> cycle safety it's clearly better to have
> segregated lanes on main roads than winding routes
> through often poorly surfaced backstreets where
> the majority of drivers don't observe the 20MPH
Dog Kennel Hill and Camberwell New Road do not have segregated cycle lanes. The alternatives I mentioned of Camberwell Grove and Calais street, in my humble opinion, make more sense for cyclists because they are less congested, have fewer traffic lights, and much less vehicular traffic. It's nothing to do with cyclists not having the right to be on Camberwell new road, and all to do with the fact that it would make a lot of sense for everyone, including them. They would breath less polluted air and be exposed to less traffic. Just like with the advice of staying back from large vehicles, I speak from direct personal experience, because these are the routes I prefer(ed) (before the bridge on the grove was closed) when riding my motorcycle, for this very reason. It doesn't mean I don't think I have the right to ride on the main road, it means I find it more convenient not to in light of the alternatives.
Have you ever driven or ridden along Calais street? I ride there often and, let me tell you, regardless of the speed limits, going above 20 mph is hard: the road is narrow and twisty. I admit I never see cars speeding there; on the main roads yes, but not there.
Again you reveal your attitude that
> cyclists don't have the same rights as motorised
> traffic to be on the road (before you say I'm
> putting words in your mouth again, this from you
> in the past: "A city the size of London is not and
> cannot ever be cycle-friendly like Cambridge or
> Amsterdam. Road space is a very scarce resource.
> It should not be allocated to a minority of
> users"). I wish you'd just admit this.
Of course I admit it. If a majority of bus users is inconvenienced for the sake of a minority of cycle lane users who only use it at rush hour, according to my experience), that's not right.
> I said to you what feels like many moons ago that
> obviously action against heavy vehicle traffic
> would have to be taken, including bans at certain
> times, encouraging nighttime deliveries,
> offloading heavy loads onto smaller, greener
> vehicles outside London, greater use of the river
On this we seem to agree! But closing down lanes and roads without doing any of the above simply worsens congestion and pollution, for the reasons mentioned previously.
>There are solutions, none of them perfect,
> none of them complete solutions, but it's no good
> just throwing your hands up and saying "Oh this is
> always going to happen, you won't discourage them"
> (which is not putting words in your mouth, that's
> an exact paraphrase of what you said above).
I never said nothing should be done. My bullet points in the previous post show exactly what I think should be done (which is not nothing).
> Focus needs to be on all car use in all of London,
> not just in the CCZ - the person who commutes by
> car from Wimbledon to Streatham causes just as
> much pollution as someone commuting from Peckham
> to Westminster.
Yes. Having a decent public transport system that doesn't cost a kidney would help. In my case, it was the Southern Fail/London Bridge fiasco that prompted me to use my motorcycle to commute to work.