. Please see http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/15480.aspx for more information.


In response to the constituent's second and third question:


There are approximately 300km of segregated off-carriageway tracks and paths in London, mainly along faster main roads.


However, many locations are not suitable for cycle tracks. For example, limited available road space, together with high levels of shop frontage activity, frequently prevents segregated or off-carriageway provision. Furthermore, it is often not desirable from a safety perspective to provide off-carriageway facilities, as conflicts can occur at side roads.


From a legal perspective, the law in many other European countries gives priority to pedestrians and cyclists across side-road junctions but this is not case in the UK.


I hope this is useful but please come back to me if you have any further questions.



7th March email with clarification of Mr Tracey's views

Dear Jon


Thank you for your further enquiry about my views.


I think I should make it clear that I am not a cyclist, nor have I ridden a cycle for very many years. I travel by public transport, buses and trains, most of my time, as well as walking a good deal, although I do own a car and have many years of experience as a road user.


You have regularly asked pretty technical questions on behalf of local cyclists and I have always forwarded them to the TfL engineers for answer. You have then received their answers. I am not qualified to query in depth what they say , because the Mayor, GLA, and TfL employ them for their expertise. The only areas on which I will comment are safety and respect among road users, and to that extent I have supported the Times conducting its debate.


I believe all road users should expect high standards of safety and that operates both ways, between cyclists, pedestrians, and vehicle drivers. I am regularly asked by pedestrians to request that cyclists should always ride on the road, not on pavements where there are often, at risk, elderly, poorly sighted, or frail people, or children and mothers. At the same time, I am asked by cyclists that they should be ensured safety on the road. As you know I have regularly taken up this point, as far as I am able to, for you and your colleagues.


Can I add one more point to cyclists. I hear very often from pedestrians and others that they find cyclists extremely aggressive to them. I think the Mayor's point about avoiding conflict are very relevant in all this.


I hope this is helpful to you, both in passing on what I hear from others and giving you my own perspective.


Good wishes


Richard