Update April 2018-Crossrail and Cycle carriage policy

[coppercapped]

The future is worse for cyclist.

At the moment I can get trains to Liverpool Street.
At the moment I can get trains to Paddington.

I can link the two either by cycling, or, outside rush hours, I can get a ride on H&C line.

I then continue my journey by bike.

Not in the future.

Despite planning to have dedicated areas for cycles Crossrail will no longer let me make such journeys.

Integrated transport going backwards

Tunnels being a problem? – I think not just blinkered thinking. (Think bikes on the district, Circle, East London and Heathrow Connect lines)

Why?

With a bit of hand washing in the first sentence this is what Crossrail think....




It makes me cross.


Why are bikes seem as a problem but not oversized luggage or the politically correct wheelchairs? - (I have no problem with wheelchair carriage but buggies and oversized luggage are not life changing items anymore than a bicycle.)

Who is doing this detailed development?
How does one make them see how stupid and inconsistent they are?


Source
http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com/assets/library/document/e/original/e02cyclecarriageandcycleparking.pdf

And people's exaggerated sense of entitlement makes me cross.

I do not wish my shins to get battered by a bicycle on a crowded platform or lift at Tottenham Court Road. My "rights" trump yours.

Get real.

 

[6Gman]

The case for cyclists' rights would be stronger if a significant minority didn't behave with a total, and often dangerous, disregard for others.

 

[theageofthetra]

Am I not correct, but in the Netherlands you have to buy, yes BUY, a ticket for a nonfolding bike? If that were the case in the UK, TOCs would be much more willing to provide the space.

Not sure but almost no one takes one on a train other than tourists.

 

[Via Bank]

I would not be able to see a problem with this, IF there was a safe, protected and direct cycle route along the Crossrail route to allow people with bicycles to continue their journeys through central London.

Unfortunately the only section of route for which this is really true is Whitechapel to Stratford, and even that chucks you out into traffic at Whitechapel Market.

I am concerned that this (eminently sensible) policy, married with a lack of safe infrastructure for cycling on the surface, will make punters more likely to make their connections to and from the stations by taxi, by Uber, and by private car. These are exactly the kinds of vehicles we DO NOT want more of in London.

 

[Via Bank]

The case for cyclists' rights would be stronger if a significant minority didn't behave with a total, and often dangerous, disregard for others.

*sigh* here we go again… :roll:

 

[theageofthetra]

And people's exaggerated sense of entitlement makes me cross.

I do not wish my shins to get battered by a bicycle on a crowded platform or lift at Tottenham Court Road. My "rights" trump yours.

Get real.

Taking a decent sports bike for a weekend trip is one thing but why anyone would choose to take one worth thousands on a busy London commuter train, inconveniencing others and risking having it nicked is unfathomable to me. As I said leave a worthless clunker either end (lack of secure bike parking places is another issue though & one I do have sympathy with cyclists over)

If your travelling into central London then surely an annual Borisbike membership makes sense (I have several mates who do this and leave the clunker at their local station for the 'home' leg)

 

[SPADTrap]

Did you just call a wheelchair 'politically correct?'

I think your cheese has slid off your cracker or you're a thoroughly nasty individual with no place here.

 

[matt_world2004]

Imho , I see no reason why cycles cannot be brought on the train between heathrow and Hayes peak time , the HCs are never ever full and it would solve the problem of cycles not being allowed to be brought through the central tunnel at heathrow

I think by the time crossrail has opened there should be cycle paths on some of the zone 1 route at least.

 

[Mag_seven]

I thought the whole idea of cycling through central London was to avoid the need to use public transport? And wasn't there a challenge on here recently involving various methods of transport in London in which the cyclist won?

 

[theking]

I'm glad no bikes they take up so much space not sure where the dedicated area for bikes on a 345 is because there isn't any on the current ones ive seen.

If cycling is so important to you buy a fold up bike.

 

[theageofthetra]

Under tfl bylaws puschairs are not allowed on sections of the rail network where unfolded cycles are not allowed.

Quite correct. You should see the size of pram that the Japanese use on public transport- those ridiculous jogging pram contraptions should be banned from all peak trains.

 

[PeterC]

And people's exaggerated sense of entitlement makes me cross.

I do not wish my shins to get battered by a bicycle on a crowded platform or lift at Tottenham Court Road. My "rights" trump yours.

Get real.

No, cyclists "rights" trump anybody elses. Just see how footways are narrowed to less than a baby buggy width to provide for cycle lanes and how buses now set passengers down into live cycle lanes (as outside Blackhorse Road) rather than onto the footway.

 

[al78]

I thought the whole idea of cycling through central London was to avoid the need to use public transport? And wasn't there a challenge on here recently involving various methods of transport in London in which the cyclist won?

It is to avoid the need to use the tube. Cycling from home into London is only really practical if you live within about 10 miles of your workplace.

With rare exceptions I use a folding bike if I am making a journey via or too London. I've never bashed, or even come close to bashing anyone's shins (oh how some people love to exaggerate issues just to voice an irrational prejudice :roll. I do occasionally get people nearly walking into me because their smartphone shrinks the visible universe down to about half a meter from their body.

 

[al78]

No, cyclists "rights" trump anybody elses. Just see how footways are narrowed to less than a baby buggy width to provide for cycle lanes and how buses now set passengers down into live cycle lanes (as outside Blackhorse Road) rather than onto the footway.

Now you are just showing your ignorance. No cycle lanes on pavements are for the exclusive use of cyclists. Pedestrians have the right to use all the pavement whether or not there is a cycle lane on it (aka shared use), and have absolute priority, so there is no narrowing of the footway. If buses are dropping passengers off right next to a cycle lane then that is probably because whoever was responsible for planning it was an ignorant idiot and it was a totally unsuitable place to put a cycle lane. Those in local authority haven't a clue about cycling since they have likely never ridden a bike since childhood, so they just come up with any old nonsense to tick a box, then wonder why cyclists don't use the cycle farce-ilities.

We don't need cycle lanes anyway in the majority of cases, we have things called roads which are excellent to use for getting around, better suited and likely less dangerous all round.

 

[Via Bank]

I think by the time crossrail has opened there should be cycle paths on some of the zone 1 route at least.

In fact, the Mayor has cancelled the proposed extension to the East-West Cycle Superhighway (billed as Crossrail for bikes) over the A40 to Acton. It wasn’t an amazing proposal since it would’ve been difficult to join and leave, but this does mean that any extension will now open at least four years (possibly more) after Crossrail does. It is also likely that it will be an unprotected and indirect route on back streets, because the local councils (presumably pandering to the private motorist vote) are absolutely opposed to any protected facilities for cycling.

 

[matt_world2004]

In fact, the Mayor has cancelled the proposed extension to the East-West Cycle Superhighway (billed as Crossrail for bikes) over the A40 to Acton. It wasn’t an amazing proposal since it would’ve been difficult to join and leave, but this does mean that any extension will now open at least four years (possibly more) after Crossrail does. It is also likely that it will be an unprotected and indirect route on back streets, because the local councils (presumably pandering to the private motorist vote) are absolutely opposed to any protected facilities for cycling.

I dont see how it would be difficult for a cyclist to cycle from paddington station to Lancaster gate, down hyde park to Marble Arch and down the newly pedestrianised oxford street to tottenham court road. That seems a pretty simple cycle route for a nervous cyclist to tackle,

 

[Via Bank]

We don't need cycle lanes anyway in the majority of cases, we have things called roads which are excellent to use for getting around, better suited and likely less dangerous all round.

I will believe that to be true when motorists demonstrate they are capable of passing vulnerable road users with care, obeying the speed limit, not cutting across the path of cyclists and pedestrians, not invading the pavement to park their machines etc.

Until then, we MUST have high quality, comprehensive, and protected infrastructure for cycling. Otherwise people on bikes will feel the need to invade pedestrians’ space for their own safety (which introduces its own, although statistically lesser, dangers); or take their bikes on public transport (not possible on Crossrail.) Or they’ll just drive, which is the opposite of what we want.

 

[Wolfie]

If that is the case why has there been no issue on London Overground trains between Whitechapel and Surrey Quays? It is underground, has the same risk of impeding passenger escape and the stations on this section are often very narrow.

There are restrictions on LO, albeit only at peak times... "Non-folding bicycles cannot be carried on any London Overground train between 07:30-09:30 and 16:00-19:00, Monday to Friday (except public holidays)."

https://lcc.org.uk/articles/london-overground-imposes-blanket-ban-on-peak-time-cycle-carriage

 

[gallafent]

No cycle lanes on pavements are for the exclusive use of cyclists.

This is technically true (by virtue of the fact that pedestrians seem generally permitted to be pretty much anywhere, to use roads which don't have a footway (of course), except for when the “no pedestrians” sign is present, or implied by other context, e.g. motorway signs) but it's certainly not a good idea to encourage pedestrians to walk in cycleways, since it renders them essentially completely pointless. We may not have jaywalking laws in the UK, but we do have a measure of common sense required, and once it becomes the norm to walk in cycleways, … the cyclists are back out on the road and the infrastructure work was pointless, since the cycleway is essentially unusable …

At the link https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs , search forward for “segregated”, and you'll find the sign which indicates a “segregated” path for cycles and (on the other side of the white line) pedestrians. On such paths it's certainly extremely bad form, somewhere between impolite and dangerous, though not illegal, for a pedestrian to be on the cycle side. They're allowed to There's another “shared” sign, oddly not present on that page, which indicates a shared and unsegregated path in which the whole area is available to both cyclists and pedestrians (no separating line) and common sense and courtesy have to prevail.

Rule 62 at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 states “Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath.”

— and there's the asymmetry! Cyclists /must/ keep to the cycle side, but pedestrians may stray with impunity.

Rule 13 at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35 states “Some cycle tracks run alongside footpaths or pavements, using a segregating feature to separate cyclists from people on foot. Segregated routes may also incorporate short lengths of tactile paving to help visually impaired people stay on the correct side. On the pedestrian side this will comprise a series of flat-topped bars running across the direction of travel (ladder pattern). On the cyclist side the same bars are orientated in the direction of travel (tramline pattern). Not all routes which are shared with cyclists are segregated. Take extra care where this is so (see Rule 62).”

Clearly none of this explicitly states that it is not legal for pedestrians to walk on the “cyclist side” but tacitly indicates that it is important for both to stay on the “correct side”. Clearly a cyclist on the “wrong side” is breaking the law, but a pedestrian on the “wrong side” probably isn't, from my reading so far. It's just stupid, annoying, and dangerous, and renders the cycle path worse than useless.

In the end, that's why most experienced cyclists simply avoid such paths — they're too frustrating (and frequently dangerous) to use, compared to using the main carriageway.

More discussion at http://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaign-article/new-guidance-on-shared-use-routes — and a detailed overview at http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

No idea what I'm supposed to do regarding the linking / quotation rules here: if I were to copy and paste swathes from the above links then I'd be infringing their copyright … but to fail to provide the links would be to reduce greatly the amount of information I'm trying to get across. There's always the wayback machine, once the original sites disappear, and so I'll ensure they're archived there for future reference in case the originals disappear.

 

[AndyW33]

Not true the main restriction is carry on luggage, you can take as much luggage as you want provided your prepared to pay extra baggage allowance and these go in the hold, something trains don't have anymore. Some passengers who will be using these trains will be families from international area and will often have upto four or five large suitcases as well as the maximum permitted luggage one can take on board, that equates to lots of space. As an aside I saw a picture posted on a well known social media site that showed luggage stowed against a door of a HST that had no room spare and you could just make out that it was a door. So people will often bring even the kitchen sink onto public transport.

There are size limits as well as weight limits for hold baggage. To quote British Airways

A checked bag can be up to 90 x 75 x 43cm (35.5 x 29.5 x 16in), including any bits that stick out, like the handle, pockets and wheels.

As BA are responsible for over half the flights from Heathrow and London City Airports their passengers are obviously a major part of the traffic flow to these airports.
http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/baggage-essentials/checked-baggage-allowances

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Am I not correct, but in the Netherlands you have to buy, yes BUY, a ticket for a nonfolding bike? If that were the case in the UK, TOCs would be much more willing to provide the space.

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to pay a reasonable amount to take my bike on trains. It's nice for me that it's free but I've never expected that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to pay a reasonable amount to take my bike on trains. It's nice for me that it's free but I've never expected that.

I wouldn't mind paying either, but would want something for that e.g. enforcement of the cycle space not being blocked with luggage and tip up seats.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And what do you have now? restrictions on when you can take your cycle onto tube trains? So its going to be no different really is it?

Of course you could always use your cycle for its intended purpose and ride between those two stations

I'm sure that's exactly what most cyclists do, but there are reasons why you might not want to/be able to cycle.

• The most common reason why I (living in zone 4) take my cycle on London metro services is that I'm connecting to a long distance train, going away for a week, and have my bike AND rucksack, so I either can't cycle at all, or can't cycle very far. A variant may be travelling with a partner who has a suitcase.
• Sometimes I take it on a train because I need it at the other end of the journey, but the journey is too far to cycle all the way - if I'm going right across London.
• I've also taken my bike on the train after cycling into central London, and discovering for my return journey that it's pouring with rain, hard enough that cycling back would be extremely unpleasant.
• And just occasionally I've taken it on a train because it's developed a puncture or broken in some way en-route (unlike when driving, there's no cycling-AA you can call out).

If I'm connecting to a long-distance train, and wasn't able to take my bike on the train for the 10 miles or so into central London plus 10 miles back, the almost certain result would be that I'd drive the whole round-trip of 500 or so miles instead of taking the train, and I'm assuming the disadvantages to wider society of my doing that are obvious.

 

[Via Bank]

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to pay a reasonable amount to take my bike on trains. It's nice for me that it's free but I've never expected that.

Likewise. It does seem a bit weird that in the UK I can take something so huge on a train and not have to pay a penny extra.

The difference in the Netherlands is that they have cycle hire (OV-fiets) available virtually everywhere, and infrastructure for cycling that is, at worst, adequate. So for utility journeys it’s easier to park your bike at the station, hop on the train, and hire a bike for the last few miles on the other end. The convenience of the OV-fiets system and the generous slice of road space allocated to cycling makes it the obvious choice for these kinds of journeys.

There is no reason why we couldn’t have both in the UK - it simply requires the political will to pay for it, and make the (potentially unpopular) decision to reallocate road and parking space from motor cars to cycles. We can do it. Look at the Embankment cycle track in rush hour, or Blackfriars Bridge; if you give people good infrastructure, they will make more journeys by bicycle.

If you treat cyclists as nuisances and practitioners of an extreme sport, chances are they’ll fulfil that stereotype.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you treat cyclists as nuisances and practitioners of an extreme sport, chances are they’ll fulfil that stereotype.

Quite. The attitudes to cycling in London vs. not London are educational there.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Quite. The attitudes to cycling in London vs. not London are educational there.

You may find that attitudes change depending on where people live, cyclists are detested where I am as we live on the route of the London-Surrey classic cycle ride amongst other events.

 

[radamfi]

You may find that attitudes change depending on where people live, cyclists are detested where I am as we live on the route of the London-Surrey classic cycle ride amongst other events.

There's a difference between cycling as a sport and cycling as a means of transport. In Dutch there are different words for the two meanings.

 

[Via Bank]

You may find that attitudes change depending on where people live, cyclists are detested where I am as we live on the route of the London-Surrey classic cycle ride amongst other events.

Quite - and here is your problem.

In the UK we have advertised and promoted cycling as an extreme sport, through the achievements of people like Chris Froome, Sir Chris Hoy, Bradley Wiggins, etc.

We have done very little to promote and normalise it as a legitimate means of transport for short distances. 'Infrastructure' typically consists of a few 'shared space' signs and some signs saying "cyclists dismount" when there's reports of conflict (there are mysteriously no signs telling motorists to turn off their engines, get out of their cars, and push their cars across zebra crossings.) A large number of our designated cycle tracks (there are more than you'd think) are simply used as car parks. 'Safety' consists of being told 'wear a helmet and hi-vis,' which will do a fat lot of good for you if you're cut up by a drunk white van man who's busy playing Candy Crush as he goes round a roundabout at 43mph.

When I tell people my preferred means of transport to work is a bicycle, they usually comment on how dangerous it sounds (it isn't any more dangerous than walking.) Or, they ask me if I stop at red lights (I do.)

Statistics show that 80% of motorists ignore 20mph speed limits. Speeding drivers and maim kill considerably more people every year than cyclists jumping red lights.

And yet, if I lied and told my colleagues I drove into work, I wouldn't be asked if I obeyed the speed limit.

Why do you think that might be?

 

[cjp]

I have had something of a disclaiming email from Crossrail saying the report I initially quoted was prepare in 2008 (and has not been reviewed) and referred me to TfL as it was based on their policy.
I will pursue this next week.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I dont see how it would be difficult for a cyclist to cycle from paddington station to Lancaster gate, down hyde park to Marble Arch and down the newly pedestrianised oxford street to tottenham court road. That seems a pretty simple cycle route for a nervous cyclist to tackle,

If it's pedestrianised, you can't cycle on it... that's what pedestrianised means. AIUI there has not yet been a decision on whether bikes will be allowed to use Oxford Street.