please empty your brain below

So it's likely to be a full-time 2m wide lane, segregated from the other roadspace by a raised divider?
As much as I like cycling and cyclists, do they really need all that much space, all the time?
By cramming everyone else into the reduced space that's left, I envisage this is going to create much narrower gaps between the lanes for motorcyclists to be able to filter, and in doing so will [to my view, unfairly] raise the level of danger for them.
I'd say these new proposals make things worse for pedestrians - much worse in some areas. The proposals appear to have been designed without any consideration to pedestrians at all.

It allows cyclists to come onto the footpaths, it reduces the width of footpaths, and it removes some pedestrian crossings.

It also cuts-off several bus-stops from the footpath, by running the cycle-lane round the back of the bus stop. So pedestrians have to cross the cycle-lane to get to the bus stop.

Although I am in favour of improving the safety of cyclists by providing cycle lanes in the road, this should not be at the expense of pedestrians' safety.
I live in Stratford and I have voted against this proposal totally in the consultation.

Mainly because Cyclists should not be allowed on pedestrian footways under any circumstances.

Plus I don't like more street clutter.

Also it seems to restrict motorists even more when it is them that are fleeced for the cost of the roads. Cyclists pay nothing and are getting all the access.
Agent Z: It's weird to get used to as a tourist, but on streets like this http://goo.gl/maps/t92Bl the outer 1m of each footpath is reserved for directional cycle traffic. If you're waiting to cross the road, you stand out of this lane - or be mowed over. It works very well. Notice little things, like the subsidiary traffic signal for cyclists and the fact (if you pan around) the lane is kept totally clear of street furniture. Also notice how little paintwork or signage is used. Just a little difference in the tarmac used.
Agent Z: The road network is maintained out of general taxation, so it is quite wrong to say that motorists are being "fleeced for the cost of the roads". We are all - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists - paying for them.
Some of the pavements being swallowed up by CS2 are mega-wide - we pedestrians won't miss two metres.

The pavement near the Bow Roundabout became shared access between cyclists and pedestrians during the Olympics, and caused no problems (mostly because very few cyclists bothered using it).

Having two lanes of traffic instead of three may slow down vehicles at busy times, but you can't describe this as "cramming".

Sure there'll be noticeably worse bits after all these changes go in, especially along the Stratford gyratory, but if we should shout loud enough during the consultation we should be able to minimise those. Hopefully.
Lets hope that the cyclist use the lanes when they get them. Often I have seen roads with a good cycle path shared or alongside the pavement yet many cyclists still stay in the road (A316 and A4 in West London).
@ John, or worse, I frequently see cyclists on the pavement locally (South Woodford, a residential area) and they refuse to go on the adjacent cycle lane if asked, often being quite abusive. I cycled in London for many years so I do understand the problems. I hope those in the Bow area will use the facilities provided for them.
Hmmm: given that I'm the one that used the word "cramming" I guess the last comment is at me.
Sorry, but I do see "cramming"
Just take the caption on the drawing that says 'Central Reservation Widened'
What the heck is that about? I can't see any possible way it has any positive purpose as regards the cycle lane... but it's more than obvious how it squeezes down the space for everyone else in the remaining lanes.
'Central Reservation Widened' is along a three lane section of road that's being changed to two lanes and a cycle lane. Cuts the total number of lanes, but doesn't make them individually narrower.
Hmmm... it's not just my eyes!
My first reaction when I looked at the illustrative example* of a segregated lane, was that the merest touch between a cyclist's front wheel and a vertical raised divider (no matter what the height) would probably mean an instant spill.
Worse still, the result of glancing a raised kerb would probably be for the unfortunate rider to be tipped over the kerb and into the the traffic lane to their right.
Then I looked at the >other< illustration - the one on the Cyclists in the City site - and it's got a bevelled edge.
I gotta tell ya... if it was an actual 'road planner' who created the first drawing, I'd be seriously worried about the type of people being hired by TfL :(

*The example illustrated on the London Cycling Campaign site
The illustrative example doesn't match any part of Stratford High Street - there are no rail bridges here. Looks like an artist run wild.
I know it's an 'illustrative example.'

But it's representative enough for TfL and those two cycling organisations to say 'a segregated cycle lane looks like >this<'

Nobody who knows anything about cycling should be showing (and effectively endorsing) a design so utterly poor as that.
Cyclists pay as much for road access as any other zero emission vehicle, or pedestrian for that matter.

Cycle paths are sometimes eschewed simply because they are full of broken glass, leaves, and other unsavoury matter - and at prersent also snow: it is a vicious circle because if people did use them the detritus wouldn't have a chance to build up.

I don't see the raised divider as any more hazardous than any other kerb.

How you get pedestrians not to wander into cycle lanes I don't know, but it's hardly the cyclist's fault if they do so! The main problem with the bus stop layput is likely to be people alighting from buses not expecting to find a cycle lane there: I've seen a few collisions between alighting passengers and cyclists undertaking the buses even at normal stops.
Hmmm. final comment for today. honest.
@ timbo re: 'hazardous'
If a cyclist catches a kerb on their left, they'll probably land on a pavement.
If they're lucky, they might fall on something soft, like a pedestrian.
If a cyclist catches a raised divider on their right, they're likely to fall across the divider, into the road.
If they're unlucky, they could fall under something very bloody hard.

Example: faster cyclist moves to overtake a slower one. Slower one veers to right without warning. Faster cyclist clips kerb.
Bang.
Cyclists should not be on pavements meant for pedestrians. Can see some broken legs here and a few compensation claims.
the problem with trying to claim damages from a cyclist is that they don't have number plates so can't be identified unless detained at the incident, and it's quite easy for them to "escape". as a cyclist I was injured more than once because of pedestrians stepping in front of me with no warning, and now I've had a few frights from cyclists who think they have the right to be on the pavement.
Agent Z: CS3 uses the pavement on Royal Mint Street / Cable Street. Go and have a look at it there and you'll see that cyclists and pedestrians can coexist.
martin | 23.01.13 - 9:34 a.m
Cyclists using the pavement?

Ridiculous!










TridentScan | Privacy Policy