As a Dutchie, it is mindblowing to see how other cities struggle with cyclists. I fully understand why it is a problem in London, but some times I am just wondering why people in London choose to queue up in their cars and have a terrible experience and getting angry, while the city could be so much better if you could take a safe bike ride. I really enjoy my 12km commute to work each day on my bike, and for most of it, segregated from cars. And I drive a regular dutch city bike. Also, when it snows, I am much quicker by bike, as all car traffic grinds to a halt.
Actually I used to wonder exactly the same thing until I visited London and tried cycling as my transport there. Then I realised that many people choose the car, because cycling in London just as annoying as driving. You need to squeeze between cars always fearing for collisions, the roads and cycle lanes are often full of cracks and potholes, and the combined bus/cycle lanes are just terrifying. Also it's slow because you need to stop constatly, and it's exhausting to accerelerate back to travel speed every 20 seconds after every f***ing traffic light or intersection.. And also the signage in London is absolutely useless, you can't find any places without constantly staring at google maps, which makes cycling even more dangerous. In my current hometown of Oulu (northern Finland) the city planners have included fast cycling routes in their planning strategies, and because of that we have an excellent separated cycling route network everywhere around the town except in the old town centre. Here cycling is an actual option for most people. Even though I'm really not an fanatic cyclist, I do all of my daily commutes by cycling around the year, even though we have at least 50cm of snow every winter. But for my next visit to London, I will not even think about cycling as an option. The city has to upgrade it's cycling infrastructure quite radically if they want more people to use bikes. It's quite a shame that traditionally most European cities try to increase cycling by making driving more difficult, which has never worked and never will. Only real way to promote cycling is to invest in cycling routes and make them faster and more convinient.
That does not matter too much. its all about creating the right incentives to take a bike. Yes, London is bigger than Amsterdam or The Hague, but they are equally compact in their centres. You can take public transport as well.
That does matter a lot, not everybody can rent a house for the family in the "compact centres", not to mention our working class friends are all located in the further end of greater London, not to mention UK is a moist raining country. How could you expect everyone, young or old, riding bicycle from one end to the other end of the city in the raining night on the damp slippery road back from merely a regular meet up with friends?
Norman Xu you do not hear me saying it's easy, and I know public transport in London is not great. but it's really not a problem of size. it's city planning. it took us 50 years to solve for Amsterdam, so a few bike lanes are not going to change everything in a year. but I disagree that everyone now queuing in London has no other alternative. many people take their cars because they want to, not because they need them (e.g service cars with tools). if you have an office job, there is usually no reason to go by car other than to avoid standing in the crowded tube. So fix that, and people will have other options. I am typing this in a train going into Amsterdam :-)
When the "Cycle Superhighways" were first introduced they were mostly existing cycle routes painted blue, so it's nice when something is actually built specially.
+chriszanf I think they are trying to promote cycling, and convince people that refuse to do it out of safety concerns by giving it this bollocks name. It also highlights the fact that it, in theory, can actually get you across the whole of central London. Most people assume (rightly so) that if they cycle they will eventually reach a point where they will be forced to undertake double-decker buses on a 4 lane roundabout or 5 point junction etc. so just dismiss cycling and buy an oyster card instead. It also boosts the careers and egos of those who implemented it. I think it's good. I cycle on it every day to work but still consider myself a 'car driver' by species. One of the biggest issues for cycling in London is actually those cyclists who don't obey traffic laws. Although there are car drivers who make mistakes obviously, the number of errors made by them is far outnumbered by the number of wanker cyclists who run red lights and expect everyone behind the wheel of a vehicle to be able to see and predict their every movement. I'm honestly surprised more people don't die every day the way they ride around. Take these traffic lights shown in the video - there are those cyclists that will (and do) completely ignore these and then at the same time complain when pedestrians step out in front of them in other circumstances. In my time cycling in London I have actually been quite impressed with the raised levels of awareness from most drivers now, especially big truck drivers who clearly have the highly unenviable task of trying to avoid the hundreds of cyclists weaving around them every rush hour. As for the comments about Denmark and Netherlands, yes I agree we can learn a lot from what they've done. But in reality, those cities have limited comparability due to their low population and traffic levels in the first place. The population of London during the day is over 10 million people, almost double the population of Denmark as a country. Amsterdam, the most populous city in NL has less than 1 million people in it. Most of the cars in London during rush hour are actually working vehicles or public transport - not passenger cars. For this reason, it will be hard to reduce traffic levels to be comparable to Dutch and Danish cities - this just isn't realistic. What they can do, is use the ideas regarding management of cycle lanes at junctions etc. that have been proven to work when implemented in those places and integrate them with new road development projects. This is exactly what they have done at the notorious Elephant and Castle '7 lane' roundabout, and it is a massive improvement. I think you have to say what they've done here should be applauded as good initial steps in the right direction. Unsurprisingly they are met by a barrage of people complaining about the name, which will be forgotten in a year and is completely irrelevant anyway. It's the British way and we won't change.
AWellTimedCupOfTea >>"But in reality, those cities have limited comparability due to their low population and traffic levels in the first place." On one level, they both have equivalent population to area space. On the level I'm talking about, its looking at how they solved conflicts of mixed mode transport at junctions, etc, which will apply anywhere irrelevant of the size, or population density of the city or town. The city is an emergent system from thousands, if not millions of considered solutions to resolving those conflicts between varying modes of transport. We have that as it is but what is different about Copenhagen and the Netherlands, is that the fundamental consideration at the root of it is in that conflict, people must win, not vehicles. Currently, the UK has been designing so that vehicles win all the time and that people are an afterthought. >>"One of the biggest issues for cycling in London is actually those cyclists who don't obey traffic laws." People choose the path of least resistance. They want convenience and so when people ignore infrastructure, you have to examine why. If you design convenience into it (after safety) then people will not actively choose to circumvent it. With these new cycleways, there have been people who have have jumped the lights, and (the one I hate) have jumped the queue, going to the front by blocking the other lane. BUT.... these are such a small number, and the consequences of them doing so are magnitudes lower than if they did the same while in vehicles >>"Most people assume (rightly so) that if they cycle they will eventually reach a point where they will be forced to undertake double-decker buses on a 4 lane roundabout or 5 point junction etc. so just dismiss cycling and buy an oyster card instead." Unfortunately, this has even been designed INTO the new infrastructure: goo.gl/maps/CStHaqXQFAv The segregated lane comes from the left, and the bus has to cross its path to get to the stop, putting cyclists in direct conflict with it. >>"In my time cycling in London I have actually been quite impressed with the raised levels of awareness from most drivers now, especially big truck drivers who clearly have the highly unenviable task of trying to avoid the hundreds of cyclists weaving around them every rush hour." Do you know how those safety features were introduced on HGVs? A mother whose daughter was killed by a left turning HGV bought shares in the company then attended their AGM, raising it as an issue. Just so you know, the FTA actively fights any safety improvements put forward that would reduce conflict with cyclists.
This is what a Cycling Superhighway looks like!!! ruclips.net/video/HJgMObLsUdE/видео.html You're going to need bigger roads - even the motorways won't be enough!!! This is bringing cycling into the 21st Century - Revolutionary Transport!!! :D :D :D Classic Top Gear Stuff - we need to bring back this sort of entertainment!!! Love the ending!!!
I used to be a real petrol-head. I got so fed up driving in London which was ridiculously frustrating. Then I decided to try cycling, and I've never looked back. All this coupled with the fact exhaust particulates kill thousands every year, I now hate the thought of combustion engines for transport, especially in cities. Sure there's a few idiots on bikes, just as there are in any transport type. The good news is that we are reaching critical mass; and the prejudice-driven anti-cyclists that rant and rave will eventually give up. Furthermore, as London becomes more saturated with bicycles, the more balanced it will become and the anti-cyclist excuses will dissipate. The "You don't pay Road Tax" brigade might even have the sense to take advantage of it instead of moaning about it... I did!
"prejudice-driven anti-cyclists" seems like you cyclists are the ones prejudice against motorists. In fact it seems like you don't care that these cycle lanes make it worse for motorists.
@@DrJams Barely anyone is a 'cyclist' or a 'motorist'. They just want to go somewhere at most times. They don't care how good their car or bicycle is good, they're just using it to commute.
Encouraging cycling will reduce pollution, keep people fitter and happier and, as you mention reduce the pressure on the buses and underground. Also for those remaining motorists there should be, with luck, fewer cars on the road to compete with so they too should get to their destinations quicker. It’s a win, win, win! Now all we need is electric buses (battery-trolleybuses), cars and vans.
Funny/sad how grateful British cyclists are for these crumbs. So far behind all your neighbours. This is the kind of infrastructure the Dutch were installing in the 1970's.
zivkovicable It’s because the vast majority of Brits love cars. Cycling in big cities in the UK is still very much a minority form of transport, partly because of a lack of political will but especially because of the strong driving culture over here. (Which is a real shame imo).
jacc88888 Germany’s driving culture is if anything stronger than in the UK. Car ownership levels in the Netherlands are around the same as the UK’s. this hasn’t stopped them building comprehensive, high quality bike infrastructure..Bike lanes reduce city congestion for car drivers too.
zivkovicable I don’t think it’s so much car ownership as work commuting culture in cities. I would dearly love to see more cycle infrastructure here in London but it’s a fact that the UK doesn’t have a cycling commuter culture like countries such as the Netherlands, Germany or Denmark. It could be a vicious circle though - bad cycle infrastructure and highly publicised deaths from city cycling accidents here in London puts a lot of unnecessary fear into people and dissuades them from wanting to cycle. Hopefully it is changing now.
Cycle super highway? Almost every road in The Netherlands has this. And It's just called a cycle road. This isn't a super highway this is just normal, right?
+Hugo von der Thüsen Yes the name is idiotic. In fact Zac has used the name to imply that only those who cycle in lycra and fast would use this, and the rest would use a 'quietway'.
Lived in japan for 4 years. What a country, pro pedestrian and pro cycle culture, drivers are completely responsible, calm and collected on the road; and everyone respects one another. Came back here to this city and had to shake my head. There's very little holding London, and Londoners, together.. And it shows in how divisive common sense subjects (making the roads safer for cyclists) like this are.
A tram system all across London would supplement the underground very well I think - you can get 300 people on a 43m Alstom (Citadis 402) Tram. This along with improved pedestrian provision would be far more space efficient and pleasant than cycling - also, the railway stations would be improved.
Here in Vancouver we have segregated bike lanes in the city centre and marked (but not segregated) bike lanes elsewhere. The latter are largely pointless, since car drivers commonly use them as an extra traffic lane.
I don't wouldn't class this as an East to West cycle route. Rather it is all within Central London. And yes the routes are very good and much safer in Central London. I have cycled from Hangar Lane Station via the A40 cutting off at White City making my way down to High street Kensington into Hyde park, Westminster, River Thames, and along the super highway ending at Stratford Westfield. I did this on a early Saturday morning at 04:00 where the route was pretty much clear and the sun was slowly rising making it a very pleasant cycling journey. If only more could be done on the West London side of the route. Then there would probably be more bikes on cycling paths and a reduction of car users. 😉
You've got to visit some german bike-friendly cities like Bielefeld or Münster... Almost everywhere bikes have their own lanes, even for turning. In Berlin there are some Plans for a "Bike-Highway", but that describes a completely seperated path for bikes with no lights or crossings so you can ride your bike without stopping every 100m.
It is decent cycleway, I’ve been to London and cycling on it was a breeze. I wouldn’t say it’s worth a name like ‘superhighway’ tho, the Dutch would be laughing hard
They don't care about cycle infrastructure most of the time, they're just *commuting*. Also they will be changing all the names just to Cycleway[number]
The problem is that cyclist often are stressed and see it as a speed race, they often go faster than the cars and seldom slow down for pedestrians that need to cross those bike lanes, I think there should be a law saying that if you want to speed race and you have so high speed that the braking distance is over 8 meter including the reaction time, then you shall be in the traffic lane with the cars.
I think the name is a little OTT, but the concept is the future for this city. Cyclists get yelled at all the time because a driver feels that a cyclist was in the way, but they were driving recklessly, therefore this will dim down the road rage, accidents and keep the roads moving smoothly. Great plan from the government (for once)
You should try ty cycel in The Netherlands, they are the best for cyceling. The best is do a part in Rotterdam and Amsterdam in the centrum of the city and a little outside
I can't help thinking that the term superhighway is rather an exaggeration. A piece of cycle infrastructure that was worthy of the term would be so much more. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad these facilities are being built, I just think the name is stupid.
+metropod Speaking from the perspective of a cyclist in New York City (where we have both segregated and non-segregated cycle lanes), sometimes we're actually unable to use the lanes because of obstruction by construction, pedestrians, or parked cars. I know it's inconvenient for cars when we take up a car lane, but we're not always doing it to just be dicks. Most of the time it's for our own safety.
***** I'm a 7th generation New Yorker (I'm mostly here for Geoff and his train videos) Now, who said anything about driving? It's my own safety, as a pedestrian, from YOU guys, that I'm worried about. All those times I've been nearly run over by a bike rider going the wrong way down a one way street, it was because of "your own safety"? Or all the times I've seen bike riders blowing through red lights like there weren't even there (and sometimes also coming close to running me over), that was for "your own safety" also? I've also never in my life seen any of you signal before a turn.
metropod Fair enough. I completely agree with you on all of those points. There's a huge problem with people cycling without knowing they have to abide by traffic laws. Personally, I abide by them to the best of my ability, but I've seen people do all that you mentioned in your comment. It's frustrating from all sides.
In the Netherlands a 1/way street is for cars, in general bikes are still allowed to go the other way. This of course might not hold true where you live but it might be a idea. just make sure where is enough space for it.
3:01 Goodness me! Are drivers in London really like that? In the promised land (America, and I'm not a driver yet), we would yield to them like ducks, but oh no, they have to be treated like jaywalkers!
OMG you guys have to cycle next to a lorry? Thats dangerous as hell cause the driver can't see the bikes next to it or just behind/in front of it....its a blindspot for them. In the Netherlands we had information campaigns about that. And our cycle infrastructure is designed to make the cyclist more visible to the lorry..... but still its a cause of deaths. Don't ever cycle that close to it!! To not protect the cyclists from that or inform them is pure madness.
Maaike R Yes lots of people have been killed in London in this way. We are decades behind the Netherlands here in London. We are a country where the car is king so very hard to change attitudes. Also it’s a vicious circle - many people are scared to cycle in London because of the intensity of the traffic and the publicity when cyclists get killed so there is less pressure from the public to demand segregated cycle lanes as cyclists are still are minority. However things are improving and more people are cycling now that they realise just what a fast and efficient form of transport it can be within a big town or city.
+Richbrick40 Lower Thames Street between Tower and Blackfriars is always jammed, whether its two lanes each way or one. I'd rather have it as one lane then less cars means less pollution and then 10,000 people wont die prematurely each year from the effects of it.
TheGregory Colin Richbrick40 Its called: "Induced Demand" If we're going to do anything about the pollution in London then we need people to stop driving private vehicles into the centre of town. To do that we need to make doing so the less convenient form of transport.
Oh for goodness sake, it's lovely that Holland has such space in which to lay mile after mile of cycle track. But quite frankly, if you're a dutchie and feel the need to come onto this video and brag about it (see comments) then please understand that LONDON unlike your entire country is NOT acquitted the luxury of space , this is due to the long history of this wonderful city' whereby we have been Building and building forever, therefore Space is at a premium, and what people who have fought for May look like just little blue lanes but really the work that goes into laying a single cycle superhighway is quite an achievement and most certainly not to be mocked.
This article has long series of photos to indicate how narrow London's streets are (not). aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/the-physical-constraints-of-londons-streets/ The space is there and the city doesn't just grow. We have to make decisions about how we use that space most wisely and efficiently. Do we all want to sit in stationary cars, or have a liveable city, for human beings to thrive?
It's a joke. I drive in London everyday, not because I want to, but because I have to. I need to get equipment to various job sites. Pedestrians have Tubes, Buses, Cabs or could walk. I have to pay £11.50 a day just to drive in certain parts of London and they're causing more congestion by taking away lanes THAT I PAY EXTORTIONATLY TO USE! I understand they want to cut polution but that is what the ultra low emission zone they're planning on bringing in will do (more expense for me to buy a newer van). It already takes me 4 hours to get in and out of London a day and I only live 30 miles away. 24 hours of my life a week without pay. Dont say "get a job closer to home" because that's not how my job works. TFL could have used the River Thames from Tower Hill to the houses of parliament to build a floating path instead of cutting a lane out but obviously they'd rather spend the money on going to war with other countries. London is an absolute joke to drive in and now it's got even worse
You may be in a vehicle because you have no other option, but a majority of drivers do have other options and choose not to take them. Instead of blaming those who have made a responsible choice, why not lay the blame at the feet of those who have made an irresponsible choice. If all of those people who drive unnecessarily got off the roads, then you would be able to get about without a problem.
I'm not blaming cyclists, I have no problem with them whatsoever. I'm blaming the poor choices of TFL shutting lanes and the likes of Boris bikes allowing anyone to cycle on our roads with not a clue of how our roads work. Instead of educating cyclists and making them take a test or such to make them safer and reduce accidents. Shutting lanes in the busiest parts of London is a ridiculous idea that will inevitably lead to businesses losing money and increased pollution when more cars are stationary for longer
I approve the downsizing in the traffic lanes. It discourages commuters from driving to work (that one car, one occupant non-sense). If enough car drivers are converted to train riders, bicyclers, carpoolers, traffic should ease up for delivery/business traffic and emergency services. There's no need for people to drive to work.
robsab20 if people were willing to sit through the horrendous traffic jams prior to the lane closures, they will sit through them now Tower Hill and Embankment are down to 1 lane. It's evident already it hasn't worked, it's made the traffic worse than ever. People are lazy.
No cars are not the problem it's cycling Nazis that are the problem. I've seen cyclists doing things that if they were driving they would be arrested for, texting for example. Cyclists seem to think that whatever surface they are on they own it and have no consideration for anyone but themselves.
wallycarrott Well I haven't seen shared cars/pedestrian zones in town centers yet where cyclists are banned. So it may be a good idea cars stick to their surface.
The only reason a Council would ban cyclists from city centres would be if they were becoming a nuisance and if that is the case you have only yourselves to blame. Besides, don't pedestrians deserve their own spaces also, I mean we have cycle lanes don't we so why not pedestrian walkways? Seems only fair.
wallycarrott You honestly don't think we would want to trade our shared cyclists/pedestrians town centers and go back to your 1960 cities with freeways going right through do you? We're Dutch but we're not that fucking crazy.
It causes mass traffic jams, the embankment was bad with two lanes, this hasn't been thought out properly. A temporary segregated lane would be better not a 24h one?
mPky1 Personal Attacks? You get offended too easy. Anyway, using a car doesn't mean someone is lazy. There is a difference between convenience and laziness. Do you have a car?
Cyclist should be forced to pay a contribution towards this special road usage then same as Road Fund Licence Fee- maybe a fixed amount that also included some Insurance Cover - its ridiculous in these litigacious time sthat they are allowed to have no cover
Do you have any stats to back that up? According to a study commissioned by Westminster council, in collisions between pedestrians & cyclists, pedestrians were at fault 60% of the time. The vast majority of deaths & injuries on pavements & crossings are caused by motorists. It's been a few years since a cyclist killed a pedestrian on the pavement or at traffic lights in London, on the other hand motorists killing pedestrians on pavements is a regular occurrence. Sometimes cars have been known to crash into a group of pedestrians killing & maiming several people at once. A cyclist has never achieved that in history.
zivkovicable I agree, a car is a far more effective pedestrian-killing machine than a bicycle. That said some cyclists definitely lack courtesy or awareness of pedestrians in London and that is annoying and doesn’t really help the cause.
@@jacc88888 Pedestrians stepping out without looking doesn't help their cause either, &. in central London at least, they are likely to be at fault for collisions with cyclists than the other way around. Of course we are all pedestrians too, & I drive. I take most care & am most aware of my surroundings when i'm on my bike. It really hurts when you fall off, let alone crash into something, so best avoided. I'm rarely engrossed in a text message when I'm cycling through the West End. For drivers & pedestrians it seems par for the course. If courtesy is the only problem you have with cyclists, that's great. The problem I have with too many motorists is that they kill & maim cyclists, pedestrians & each other on a daily basis, which is on another level entirely to a mere annoyance. So it seems silly even mentioning it under those circumstances.
Careful calling it a road tax. The entitled cyclists will tell you it's an emissions tax. But we all know the government will just change it to taxing anyone with a car once they believe enough people have low emissions cars.
@Daniel Lawson ok, so in that case motorists should pay no tax at all because everything is funded by general taxation. So no tax on fuel, no car tax, no emission tax and no tax on car insurance.
Bravo TFL! This Cycle Superhighway is a brilliant idea! (NOT!) As a avid driver, losing a lane along the Embankment just makes the journey a nightmare either going into or out of London. You've got queues building up from Tower Hill all the way down to Westminster. It's a load of BS why cyclists aren't paying any road tax what so ever to build their precious Highway when 80% of the time it won't be used all the time. It just doesn't justify why the motorists have to suffer the consequences. Cycling is dangerous even in Central London but it's a risk.
+Melvin Bartolome "blah blah... Road tax... blah blah blah." Do you read your drivel before posting? Why are you driving in central London, something only a small percentage of those travelling into it do, is a better question to ask?
+Melvin Bartolome Why should cyclists have to pay road tax? Electric vehicles don't have to pay because of their low emissions, and cyclists don't emit anything either. Driving, cycling, walking, whatever you are avid about it doesn't really matter, we need to make space for everyone who wants to use the roads, and historically cyclists have come off worst over road traffic and pedestrians. It is time for space to be made for cyclists too. It's time for change, current cycle options are often a small strip in the left lane or a bus lane with cars parked, buses stopping and other obstructions, over taking these obstructions can result in seriously close calls with other vehicles who also overtake simultaneously. I think a better question is why should cyclists not have their own space given how dangerous it can be for cyclists on the roads of London, and the answer to that is that it is an inconvenience to road users who loose road space, but if you are trying to be fair and balanced creating road space for all users, not just cars is not unreasonable, especially when you realise often cyclists are stuck behind vehicles that can't move forward when a cyclist could because they are much more space efficient. I expect this probably won't change your view, but I think it is time we all started being more considerate of each other in this city.
+Melvin Bartolome "Road tax doesn't exist. It's car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937. "Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted so, if a fee had to be paid, cyclists - who are sometimes branded as 'tax-dodgers' - would pay the same as 'tax-dodgers' such as disabled drivers, police cars, the Royal family, and band A motorists, ie £0. Most cyclists are also car-owners, too, so pay VED. Many of those who believe road tax exists, want cyclists off the roads or, at least registered, but bicycle licensing is an expensive folly." From ipayroadtax.com/
there's no such thing as road tax. there's a motorvehicle tax on your carbon emissions, which is what you're referring to. guess why bicycles don't pay motorvehicle tax? :o that's right.. bicycles don't have motors! thus no carbon emissions! roads are paid for via income tax & VAT, so cyclists do pay for the roads. unless you're trying to claim there were no roads in Britain before 1903 (when cars first became legal carriages)? in which case.. why was there the Highways Act of 1835 and 1878.. decades and decades before the invention of the car? :o oh yeah, for horses and BICYCLES (carriages). your motorvehicle tax for carbon emissions pays to combat pollution. ie: trees planted down side of carriageways = what you pay for. carriageways are paid for by ALL income tax/vat payers.
Tommy DH Look it's pretty simple. Building these cycle lanes costs money. You should pay for that. Why should motorists contribute more in taxes just to have less lanes? You cyclists think your so smart don't you. But this is the self entitlement that cyclists have. It comes down to your not making a fair contribution. Sure it's a carbon emissions tax. But we all know the government will just change it to tax motorists when they believe enough people have electric cars.
Do people forget how bloody thin our roads are in Britain? We have some of the oldest roads in the world, there's bugger all we can do about it. Stop whining cyclists, cars always take priority.
Cities are not designed for cars. That's why they average around 5mph in London & can't find parking anywhere near the centre, while bikes average at least twice that speed & more in rush hour & park pretty much anywhere.. Bikes now outnumber cars on most rush hour routes into the centre of the city. Not many drive in these days, & their numbers are on the way down.
As a Dutchie, it is mindblowing to see how other cities struggle with cyclists. I fully understand why it is a problem in London, but some times I am just wondering why people in London choose to queue up in their cars and have a terrible experience and getting angry, while the city could be so much better if you could take a safe bike ride.
I really enjoy my 12km commute to work each day on my bike, and for most of it, segregated from cars. And I drive a regular dutch city bike.
Also, when it snows, I am much quicker by bike, as all car traffic grinds to a halt.
Actually I used to wonder exactly the same thing until I visited London and tried cycling as my transport there. Then I realised that many people choose the car, because cycling in London just as annoying as driving.
You need to squeeze between cars always fearing for collisions, the roads and cycle lanes are often full of cracks and potholes, and the combined bus/cycle lanes are just terrifying. Also it's slow because you need to stop constatly, and it's exhausting to accerelerate back to travel speed every 20 seconds after every f***ing traffic light or intersection.. And also the signage in London is absolutely useless, you can't find any places without constantly staring at google maps, which makes cycling even more dangerous.
In my current hometown of Oulu (northern Finland) the city planners have included fast cycling routes in their planning strategies, and because of that we have an excellent separated cycling route network everywhere around the town except in the old town centre. Here cycling is an actual option for most people.
Even though I'm really not an fanatic cyclist, I do all of my daily commutes by cycling around the year, even though we have at least 50cm of snow every winter. But for my next visit to London, I will not even think about cycling as an option. The city has to upgrade it's cycling infrastructure quite radically if they want more people to use bikes.
It's quite a shame that traditionally most European cities try to increase cycling by making driving more difficult, which has never worked and never will. Only real way to promote cycling is to invest in cycling routes and make them faster and more convinient.
because the city in your area is small
That does not matter too much. its all about creating the right incentives to take a bike. Yes, London is bigger than Amsterdam or The Hague, but they are equally compact in their centres. You can take public transport as well.
That does matter a lot, not everybody can rent a house for the family in the "compact centres", not to mention our working class friends are all located in the further end of greater London, not to mention UK is a moist raining country. How could you expect everyone, young or old, riding bicycle from one end to the other end of the city in the raining night on the damp slippery road back from merely a regular meet up with friends?
Norman Xu you do not hear me saying it's easy, and I know public transport in London is not great. but it's really not a problem of size. it's city planning. it took us 50 years to solve for Amsterdam, so a few bike lanes are not going to change everything in a year. but I disagree that everyone now queuing in London has no other alternative. many people take their cars because they want to, not because they need them (e.g service cars with tools).
if you have an office job, there is usually no reason to go by car other than to avoid standing in the crowded tube. So fix that, and people will have other options.
I am typing this in a train going into Amsterdam :-)
When the "Cycle Superhighways" were first introduced they were mostly existing cycle routes painted blue, so it's nice when something is actually built specially.
They need to change the name so its just "East-West CycleWay". The "super" in the name is just bollocks frankly.
+chriszanf I think they are trying to promote cycling, and convince people that refuse to do it out of safety concerns by giving it this bollocks name. It also highlights the fact that it, in theory, can actually get you across the whole of central London. Most people assume (rightly so) that if they cycle they will eventually reach a point where they will be forced to undertake double-decker buses on a 4 lane roundabout or 5 point junction etc. so just dismiss cycling and buy an oyster card instead. It also boosts the careers and egos of those who implemented it. I think it's good.
I cycle on it every day to work but still consider myself a 'car driver' by species. One of the biggest issues for cycling in London is actually those cyclists who don't obey traffic laws. Although there are car drivers who make mistakes obviously, the number of errors made by them is far outnumbered by the number of wanker cyclists who run red lights and expect everyone behind the wheel of a vehicle to be able to see and predict their every movement. I'm honestly surprised more people don't die every day the way they ride around. Take these traffic lights shown in the video - there are those cyclists that will (and do) completely ignore these and then at the same time complain when pedestrians step out in front of them in other circumstances. In my time cycling in London I have actually been quite impressed with the raised levels of awareness from most drivers now, especially big truck drivers who clearly have the highly unenviable task of trying to avoid the hundreds of cyclists weaving around them every rush hour.
As for the comments about Denmark and Netherlands, yes I agree we can learn a lot from what they've done. But in reality, those cities have limited comparability due to their low population and traffic levels in the first place. The population of London during the day is over 10 million people, almost double the population of Denmark as a country. Amsterdam, the most populous city in NL has less than 1 million people in it. Most of the cars in London during rush hour are actually working vehicles or public transport - not passenger cars. For this reason, it will be hard to reduce traffic levels to be comparable to Dutch and Danish cities - this just isn't realistic. What they can do, is use the ideas regarding management of cycle lanes at junctions etc. that have been proven to work when implemented in those places and integrate them with new road development projects. This is exactly what they have done at the notorious Elephant and Castle '7 lane' roundabout, and it is a massive improvement.
I think you have to say what they've done here should be applauded as good initial steps in the right direction. Unsurprisingly they are met by a barrage of people complaining about the name, which will be forgotten in a year and is completely irrelevant anyway. It's the British way and we won't change.
AWellTimedCupOfTea
>>"But in reality, those cities have limited comparability due to their low population and traffic levels in the first place."
On one level, they both have equivalent population to area space.
On the level I'm talking about, its looking at how they solved conflicts of mixed mode transport at junctions, etc, which will apply anywhere irrelevant of the size, or population density of the city or town.
The city is an emergent system from thousands, if not millions of considered solutions to resolving those conflicts between varying modes of transport. We have that as it is but what is different about Copenhagen and the Netherlands, is that the fundamental consideration at the root of it is in that conflict, people must win, not vehicles.
Currently, the UK has been designing so that vehicles win all the time and that people are an afterthought.
>>"One of the biggest issues for cycling in London is actually those cyclists who don't obey traffic laws."
People choose the path of least resistance. They want convenience and so when people ignore infrastructure, you have to examine why. If you design convenience into it (after safety) then people will not actively choose to circumvent it.
With these new cycleways, there have been people who have have jumped the lights, and (the one I hate) have jumped the queue, going to the front by blocking the other lane.
BUT.... these are such a small number, and the consequences of them doing so are magnitudes lower than if they did the same while in vehicles
>>"Most people assume (rightly so) that if they cycle they will eventually reach a point where they will be forced to undertake double-decker buses on a 4 lane roundabout or 5 point junction etc. so just dismiss cycling and buy an oyster card instead."
Unfortunately, this has even been designed INTO the new infrastructure:
goo.gl/maps/CStHaqXQFAv
The segregated lane comes from the left, and the bus has to cross its path to get to the stop, putting cyclists in direct conflict with it.
>>"In my time cycling in London I have actually been quite impressed with the raised levels of awareness from most drivers now, especially big truck drivers who clearly have the highly unenviable task of trying to avoid the hundreds of cyclists weaving around them every rush hour."
Do you know how those safety features were introduced on HGVs? A mother whose daughter was killed by a left turning HGV bought shares in the company then attended their AGM, raising it as an issue.
Just so you know, the FTA actively fights any safety improvements put forward that would reduce conflict with cyclists.
This is what a Cycling Superhighway looks like!!!
ruclips.net/video/HJgMObLsUdE/видео.html
You're going to need bigger roads - even the motorways won't be enough!!!
This is bringing cycling into the 21st Century - Revolutionary Transport!!! :D :D :D
Classic Top Gear Stuff - we need to bring back this sort of entertainment!!!
Love the ending!!!
It’s kind of the thing Boris likes to do😂
I used to be a real petrol-head. I got so fed up driving in London which was ridiculously frustrating. Then I decided to try cycling, and I've never looked back.
All this coupled with the fact exhaust particulates kill thousands every year, I now hate the thought of combustion engines for transport, especially in cities. Sure there's a few idiots on bikes, just as there are in any transport type.
The good news is that we are reaching critical mass; and the prejudice-driven anti-cyclists that rant and rave will eventually give up. Furthermore, as London becomes more saturated with bicycles, the more balanced it will become and the anti-cyclist excuses will dissipate. The "You don't pay Road Tax" brigade might even have the sense to take advantage of it instead of moaning about it... I did!
"prejudice-driven anti-cyclists" seems like you cyclists are the ones prejudice against motorists. In fact it seems like you don't care that these cycle lanes make it worse for motorists.
They don't. I've met many a cycling nazi.
@@DrJams Barely anyone is a 'cyclist' or a 'motorist'. They just want to go somewhere at most times. They don't care how good their car or bicycle is good, they're just using it to commute.
Encouraging cycling will reduce pollution, keep people fitter and happier and, as you mention reduce the pressure on the buses and underground. Also for those remaining motorists there should be, with luck, fewer cars on the road to compete with so they too should get to their destinations quicker. It’s a win, win, win! Now all we need is electric buses (battery-trolleybuses), cars and vans.
I don't know any cyclists that are particularly happy
Ann Other I am! 😆
You guys would be amazed if you were to come to Copenhagen:)
London is like a third world city compared to yours.
Most of Europe is ahead of us in this regard.
😞
The Netherlands did it to, even older cities got them
You can be rightly proud of how Denmark has supported cycling
Cycling in denmark is over-rated
Or anywhere in the Netherlands.
Hats off to the Tories for this, never thought they'd spend this amount on cycling. Genuinely hats off.
until... brexit.
Funny/sad how grateful British cyclists are for these crumbs. So far behind all your neighbours. This is the kind of infrastructure the Dutch were installing in the 1970's.
zivkovicable It’s because the vast majority of Brits love cars. Cycling in big cities in the UK is still very much a minority form of transport, partly because of a lack of political will but especially because of the strong driving culture over here. (Which is a real shame imo).
jacc88888 Germany’s driving culture is if anything stronger than in the UK. Car ownership levels in the Netherlands are around the same as the UK’s. this hasn’t stopped them building comprehensive, high quality bike infrastructure..Bike lanes reduce city congestion for car drivers too.
zivkovicable I don’t think it’s so much car ownership as work commuting culture in cities. I would dearly love to see more cycle infrastructure here in London but it’s a fact that the UK doesn’t have a cycling commuter culture like countries such as the Netherlands, Germany or Denmark. It could be a vicious circle though - bad cycle infrastructure and highly publicised deaths from city cycling accidents here in London puts a lot of unnecessary fear into people and dissuades them from wanting to cycle. Hopefully it is changing now.
Will there be a follow up for this video? Would be rather interesting to see how the Superhighway has improved.
Well done London! A small step in the right direction.
Cycle super highway? Almost every road in The Netherlands has this. And It's just called a cycle road. This isn't a super highway this is just normal, right?
+Hugo von der Thüsen Yes the name is idiotic. In fact Zac has used the name to imply that only those who cycle in lycra and fast would use this, and the rest would use a 'quietway'.
+Hugo von der Thüsen However, check out Cycle Superhighway 1 to see where it gets ridiculous.
When your city isnt build in the 1800s to early 1900s it makes it a lot easier to plan a city for both cars and bikes :)
rkan2 Well good thing London wasn't built then?
+rkan2 mine was built in 1600???
Very informative piece. Maybe a follow up piece when the cycle superhighways are fully open?
I take this route regularly and it's amazing and has got quite a lot of cyclists
Lived in japan for 4 years. What a country, pro pedestrian and pro cycle culture, drivers are completely responsible, calm and collected on the road; and everyone respects one another. Came back here to this city and had to shake my head. There's very little holding London, and Londoners, together.. And it shows in how divisive common sense subjects (making the roads safer for cyclists) like this are.
Bloombloom I agree. Cyclist and drivers often really hate each other over here. Also the car culture is massive.
The whole traffic lights thing is a really good idea, as long as they are not obstructed!
What's going on at 1:24 The driveline of the bike is on the wrong side, as is the traffic.
This is a really good idea for London
A tram system all across London would supplement the underground very well I think - you can get 300 people on a 43m Alstom (Citadis 402) Tram.
This along with improved pedestrian provision would be far more space efficient and pleasant than cycling - also, the railway stations would be improved.
Here in Vancouver we have segregated bike lanes in the city centre and marked (but not segregated) bike lanes elsewhere. The latter are largely pointless, since car drivers commonly use them as an extra traffic lane.
I don't wouldn't class this as an East to West cycle route. Rather it is all within Central London.
And yes the routes are very good and much safer in Central London.
I have cycled from Hangar Lane Station via the A40 cutting off at White City making my way down to High street Kensington into Hyde park, Westminster, River Thames, and along the super highway ending at Stratford Westfield.
I did this on a early Saturday morning at 04:00 where the route was pretty much clear and the sun was slowly rising making it a very pleasant cycling journey.
If only more could be done on the West London side of the route.
Then there would probably be more bikes on cycling paths and a reduction of car users. 😉
You've got to visit some german bike-friendly cities like Bielefeld or Münster... Almost everywhere bikes have their own lanes, even for turning. In Berlin there are some Plans for a "Bike-Highway", but that describes a completely seperated path for bikes with no lights or crossings so you can ride your bike without stopping every 100m.
Why is there a mirror section starting at 1:25?
Thats not this East-west cycle superhighway 3
What helmet is he wearing, I like the look of it.
+HowAboutWeTryAgain not contoured over the ears though...
***** £200!...what it do that a £40-£50 helmet don't do?
***** fair-points...though at what it really got to do (protect) it probably no better than others that cost far less i'm guessin
***** agree...BS/ISO standards ensure that, but as you say it open to debate and in UK a matter of choice as to if one feels it warrants it or not.
The position of the rear derailleur and cassette shifts throughout the video.
I wonder if there is an update coming? Did Birdcage Walk improve?
good job
"My way or the cycle way" 😎
Weren't they supposed to be blue?
Is it cycles only or can pedestrians make use of the path?
+ednuttah The pavement is for pedestrians, the Cycle paths are for bikes. And the roads, cars ... :-)
***** Shame would've been a wicked short cut. Oh well.
It is decent cycleway, I’ve been to London and cycling on it was a breeze. I wouldn’t say it’s worth a name like ‘superhighway’ tho, the Dutch would be laughing hard
They don't care about cycle infrastructure most of the time, they're just *commuting*. Also they will be changing all the names just to Cycleway[number]
The problem is that cyclist often are stressed and see it as a speed race, they often go faster than the cars and seldom slow down for pedestrians that need to cross those bike lanes, I think there should be a law saying that if you want to speed race and you have so high speed that the braking distance is over 8 meter including the reaction time, then you shall be in the traffic lane with the cars.
Or you should build decent cycle infrastructure, becouse that fixes the problem and doesn't push the problem aside and making it even bigger
Time London built a proper tram network!
@Kent cyclist I know, I've travelled the whole network! But what I'm saying is we need a bigger tram network like all other European capital cites.
Bloody job-half-done if you ask me.
@TGSUPERCHARGED Denmark the Netherlands & Germany do a much better job than that. In fact most European cities do.
I think the name is a little OTT, but the concept is the future for this city. Cyclists get yelled at all the time because a driver feels that a cyclist was in the way, but they were driving recklessly, therefore this will dim down the road rage, accidents and keep the roads moving smoothly. Great plan from the government (for once)
1:07 | That lorry is perfectly safe to go down the left of.
Until it wants to turn left and doesn't see you down the side of it.
It's a left-hand-drive lorry, & has the speeds on the back in km/h.
I always thought cyclists ignored traffic lights anyway,
You should try ty cycel in The Netherlands, they are the best for cyceling.
The best is do a part in Rotterdam and Amsterdam in the centrum of the city and a little outside
But there was so much room on the sidewalks
Sorry dude, all I could think about through the whole video is on a TCR, that stem is upside down...
It is designed to flipped up or down depending on what is more comfortable for the individual rider
I can't help thinking that the term superhighway is rather an exaggeration. A piece of cycle infrastructure that was worthy of the term would be so much more.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad these facilities are being built, I just think the name is stupid.
mossbanksy Yes i agree. Being segregated often by just a white line is hardly much to boast about. Guess it’s an improvement though.
My only real problem is I have seen moments where cyclists are provided with these lanes and then refuse to use them.
+metropod Speaking from the perspective of a cyclist in New York City (where we have both segregated and non-segregated cycle lanes), sometimes we're actually unable to use the lanes because of obstruction by construction, pedestrians, or parked cars. I know it's inconvenient for cars when we take up a car lane, but we're not always doing it to just be dicks. Most of the time it's for our own safety.
***** I'm a 7th generation New Yorker (I'm mostly here for Geoff and his train videos) Now, who said anything about driving? It's my own safety, as a pedestrian, from YOU guys, that I'm worried about. All those times I've been nearly run over by a bike rider going the wrong way down a one way street, it was because of "your own safety"? Or all the times I've seen bike riders blowing through red lights like there weren't even there (and sometimes also coming close to running me over), that was for "your own safety" also? I've also never in my life seen any of you signal before a turn.
+metropod Greetings from Hamburg/Germany, you wrote whats my life as a pedestrian over here...
metropod Fair enough. I completely agree with you on all of those points. There's a huge problem with people cycling without knowing they have to abide by traffic laws. Personally, I abide by them to the best of my ability, but I've seen people do all that you mentioned in your comment. It's frustrating from all sides.
In the Netherlands a 1/way street is for cars, in general bikes are still allowed to go the other way.
This of course might not hold true where you live but it might be a idea. just make sure where is enough space for it.
3:01 Goodness me! Are drivers in London really like that? In the promised land (America, and I'm not a driver yet), we would yield to them like ducks, but oh no, they have to be treated like jaywalkers!
Um, you should be mindful of other road users ALL the time, not just when you can't see signals.
OMG you guys have to cycle next to a lorry? Thats dangerous as hell cause the driver can't see the bikes next to it or just behind/in front of it....its a blindspot for them. In the Netherlands we had information campaigns about that. And our cycle infrastructure is designed to make the cyclist more visible to the lorry..... but still its a cause of deaths. Don't ever cycle that close to it!! To not protect the cyclists from that or inform them is pure madness.
Maaike R Yes lots of people have been killed in London in this way. We are decades behind the Netherlands here in London. We are a country where the car is king so very hard to change attitudes. Also it’s a vicious circle - many people are scared to cycle in London because of the intensity of the traffic and the publicity when cyclists get killed so there is less pressure from the public to demand segregated cycle lanes as cyclists are still are minority. However things are improving and more people are cycling now that they realise just what a fast and efficient form of transport it can be within a big town or city.
@@jacc88888 Train? Plane? Bus?
@@tescotrain ?
@@jacc88888 When you said the car is king in the UK
So.
Great cutting down road size crazy
+Richbrick40 Lower Thames Street between Tower and Blackfriars is always jammed, whether its two lanes each way or one. I'd rather have it as one lane then less cars means less pollution and then 10,000 people wont die prematurely each year from the effects of it.
+chriszanf that's true but it's only getting busier
TheGregory Colin
Richbrick40 Its called: "Induced Demand"
If we're going to do anything about the pollution in London then we need people to stop driving private vehicles into the centre of town. To do that we need to make doing so the less convenient form of transport.
+chriszanf yes remove the cars but vans are needed and will be for a while yet
Oh for goodness sake, it's lovely that Holland has such space in which to lay mile after mile of cycle track. But quite frankly, if you're a dutchie and feel the need to come onto this video and brag about it (see comments) then please understand that LONDON unlike your entire country is NOT acquitted the luxury of space , this is due to the long history of this wonderful city' whereby we have been Building and building forever, therefore Space is at a premium, and what people who have fought for May look like just little blue lanes but really the work that goes into laying a single cycle superhighway is quite an achievement and most certainly not to be mocked.
Yes London was built for cars. Around 45 AD I believe.
This article has long series of photos to indicate how narrow London's streets are (not).
aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/the-physical-constraints-of-londons-streets/
The space is there and the city doesn't just grow. We have to make decisions about how we use that space most wisely and efficiently. Do we all want to sit in stationary cars, or have a liveable city, for human beings to thrive?
Jesus. We Dutch don't call that streets. We call it 'space to build a couple of airports'
drie wiel wind it in mate.
nickUK88
No space for cyclists. What a crap. Joke of the year. You should win a prize.
It's a joke. I drive in London everyday, not because I want to, but because I have to. I need to get equipment to various job sites. Pedestrians have Tubes, Buses, Cabs or could walk. I have to pay £11.50 a day just to drive in certain parts of London and they're causing more congestion by taking away lanes THAT I PAY EXTORTIONATLY TO USE! I understand they want to cut polution but that is what the ultra low emission zone they're planning on bringing in will do (more expense for me to buy a newer van). It already takes me 4 hours to get in and out of London a day and I only live 30 miles away. 24 hours of my life a week without pay. Dont say "get a job closer to home" because that's not how my job works. TFL could have used the River Thames from Tower Hill to the houses of parliament to build a floating path instead of cutting a lane out but obviously they'd rather spend the money on going to war with other countries. London is an absolute joke to drive in and now it's got even worse
You may be in a vehicle because you have no other option, but a majority of drivers do have other options and choose not to take them. Instead of blaming those who have made a responsible choice, why not lay the blame at the feet of those who have made an irresponsible choice. If all of those people who drive unnecessarily got off the roads, then you would be able to get about without a problem.
I'm not blaming cyclists, I have no problem with them whatsoever. I'm blaming the poor choices of TFL shutting lanes and the likes of Boris bikes allowing anyone to cycle on our roads with not a clue of how our roads work. Instead of educating cyclists and making them take a test or such to make them safer and reduce accidents. Shutting lanes in the busiest parts of London is a ridiculous idea that will inevitably lead to businesses losing money and increased pollution when more cars are stationary for longer
I approve the downsizing in the traffic lanes. It discourages commuters from driving to work (that one car, one occupant non-sense). If enough car drivers are converted to train riders, bicyclers, carpoolers, traffic should ease up for delivery/business traffic and emergency services. There's no need for people to drive to work.
robsab20 if people were willing to sit through the horrendous traffic jams prior to the lane closures, they will sit through them now Tower Hill and Embankment are down to 1 lane. It's evident already it hasn't worked, it's made the traffic worse than ever. People are lazy.
Or the decent cycling infrastructure doesn't yet link to many other places and needs to be expanded. People don't sit in traffic jams for fun.
Bicycles have been a part of London traffic for decades so why is it now, all of a sudden, a big problem?
It isn't. Cars are.
No cars are not the problem it's cycling Nazis that are the problem. I've seen cyclists doing things that if they were driving they would be arrested for, texting for example. Cyclists seem to think that whatever surface they are on they own it and have no consideration for anyone but themselves.
wallycarrott
Well I haven't seen shared cars/pedestrian zones in town centers yet where cyclists are banned. So it may be a good idea cars stick to their surface.
The only reason a Council would ban cyclists from city centres would be if they were becoming a nuisance and if that is the case you have only yourselves to blame.
Besides, don't pedestrians deserve their own spaces also, I mean we have cycle lanes don't we so why not pedestrian walkways? Seems only fair.
wallycarrott
You honestly don't think we would want to trade our shared cyclists/pedestrians town centers and go back to your 1960 cities with freeways going right through do you? We're Dutch but we're not that fucking crazy.
It causes mass traffic jams, the embankment was bad with two lanes, this hasn't been thought out properly. A temporary segregated lane would be better not a 24h one?
1:36 Let's take pressure off the roads by closing a lane. Look how we solved one problem by making another.
The other options are slower. Cycling is slower. Work harder, get a car.
+DrJams how about try cycling to work. It's a better form of exercise than running and in some parts of London, it is actually faster than a car
Let's just keep widening the roads instead... Oh wait, we can't always do that!
04smallmj Do you use the roads to drive a car on?
mPky1 Personal Attacks? You get offended too easy. Anyway, using a car doesn't mean someone is lazy. There is a difference between convenience and laziness.
Do you have a car?
Cycle superhighway? Haha.
They will be changing the name of all cycle lanes that are named.
Cyclist should be forced to pay a contribution towards this special road usage then same as Road Fund Licence Fee- maybe a fixed amount that also included some Insurance Cover - its ridiculous in these litigacious time sthat they are allowed to have no cover
These cycle lanes have now become a nightmare for pedestrians
Do you have any stats to back that up? According to a study commissioned by Westminster council, in collisions between pedestrians & cyclists, pedestrians were at fault 60% of the time. The vast majority of deaths & injuries on pavements & crossings are caused by motorists. It's been a few years since a cyclist killed a pedestrian on the pavement or at traffic lights in London, on the other hand motorists killing pedestrians on pavements is a regular occurrence. Sometimes cars have been known to crash into a group of pedestrians killing & maiming several people at once. A cyclist has never achieved that in history.
zivkovicable I agree, a car is a far more effective pedestrian-killing machine than a bicycle. That said some cyclists definitely lack courtesy or awareness of pedestrians in London and that is annoying and doesn’t really help the cause.
@@jacc88888 Pedestrians stepping out without looking doesn't help their cause either, &. in central London at least, they are likely to be at fault for collisions with cyclists than the other way around. Of course we are all pedestrians too, & I drive. I take most care & am most aware of my surroundings when i'm on my bike. It really hurts when you fall off, let alone crash into something, so best avoided. I'm rarely engrossed in a text message when I'm cycling through the West End. For drivers & pedestrians it seems par for the course.
If courtesy is the only problem you have with cyclists, that's great. The problem I have with too many motorists is that they kill & maim cyclists, pedestrians & each other on a daily basis, which is on another level entirely to a mere annoyance. So it seems silly even mentioning it under those circumstances.
No they haven't. You cross the cycle lane like a road.
@@tescotrain Cyclists dont obey the same rules as drivers and are uninsured
Please tell Andy it sounds cretinous to begin every sentence with "So".
So what?
So-so.
Ruined London totally. I don't drive a car, but the traffic has increased every where there's a cycle lane.
There are a thousand genuine reasons to drive a car over a bike that you have ignored. Typical cycle nazi
@@annother3350 Typical driver nazi
Whats about winter´? You use it in Summer,fine. But who cycle when its cold and bad weather? So millions of tax money for a road motly used in summer?
*****
Sure? I was in London in Winter 1994 and it was cold and snowy. I would not have wanted to cycle in this weather...
+TheGregory Colin cycling in London seems bit more 'seasonal'
I have this thing called a coat. :)
toptarantula me too! ...and hat, gloves, etc haha
Let's get rid of pavements too then. Nobody walks in winter!
Take pressure off busses? You mean by getting in there way. Get rid of bike lanes and just put in trams and bus lanes.
So who pays for these highways? Road tax? Off cars? People on bikes already think they own the gaff ffs how sad
Careful calling it a road tax. The entitled cyclists will tell you it's an emissions tax. But we all know the government will just change it to taxing anyone with a car once they believe enough people have low emissions cars.
@Daniel Lawson ok, so in that case motorists should pay no tax at all because everything is funded by general taxation. So no tax on fuel, no car tax, no emission tax and no tax on car insurance.
Bravo TFL! This Cycle Superhighway is a brilliant idea! (NOT!) As a avid driver, losing a lane along the Embankment just makes the journey a nightmare either going into or out of London. You've got queues building up from Tower Hill all the way down to Westminster. It's a load of BS why cyclists aren't paying any road tax what so ever to build their precious Highway when 80% of the time it won't be used all the time. It just doesn't justify why the motorists have to suffer the consequences. Cycling is dangerous even in Central London but it's a risk.
+Melvin Bartolome "blah blah... Road tax... blah blah blah." Do you read your drivel before posting? Why are you driving in central London, something only a small percentage of those travelling into it do, is a better question to ask?
+Melvin Bartolome Why should cyclists have to pay road tax? Electric vehicles don't have to pay because of their low emissions, and cyclists don't emit anything either.
Driving, cycling, walking, whatever you are avid about it doesn't really matter, we need to make space for everyone who wants to use the roads, and historically cyclists have come off worst over road traffic and pedestrians. It is time for space to be made for cyclists too.
It's time for change, current cycle options are often a small strip in the left lane or a bus lane with cars parked, buses stopping and other obstructions, over taking these obstructions can result in seriously close calls with other vehicles who also overtake simultaneously.
I think a better question is why should cyclists not have their own space given how dangerous it can be for cyclists on the roads of London, and the answer to that is that it is an inconvenience to road users who loose road space, but if you are trying to be fair and balanced creating road space for all users, not just cars is not unreasonable, especially when you realise often cyclists are stuck behind vehicles that can't move forward when a cyclist could because they are much more space efficient.
I expect this probably won't change your view, but I think it is time we all started being more considerate of each other in this city.
+Melvin Bartolome
"Road tax doesn't exist. It's car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937.
"Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted so, if a fee had to be paid, cyclists - who are sometimes branded as 'tax-dodgers' - would pay the same as 'tax-dodgers' such as disabled drivers, police cars, the Royal family, and band A motorists, ie £0. Most cyclists are also car-owners, too, so pay VED. Many of those who believe road tax exists, want cyclists off the roads or, at least registered, but bicycle licensing is an expensive folly."
From ipayroadtax.com/
Why do you think that everyone driving in London is a good idea?
mi z did you just say a small percentage drive, congrats you just earned your self the status of ‘complete and utter idiot.’
Road Tax dodgers.
Troll
there's no such thing as road tax. there's a motorvehicle tax on your carbon emissions, which is what you're referring to.
guess why bicycles don't pay motorvehicle tax? :o that's right.. bicycles don't have motors! thus no carbon emissions!
roads are paid for via income tax & VAT, so cyclists do pay for the roads. unless you're trying to claim there were no roads in Britain before 1903 (when cars first became legal carriages)? in which case.. why was there the Highways Act of 1835 and 1878.. decades and decades before the invention of the car? :o oh yeah, for horses and BICYCLES (carriages).
your motorvehicle tax for carbon emissions pays to combat pollution. ie: trees planted down side of carriageways = what you pay for.
carriageways are paid for by ALL income tax/vat payers.
Tommy DH
Look it's pretty simple. Building these cycle lanes costs money. You should pay for that. Why should motorists contribute more in taxes just to have less lanes? You cyclists think your so smart don't you. But this is the self entitlement that cyclists have. It comes down to your not making a fair contribution.
Sure it's a carbon emissions tax. But we all know the government will just change it to tax motorists when they believe enough people have electric cars.
Do people forget how bloody thin our roads are in Britain? We have some of the oldest roads in the world, there's bugger all we can do about it. Stop whining cyclists, cars always take priority.
Cities are not designed for cars. That's why they average around 5mph in London & can't find parking anywhere near the centre, while bikes average at least twice that speed & more in rush hour & park pretty much anywhere.. Bikes now outnumber cars on most rush hour routes into the centre of the city. Not many drive in these days, & their numbers are on the way down.
So the roads are so small so we should only put vehicles on them which are the most space inefficiënt things there is
London wasn't designed for the car.