Why you shouldn’t blame ’empty cycle lanes’ for congestion; Mathieu van der Poel ramps up post-injury training with 205km ride climbing 4,000m…averaging 29kph; Jakobsen: No Cav rivalry; Cycling opinions; Ian Stannard’s famous win + more on the live blog

47 thoughts on “Why you shouldn’t blame ’empty cycle lanes’ for congestion; Mathieu van der Poel ramps up post-injury training with 205km ride climbing 4,000m…averaging 29kph; Jakobsen: No Cav rivalry; Cycling opinions; Ian Stannard’s famous win + more on the live blog”

1. The interesting thing about
   The interesting thing about that bridge data is how usage has dropped from 50k to 20k combined over 20 years.

   And what happened in 2011?

   And cycling didn’t seem to have increased, so what was the driver for the reduction in vehicles?

   More questions than answers!

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • The numbers of journeys made

     The numbers of journeys made by bicycle in London have continued to increase, particularly on the routes in and out of the city. The cycle provision has improved considerably. I used to have to commute into London for previous jobs. Several people I worked with would drive in and I could never understand why. Cycling or motorcycling or using public transport always made more sense.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Re 2011 it may have coincided

     Re 2011 it may have coincided with the construction work on Blackfriars station (seem to remember various closures of pavements etc over the Bridge at the time).  Though the station was completed in 2012 or 2013 I think so that maybe doesn’t explain everything.

     Log In or Register to post comments

2. Unfortunately that graph
   Unfortunately that graph showing a reduction in cars from 50k a day to 10k neatly illustrates the fact that – if there is congestion there – it has to be caused by a change in infrastructure, i.e. the cycle lane

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • We need to reduce car usage,

     We need to reduce car usage, so that’s a good thing – unless you can show me data to show that all those cars are now using other bridges.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I’m addressing the headline
       I’m addressing the headline and tweet, which says “you shouldn’t blame congestion on cycle lanes”, along with a photo of nose to tail cars next to a cycle lane, despite the fact car use has fallen by 80%.

       You might think it’s a good idea to remove those cars from the road, which would true of they have been replaced by a more benign form of transport like cycling. However, it would appear from the data that there is simply less overall traveling which would typically be associated witha decline in economic activity.

       The key piece of data missing is the average travel speed of cars and taxis across the bridge (as a time series), as this would allow us to easily see the impact of the cycle lane.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Steve K wrote:

       …. all those cars are now using other bridges.

       — Steve K

       That might be the problem, it’s not getting its beauty sleep…..

       Log In or Register to post comments

       •  
         changed name again has it?

          

         changed name again has it?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Sixth iteration minimum,

           Sixth iteration minimum, though very like Boris Johnson’s children the exact number is open to debate.

       • Captain Badger wrote:

         …. all those cars are now using other bridges.

         — Captain Badger

         That might be the problem, it’s not getting its beauty sleep…..

         — Steve K

         

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Captain Badger wrote:

         …. all those cars are now using other bridges.

         — Captain Badger

         That might be the problem, it’s not getting its beauty sleep…..

         — Steve K

         You old goat!

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • It was a good comment, but I

           It was a good comment, but I’m not sure it was the GOAT.

         • mdavidford wrote:

           It was a good comment, but I’m not sure it was the GOAT.

           — mdavidford

           Quit butting in to my caper, kid.

         • chrisonatrike wrote:

           …..

           You old goat!

           — chrisonatrike

           Just wait until you see my brother……

   • Rubbish. The vast majority of
     Rubbish. The vast majority of the fall in motor vehicle traffic had already happened before the cycle lane was introduced in 2016.

     Most of the fall in motor vehicle traffic seems to have coincided with the introduction of the congestion charge in 2003.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Not if you look at the

     Not if you look at the overall trend, over time apart from 2007 there is declining use of the bridge by cars at the same time there is a gradual increase, except for a 5 year pause in cycling across the bridge. 

     The overall trend suggests that these are long term effects and not ones caused by a sudden change in infrastructure. 

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Hardly. The number of cars
     Hardly. The number of cars and taxis reduced from 50k to 20k before the installation of the cycle lane, then dropped modestly at that point. The vehicle stats also do not include goods vehicles (which have gone up in number) and buses. Finally, we don’t have any data on how congested the bridge is, so we don’t know if congestion is relatively worse anyway.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • That would be on the
     That would be on the assumption that there was no congestion previously. What isn’t measured here is the level of congestion each year.
     Regardless i believe the arguement is along the lines of space taken up by someone travelling by bike or walking compared to the space taken up by a car on the same journey is less, therefore for the same number of journeys there would be less congestion.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Are you Nigel/Socarti?

     Are you Nigel/Socarti?

     Judging by the totally unfunny account name you are.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Damn, I should have gone with
       Damn, I should have gone with “Chris Vroom Vroom” instead. Your name is inspirational by the way.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Lance Strongarm wrote:

         Damn, I should have gone with “Chris Vroom Vroom” instead. Your name is inspirational by the way.

         — Lance Strongarm

         Probably could have stopped after five words there.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Seriously you should get some

         Seriously you should get some medical help.

         Mental health is more widely understood now.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • sean1 wrote:

           Seriously you should get some medical help.

           Mental health is more widely understood now.

           — sean1

           Thanks for your concern doctor, but I can assure you I’m of sound mind.

           As mentioned, I’m sorry you don’t like my handle, but I think yours is inspirational – I can see the difficulty and anguish you must have had when you registered and were faced with the fact that the name “Sean” was already taken. To have the mental fortitude and intelligence to add a “1” to the end of it is astonishing.

         • Desperate stuff.

           Desperate stuff.

           Ask yourself what is the mental condition of someone who would spend a large proportion of their free time trolling and trying to provoke and antagonise people in what is a very niche online forum.

         • sean1 wrote:

           Desperate stuff.

           Ask yourself what is the mental condition of someone who would spend a large proportion of their free time trolling and trying to provoke and antagonise people in what is a very niche online forum.

           — sean1

           I think it’s rather sad. He is obviously so lonely (Nigel famously does not ride in groups, only alone) that the attention, even if it is negative,  must be affirming in some way. 

         • Niche???

           Niche???

         • .

           .

           Said the pot to the kettle.

           .

           Grow up, kiddo.

           .

         • .

           .

         • sean1 wrote:

           Desperate stuff.

           — sean1

           Sadly the case. He refused to take your first response seriously.

           It’s all part of his game.

           Then he tries to goad you with an insult, showing his desperation.

           You have a very valid point. Virtually all of us will want to think (or assert) that we are perfectly fine – “I’m fine, it’s all them other bar stewards” is the way a friend of mine would joke about his own mental health problems. While it’s good to question assumptions and statements of fact, sadly there is a more serious problem with this individual.

     • He is indeed. Just for any

       He is indeed. Just for any who are still unaware, Lance Strongarm is the sixth (at least) iteration of the poster formerly known as Garage at Large. He was clearly suspended a short while back, does he think changing his name without actually opening a new account will allow him to get away with more? What’s that we’ve had so far then, Nigel Garage, Nigel Garrage, TT Danger, Youareallcyberbullies, Garage at Large and now Lance Strongarm, any others? I remember somebody theorised that he changes his name because some users are employing software that can block out specific commenters but he can skirt round that by changing his name. That would mean he is like a badly behaved toddler desperately waving the nastier portions of his anatomy at the company or soiling the carpet in order to get attention, it doesn’t matter if the attention is vilification and contempt as long as he gets some sort of recognition of his paltry little existence; it seems pretty believable that this is what he’s up to.
        

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rendel Harris wrote:

         He is indeed. Just for any who are still unaware, Lance Strongarm is the sixth (at least) iteration of the poster formerly known as Garage at Large. He was clearly suspended a short while back, does he think changing his name without actually opening a new account will allow him to get away with more? What’s that we’ve had so far then, Nigel Garage, Nigel Garrage, TT Danger, Youareallcyberbullies, Garage at Large and now Lance Strongarm, any others? I remember somebody theorised that he changes his name because some users are employing software that can block out specific commenters but he can skirt round that by changing his name. That would mean he is like a badly behaved toddler desperately waving the nastier portions of his anatomy at the company or soiling the carpet in order to get attention, it doesn’t matter if the attention is vilification and contempt as long as he gets some sort of recognition of his paltry little existence; it seems pretty believable that this is what he’s up to.
          

         — Rendel Harris

         Ah ha! The idiot otherwise knows as Nick ArseLoophole Freeman!

         Welcome back to the forum I thought it’d been a bit too sensible for a few days.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • The posting style of Nigel

         The posting style of Nigel/Lance show strong indications of Narsissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).

         https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-narcissistic-rage-5183744

         Nigel should really seek some help and advice.  Raging in an online forum is not going to improve his state of mind.

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • I just presumed he was a cunt
           I just presumed he was a cunt.

       • Fantastic. Took a break due

         Fantastic. Took a break due to all the trolls (about 4 at the same time). First time I have checked in to look and I have picked a great day.

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Lance Strongarm wrote:

     Unfortunately that graph showing a reduction in cars from 50k a day to 10k neatly illustrates the fact that – if there is congestion there – it has to be caused by a change in infrastructure, i.e. the cycle lane

     — Lance Strongarm

      

     But this assumes the constraint is on the bridge.

     A car lane of the width used on blackfriars bridge generally moves 2k vehicles per hour.

     So the bridges current theoretically should move 4k cars (and more buses in the separate bus lanes) an hour. Given the length of london rush hour, it isn’t even getting close to this at 10k vehicles/day, so it is highly unlikely it is restricting traffic.

     Extra lanes only reduce congestion if they are at the point with worst capacity Otherwise they just provide a location for more queuing (and can actually reduce capacity by allowing more vehicles to reach the constraint faster).

      

     It also ignores that almost the entire drop in usage predates the cycle lane…

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • We’re not disagreeing – the
       We’re not disagreeing – the facts are that 50,000 cars and taxis used to cross the bridge and there are now fewer than 10,000. Therefore, if there is congestion today, something new must be causing it.

       What we don’t know is – prior to the cycle lane implementation – what the average traffic speed was vs its speed post-implementation.

       I note your comment about bridges accommodating X number of cars and agree that the bridge itself isn’t the limiting factor, but thinking about the bridge in isolation that doesn’t take into account other road infrastructure such as traffic lights etc which would further limit the traffic. Combining the cycle lane with this new infrastructure and the diminution of traffic could explain the issue.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Lance Strongarm wrote:

         We’re not disagreeing – the facts are that 50,000 cars and taxis used to cross the bridge and there are now fewer than 10,000. Therefore, if there is congestion today, something new must be causing it. What we don’t know is – prior to the cycle lane implementation – what the average traffic speed was vs its speed post-implementation.

         — Lance Strongarm

         What we do know is the cycle lane was not installed until 2016, and the number of car journeys fell from 50k to 20k between 2000 and 2016.

         So what happened?

         a) construction of a cycle lane took 16 years, 8 of which when Boris Johsnon was mayor. was he really so inefficient at running London that it took the whole of is mayoral administration to cpomplete cycle lane?

         b) the bulk of the reduction had nothing to do with the cycle lane

         c) cycle lanes are so effective, their influence ripples back through time, removing motor vehicle traffic before they are even commenced?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • You’ve hit it with (c) – but

           You’ve hit it with (c) – but the reasons are important: cycle lanes (to be pedantic – cycle paths here) are like railway lines, but in reverse.  So instead of plans for them raising the value of surrounding land the threat of – or even a suspicion of – cycle paths in the future is enough to cause thousands of motorists to re-route their journeys. Or maybe even stop driving.

           Hence why I’ve now joined Sustrans.  Their potential future Notional Cycle Network is so widespread that this will surely cut current car journeys by at least half, in anticipation.

3. The amount of motor traffic

   RE Blackfriars bridge cycle lane

   The amount of motor traffic was reducing across the bridge to a (rough) plateau up to 2013-15. There was a further motor traffic drop corresponding with a greater rise of cycle traffic – it looks to me that after the installation of the bike lane more people were enabled to use the bridge. As a route across the river for people the lane has had significant success.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • It has indeed – at peak hours

     It has indeed – at peak hours 70% of people crossing the bridge are cyclists, even though they use only 20% of the space, an efficiency level of which surely even the most trollish accountant would approve.

     Log In or Register to post comments

4. Stannards Omloop win never

   Stannards Omloop win never gets old, absolute class and possibly one of the last times the wolfpack messed up so bad. I bet good ol’ Pat Lefevere had quite a bit to say on the matter on the team bus on the way home. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. Anyone know why gazprom

   Anyone know why gazprom rusvelo has not been told to xxxx right off?  

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Yes, I think they shouldn’t

     Yes, I think they shouldn’t be allowed to compete.

     Log In or Register to post comments

6. I worked just over the north

   I worked just over the north side of Blackfriars Bridge back in the early 2000s. I think I cycled across South to North 2 or 3 times before deciding it was just too dangerous. I think it was just after a fatality on the bridge. Instead I took a route over Southwark Bridge and back along Canon Street. Slightly longer but far safer and much less traffic than the Blackfriars bridge route back then. By the looks of it, the new cycle route would have been a life saver (literally).  

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. Quote:

   Sir Chris Hoy will be at the opening of the 17,500ft facility

   Is that 3.3 miles long, wide, or tall?

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. I hope everything works out

   I hope everything works out again for Evans, there’s been some issues since their rescue by Sports Direct, and when they also took over the original TriUK shop in Yeovil, it was basically ruined in my opinion. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Well they are closing down

     Well they are closing down the Preston store, there’s a sign in the window stating 20% closing down discount.

     Log In or Register to post comments