Millions secured for cycling improvements in Waltham Forest

Waltham Forest Council secures £30 million cycling investment bid

Proposed design for Markhouse Road in Walthamstow

Design for Dutch-style Whipps Cross roundabout

A gyratory design near Walthamstow high street

First published in News
Last updated
East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter - Waltham Forest

Walthamstow could become a ‘mini-Holland’ after £30million was secured to improve facilities for cyclists.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson has announced that Waltham Forest is one of three boroughs in London to be chosen for the cash.

Detailed plans on the new cycle network have yet to be announced, but major changes will be centred on Walthamstow, it has been confirmed.

A cycle ‘superhighway’ will be created in Lea Bridge Road and some roads will be made access only for drivers.

Whipps Cross roundabout will be transformed into a Dutch-style roundabout, with segregated cycle lanes.

A seperate initiative announced today by Mr Johnson will also see  the introduction of a 'quietway' route in Waltham Forest, enabling cyclists to access central London through back streets.

Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign (WFCC) were heavily involved in the bid, put together by the council.

Member Simon Munk says the new measures will boost the confidence of cyclists.

He said: "We are hugely excited and proud of Waltham Forest winning the bid and to see what happens next.

"The whole raft of new measures will make cyclists feel confident about cycling in the borough and will lead to a fitter, healthier borough population as cycling will become safer and a convenient way to travel."

Cllr Clyde Loakes deputy leader and cabinet member for environment, said: "It will make a significant difference to the quality of life of our residents and others who cycle in Waltham Forest."

The works are scheduled to start in the summer.

The other boroughs chosen for funding were Enfield and Kingston.

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:54pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Leytonstonia says...

And what about Leytonstone High Road? A major route into central London and easily wide enough to be adapted to have a segregated cycle lane?
And what about Leytonstone High Road? A major route into central London and easily wide enough to be adapted to have a segregated cycle lane? Leytonstonia
  • Score: 1

4:23pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Thunderbird4 says...

Walthamstow could become a ‘mini-Holland’.

Coffee shops and legal brothels - at last the council is doing something right. LOL
Walthamstow could become a ‘mini-Holland’. Coffee shops and legal brothels - at last the council is doing something right. LOL Thunderbird4
  • Score: 6

6:42pm Mon 10 Mar 14

livedheretoolong says...

Great News!

Looking forward to seeing the cycle lanes reinstated around the Bakers Arms junction. The present changes are nearly finished just in time to dig up all those widened pavements and put the cycle lanes back in.

Has it all been a waste of money? No problem when you've just been awarded £30M!
Great News! Looking forward to seeing the cycle lanes reinstated around the Bakers Arms junction. The present changes are nearly finished just in time to dig up all those widened pavements and put the cycle lanes back in. Has it all been a waste of money? No problem when you've just been awarded £30M! livedheretoolong
  • Score: 3

7:06pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Helen, Walthamstow says...

As far as I can see, these so-called designs bear no relationship whatsoever to what already exists in Markhouse Road, at Whipps Cross roundabout or near Walthamstow High Street.

Are they planning to knock down all the existing structures?
As far as I can see, these so-called designs bear no relationship whatsoever to what already exists in Markhouse Road, at Whipps Cross roundabout or near Walthamstow High Street. Are they planning to knock down all the existing structures? Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 8

9:34pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Villagecranberry says...

More hold ups then? The Lanes have been in place for years but are hardly noticeable as the are generally covered by parked cars forcing cyclists into the road, without any enforcement. Like mentioned above they will probably be digging up the newly laid paving until the gas water and electric companies do the same.
More hold ups then? The Lanes have been in place for years but are hardly noticeable as the are generally covered by parked cars forcing cyclists into the road, without any enforcement. Like mentioned above they will probably be digging up the newly laid paving until the gas water and electric companies do the same. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 1

6:46am Tue 11 Mar 14

tjm01 says...

We already have cycle lanes in Lea Bridge Rd, which some cyclist choose not to use, 30 million is a huge sum of money which will only be invested in some areas of the borough notably Walthamstow,would this money not be better spent educating cyclists on the correct procedure for using our roads and possibly making them accountable
We already have cycle lanes in Lea Bridge Rd, which some cyclist choose not to use, 30 million is a huge sum of money which will only be invested in some areas of the borough notably Walthamstow,would this money not be better spent educating cyclists on the correct procedure for using our roads and possibly making them accountable tjm01
  • Score: 1

7:02am Tue 11 Mar 14

stickmanny says...

No it wouldn't. Have you every cycled down Lea Bridge Road? If you have you must be insane.
No it wouldn't. Have you every cycled down Lea Bridge Road? If you have you must be insane. stickmanny
  • Score: 1

7:49am Tue 11 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

Cyclists choose not to use substandard and dangerously designed lanes. This is the first time the borough has committed to improving things for all types of cyclists - not just fit, confident MAMILs (Middle Aged Men In Lycra).

What amazes me about the anti-cycling comments people tend to post whenever a story like this goes up is there doesn't seem to be any awareness of the necessity for change.

So, critics, with spiralling congestion, pollution fines set to be levied against London, pollution also affecting hundreds of thousands in this city (asthma rates, early deaths due to breathing related disease etc), rising obesity, climate change etc. what is your answer? Just carry on with 80 percent of outer London car journeys less than 2km? Or emulate European cities that have found simple solutions.

As to the money, London still spends only a tiny percentage of its roads budget on stuff for cyclists. Well over 95 percent on it goes on stuff for drivers.
Cyclists choose not to use substandard and dangerously designed lanes. This is the first time the borough has committed to improving things for all types of cyclists - not just fit, confident MAMILs (Middle Aged Men In Lycra). What amazes me about the anti-cycling comments people tend to post whenever a story like this goes up is there doesn't seem to be any awareness of the necessity for change. So, critics, with spiralling congestion, pollution fines set to be levied against London, pollution also affecting hundreds of thousands in this city (asthma rates, early deaths due to breathing related disease etc), rising obesity, climate change etc. what is your answer? Just carry on with 80 percent of outer London car journeys less than 2km? Or emulate European cities that have found simple solutions. As to the money, London still spends only a tiny percentage of its roads budget on stuff for cyclists. Well over 95 percent on it goes on stuff for drivers. PsiMonk
  • Score: 7

10:06am Tue 11 Mar 14

tjm01 says...

stickmanny wrote:
No it wouldn't. Have you every cycled down Lea Bridge Road? If you have you must be insane.
Yes I have cycled along Lea Bridge Road and no I am not insane, the point I am trying to make is that spending 30 million on improving cycle lanes will not stop the idiots who run red lights, cycle on pavements, fail to stop at pedestrian crossings, insist on moving along the inside of buses, lorrys, cars at traffic lights or in slow moving traffic and who in general give cyclist a bad name, I accept that motorists have their part to play, the difference is that motorists have a better survial rate when involved in accidents, surely a programme that addresses the idiotic actions of the few is an option which should be part of this project
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: No it wouldn't. Have you every cycled down Lea Bridge Road? If you have you must be insane.[/p][/quote]Yes I have cycled along Lea Bridge Road and no I am not insane, the point I am trying to make is that spending 30 million on improving cycle lanes will not stop the idiots who run red lights, cycle on pavements, fail to stop at pedestrian crossings, insist on moving along the inside of buses, lorrys, cars at traffic lights or in slow moving traffic and who in general give cyclist a bad name, I accept that motorists have their part to play, the difference is that motorists have a better survial rate when involved in accidents, surely a programme that addresses the idiotic actions of the few is an option which should be part of this project tjm01
  • Score: 0

11:04am Tue 11 Mar 14

SillyCnut says...

tjm01 wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
No it wouldn't. Have you every cycled down Lea Bridge Road? If you have you must be insane.
Yes I have cycled along Lea Bridge Road and no I am not insane, the point I am trying to make is that spending 30 million on improving cycle lanes will not stop the idiots who run red lights, cycle on pavements, fail to stop at pedestrian crossings, insist on moving along the inside of buses, lorrys, cars at traffic lights or in slow moving traffic and who in general give cyclist a bad name, I accept that motorists have their part to play, the difference is that motorists have a better survial rate when involved in accidents, surely a programme that addresses the idiotic actions of the few is an option which should be part of this project
surely those people will take themselves out of the gene pool?
[quote][p][bold]tjm01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: No it wouldn't. Have you every cycled down Lea Bridge Road? If you have you must be insane.[/p][/quote]Yes I have cycled along Lea Bridge Road and no I am not insane, the point I am trying to make is that spending 30 million on improving cycle lanes will not stop the idiots who run red lights, cycle on pavements, fail to stop at pedestrian crossings, insist on moving along the inside of buses, lorrys, cars at traffic lights or in slow moving traffic and who in general give cyclist a bad name, I accept that motorists have their part to play, the difference is that motorists have a better survial rate when involved in accidents, surely a programme that addresses the idiotic actions of the few is an option which should be part of this project[/p][/quote]surely those people will take themselves out of the gene pool? SillyCnut
  • Score: -4

11:43am Tue 11 Mar 14

Karlee says...

An improved Lea Bridge road with better links to the canal would give us a cyclist version of Crossrail and be very useful. Mind you, a cycle lane which doesn't have to compete with street furniture and bus stops would be a good start.

The Whipps Cross idea looks impressive - I hope it includes levelling the road at the bust stand which is easy to clip.

Is there not to be any form of consultation from the council before work begins?
An improved Lea Bridge road with better links to the canal would give us a cyclist version of Crossrail and be very useful. Mind you, a cycle lane which doesn't have to compete with street furniture and bus stops would be a good start. The Whipps Cross idea looks impressive - I hope it includes levelling the road at the bust stand which is easy to clip. Is there not to be any form of consultation from the council before work begins? Karlee
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Helen, Walthamstow says...

Karlee wrote:
An improved Lea Bridge road with better links to the canal would give us a cyclist version of Crossrail and be very useful. Mind you, a cycle lane which doesn't have to compete with street furniture and bus stops would be a good start.

The Whipps Cross idea looks impressive - I hope it includes levelling the road at the bust stand which is easy to clip.

Is there not to be any form of consultation from the council before work begins?
Oh great! So it's easy to clip bus stops? Just look where you are going!

Or perhaps you would prefer the authorities to remove bus stops. Or you might like the bus stops to be on "islands" between the cycle lanes and the main road as proposed for, if I remember correctly, in Mile End Road.

As always, pedestrians come at the bottom of the heap.
[quote][p][bold]Karlee[/bold] wrote: An improved Lea Bridge road with better links to the canal would give us a cyclist version of Crossrail and be very useful. Mind you, a cycle lane which doesn't have to compete with street furniture and bus stops would be a good start. The Whipps Cross idea looks impressive - I hope it includes levelling the road at the bust stand which is easy to clip. Is there not to be any form of consultation from the council before work begins?[/p][/quote]Oh great! So it's easy to clip bus stops? Just look where you are going! Or perhaps you would prefer the authorities to remove bus stops. Or you might like the bus stops to be on "islands" between the cycle lanes and the main road as proposed for, if I remember correctly, in Mile End Road. As always, pedestrians come at the bottom of the heap. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: -6

12:55pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Karlee says...

The road needs to be level at the bus-stand at Whipps- it's raised.

The cycle lane should go behind (instead of in front of) the bus-stop on Lea Bridge Rd by the marshes- this makes it safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

I have no idea where you got the "authorities should ban all bus-stops" drivel.
The road needs to be level at the bus-stand at Whipps- it's raised. The cycle lane should go behind (instead of in front of) the bus-stop on Lea Bridge Rd by the marshes- this makes it safer for pedestrians and cyclists. I have no idea where you got the "authorities should ban all bus-stops" drivel. Karlee
  • Score: 2

4:59pm Tue 11 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

tjm01 wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
No it wouldn't. Have you every cycled down Lea Bridge Road? If you have you must be insane.
Yes I have cycled along Lea Bridge Road and no I am not insane, the point I am trying to make is that spending 30 million on improving cycle lanes will not stop the idiots who run red lights, cycle on pavements, fail to stop at pedestrian crossings, insist on moving along the inside of buses, lorrys, cars at traffic lights or in slow moving traffic and who in general give cyclist a bad name, I accept that motorists have their part to play, the difference is that motorists have a better survial rate when involved in accidents, surely a programme that addresses the idiotic actions of the few is an option which should be part of this project
TJM01: "Spending 30 million on improving cycle lanes will not stop the idiots who... give cyclist a bad name, I accept that motorists have their part to play, the difference is that motorists have a better survial rate when involved in accidents, surely a programme that addresses the idiotic actions of the few is an option which should be part of this project"

Ah, so what you want to do is:

a) penalise all cyclists for the actions of a few, and blame cyclists for motorists hitting them - a huge TRL study of thousands of collisions found driver majority fault in 75 percent of UK cycle-vehicle collisions studied - so firstly, its driver behaviour more at fault in collisions, secondly, you wouldn't blame pedestrians for being hit by a car by large - so why blame cyclists?

b) ignore all the good comparative evidence for survival rates, collision rates etc. from Europe that shows essentially, if you build good infrastructure, cyclists use it and if you build rubbish, cyclists ignore it and adapt law-breaking behaviour as a way to survive

c) ignore totally the idea that when you want to stop something, you need to do it by designing it out. Car drivers and cyclists are as good, or as bad as each other - both tend to act based on the general "rules of the road" around them - about how likely they are to be caught if they do stupid stuff, about how advantageous it is to do stupid stuff to them and about how they perceive the risks to them.

I'm sure cycle and driver education will be part of the plan - but ultimately we can't simply try and tell off all cyclists and hope that somehow stops the problem. It won't. The six cyclists crushed by cyclists in three weeks last year on CS2 were not breaking rules - they were where they were meant to be riding. It's the design of the roads that put them into direct conflict with HGVs - and killed them. The coroner in one of the cases said as much. And that's true across London and the UK - poor road design is the issue, not evil rogue cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]tjm01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: No it wouldn't. Have you every cycled down Lea Bridge Road? If you have you must be insane.[/p][/quote]Yes I have cycled along Lea Bridge Road and no I am not insane, the point I am trying to make is that spending 30 million on improving cycle lanes will not stop the idiots who run red lights, cycle on pavements, fail to stop at pedestrian crossings, insist on moving along the inside of buses, lorrys, cars at traffic lights or in slow moving traffic and who in general give cyclist a bad name, I accept that motorists have their part to play, the difference is that motorists have a better survial rate when involved in accidents, surely a programme that addresses the idiotic actions of the few is an option which should be part of this project[/p][/quote]TJM01: "Spending 30 million on improving cycle lanes will not stop the idiots who... give cyclist a bad name, I accept that motorists have their part to play, the difference is that motorists have a better survial rate when involved in accidents, surely a programme that addresses the idiotic actions of the few is an option which should be part of this project" Ah, so what you want to do is: a) penalise all cyclists for the actions of a few, and blame cyclists for motorists hitting them - a huge TRL study of thousands of collisions found driver majority fault in 75 percent of UK cycle-vehicle collisions studied - so firstly, its driver behaviour more at fault in collisions, secondly, you wouldn't blame pedestrians for being hit by a car by large - so why blame cyclists? b) ignore all the good comparative evidence for survival rates, collision rates etc. from Europe that shows essentially, if you build good infrastructure, cyclists use it and if you build rubbish, cyclists ignore it and adapt law-breaking behaviour as a way to survive c) ignore totally the idea that when you want to stop something, you need to do it by designing it out. Car drivers and cyclists are as good, or as bad as each other - both tend to act based on the general "rules of the road" around them - about how likely they are to be caught if they do stupid stuff, about how advantageous it is to do stupid stuff to them and about how they perceive the risks to them. I'm sure cycle and driver education will be part of the plan - but ultimately we can't simply try and tell off all cyclists and hope that somehow stops the problem. It won't. The six cyclists crushed by cyclists in three weeks last year on CS2 were not breaking rules - they were where they were meant to be riding. It's the design of the roads that put them into direct conflict with HGVs - and killed them. The coroner in one of the cases said as much. And that's true across London and the UK - poor road design is the issue, not evil rogue cyclists. PsiMonk
  • Score: 2

6:49am Wed 12 Mar 14

tjm01 says...

PsiMonk wrote:
tjm01 wrote:
stickmanny wrote: No it wouldn't. Have you every cycled down Lea Bridge Road? If you have you must be insane.
Yes I have cycled along Lea Bridge Road and no I am not insane, the point I am trying to make is that spending 30 million on improving cycle lanes will not stop the idiots who run red lights, cycle on pavements, fail to stop at pedestrian crossings, insist on moving along the inside of buses, lorrys, cars at traffic lights or in slow moving traffic and who in general give cyclist a bad name, I accept that motorists have their part to play, the difference is that motorists have a better survial rate when involved in accidents, surely a programme that addresses the idiotic actions of the few is an option which should be part of this project
TJM01: "Spending 30 million on improving cycle lanes will not stop the idiots who... give cyclist a bad name, I accept that motorists have their part to play, the difference is that motorists have a better survial rate when involved in accidents, surely a programme that addresses the idiotic actions of the few is an option which should be part of this project" Ah, so what you want to do is: a) penalise all cyclists for the actions of a few, and blame cyclists for motorists hitting them - a huge TRL study of thousands of collisions found driver majority fault in 75 percent of UK cycle-vehicle collisions studied - so firstly, its driver behaviour more at fault in collisions, secondly, you wouldn't blame pedestrians for being hit by a car by large - so why blame cyclists? b) ignore all the good comparative evidence for survival rates, collision rates etc. from Europe that shows essentially, if you build good infrastructure, cyclists use it and if you build rubbish, cyclists ignore it and adapt law-breaking behaviour as a way to survive c) ignore totally the idea that when you want to stop something, you need to do it by designing it out. Car drivers and cyclists are as good, or as bad as each other - both tend to act based on the general "rules of the road" around them - about how likely they are to be caught if they do stupid stuff, about how advantageous it is to do stupid stuff to them and about how they perceive the risks to them. I'm sure cycle and driver education will be part of the plan - but ultimately we can't simply try and tell off all cyclists and hope that somehow stops the problem. It won't. The six cyclists crushed by cyclists in three weeks last year on CS2 were not breaking rules - they were where they were meant to be riding. It's the design of the roads that put them into direct conflict with HGVs - and killed them. The coroner in one of the cases said as much. And that's true across London and the UK - poor road design is the issue, not evil rogue cyclists.
You seem a little confused I am in full support of a system that provides safe cycle routes for all, I just think some of the money could be spent on educating those evil rouge cyclist(your term not mine) who like it or not do exsist
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tjm01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: No it wouldn't. Have you every cycled down Lea Bridge Road? If you have you must be insane.[/p][/quote]Yes I have cycled along Lea Bridge Road and no I am not insane, the point I am trying to make is that spending 30 million on improving cycle lanes will not stop the idiots who run red lights, cycle on pavements, fail to stop at pedestrian crossings, insist on moving along the inside of buses, lorrys, cars at traffic lights or in slow moving traffic and who in general give cyclist a bad name, I accept that motorists have their part to play, the difference is that motorists have a better survial rate when involved in accidents, surely a programme that addresses the idiotic actions of the few is an option which should be part of this project[/p][/quote]TJM01: "Spending 30 million on improving cycle lanes will not stop the idiots who... give cyclist a bad name, I accept that motorists have their part to play, the difference is that motorists have a better survial rate when involved in accidents, surely a programme that addresses the idiotic actions of the few is an option which should be part of this project" Ah, so what you want to do is: a) penalise all cyclists for the actions of a few, and blame cyclists for motorists hitting them - a huge TRL study of thousands of collisions found driver majority fault in 75 percent of UK cycle-vehicle collisions studied - so firstly, its driver behaviour more at fault in collisions, secondly, you wouldn't blame pedestrians for being hit by a car by large - so why blame cyclists? b) ignore all the good comparative evidence for survival rates, collision rates etc. from Europe that shows essentially, if you build good infrastructure, cyclists use it and if you build rubbish, cyclists ignore it and adapt law-breaking behaviour as a way to survive c) ignore totally the idea that when you want to stop something, you need to do it by designing it out. Car drivers and cyclists are as good, or as bad as each other - both tend to act based on the general "rules of the road" around them - about how likely they are to be caught if they do stupid stuff, about how advantageous it is to do stupid stuff to them and about how they perceive the risks to them. I'm sure cycle and driver education will be part of the plan - but ultimately we can't simply try and tell off all cyclists and hope that somehow stops the problem. It won't. The six cyclists crushed by cyclists in three weeks last year on CS2 were not breaking rules - they were where they were meant to be riding. It's the design of the roads that put them into direct conflict with HGVs - and killed them. The coroner in one of the cases said as much. And that's true across London and the UK - poor road design is the issue, not evil rogue cyclists.[/p][/quote]You seem a little confused I am in full support of a system that provides safe cycle routes for all, I just think some of the money could be spent on educating those evil rouge cyclist(your term not mine) who like it or not do exsist tjm01
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Wed 12 Mar 14

mdj says...

£30 million pounds;
Councillor Loakes;
What could possibly go wrong?

'Waste authority scrap plans for huge waste plant (From Haringey ...
www.haringeyindepend
ent.co.uk/.../107074
19.Waste_authority_s
crap_p..'
£30 million pounds; Councillor Loakes; What could possibly go wrong? 'Waste authority scrap plans for huge waste plant (From Haringey ... www.haringeyindepend ent.co.uk/.../107074 19.Waste_authority_s crap_p..' mdj
  • Score: 2

3:24pm Wed 12 Mar 14

mdj says...

'Oh great! So it's easy to clip bus stops? Just look where you are going!'

On the subject of clipping, all of Lea Bridge Road can be held up simply because the projecting radius of a curb at the Orient Way slip cannot be passed by buses without pushing out into another lane. It simply needs flattening out by nine inches, but nobody on a council salary seems to notice.
It's as though it was drawn on a map by somebody who had never visited the site - or driven a bus.
At the other end of Orient Way a similar small tweak would clear access to a whole lane for traffic to exit the roundabout.
Yesterday the kerb stones at this point were all dislodged, showing that somebody had lost patience and just 'gone for it'. Tiny sums rectifying elementary design faults like this can be far more cost-effective than grandiose blank -sheet projects.
This isn't to criticise those campaigners who have put effort into improving our road design, but it's the hands we're forced to entrust the funds to that cause alarm and despondency.
'Oh great! So it's easy to clip bus stops? Just look where you are going!' On the subject of clipping, all of Lea Bridge Road can be held up simply because the projecting radius of a curb at the Orient Way slip cannot be passed by buses without pushing out into another lane. It simply needs flattening out by nine inches, but nobody on a council salary seems to notice. It's as though it was drawn on a map by somebody who had never visited the site - or driven a bus. At the other end of Orient Way a similar small tweak would clear access to a whole lane for traffic to exit the roundabout. Yesterday the kerb stones at this point were all dislodged, showing that somebody had lost patience and just 'gone for it'. Tiny sums rectifying elementary design faults like this can be far more cost-effective than grandiose blank -sheet projects. This isn't to criticise those campaigners who have put effort into improving our road design, but it's the hands we're forced to entrust the funds to that cause alarm and despondency. mdj
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Thunderbird4 says...

mdj said: kerb stones, (on a corner), at this point were all dislodged,

This has happened at he junction of Hale End Road and Handsworth Avenue, where cars wanting to turn left, squeeze past cars waiting to turn right while the level crossing is down.

Oddly enough, the resurfacing in Handsworth Avenue, has built the road up to the top of the kerb on the corners of the small junction with Castle Avenue, so the kerb stones, hopefully, will not be dislodged: Well done.
mdj said: kerb stones, (on a corner), at this point were all dislodged, This has happened at he junction of Hale End Road and Handsworth Avenue, where cars wanting to turn left, squeeze past cars waiting to turn right while the level crossing is down. Oddly enough, the resurfacing in Handsworth Avenue, has built the road up to the top of the kerb on the corners of the small junction with Castle Avenue, so the kerb stones, hopefully, will not be dislodged: Well done. Thunderbird4
  • Score: -1

9:46am Thu 13 Mar 14

Chingford Badger says...

Looks good on the surface, but what happens when the cyclist gets out of the wonderful new bit, back on to crowded Lea Bridge Road or Hoe street? How much safer will they be there? Woud it not have been better to devise a system of cycleways avoiding the main roads?
Looks good on the surface, but what happens when the cyclist gets out of the wonderful new bit, back on to crowded Lea Bridge Road or Hoe street? How much safer will they be there? Woud it not have been better to devise a system of cycleways avoiding the main roads? Chingford Badger
  • Score: 1

11:46am Thu 13 Mar 14

Karlee says...

Chingford Badger wrote:
Looks good on the surface, but what happens when the cyclist gets out of the wonderful new bit, back on to crowded Lea Bridge Road or Hoe street? How much safer will they be there? Woud it not have been better to devise a system of cycleways avoiding the main roads?
You can read the proposals here: http://www.walthamfo
rest.gov.uk/Document
s/mini-holland-tende
r-13-dec.pdf

It's quite a comprehensive plan which is aiming for a high level of safety and cycle-lane continuity. I'm impressed by the plan and delighted it's got the funding.
[quote][p][bold]Chingford Badger[/bold] wrote: Looks good on the surface, but what happens when the cyclist gets out of the wonderful new bit, back on to crowded Lea Bridge Road or Hoe street? How much safer will they be there? Woud it not have been better to devise a system of cycleways avoiding the main roads?[/p][/quote]You can read the proposals here: http://www.walthamfo rest.gov.uk/Document s/mini-holland-tende r-13-dec.pdf It's quite a comprehensive plan which is aiming for a high level of safety and cycle-lane continuity. I'm impressed by the plan and delighted it's got the funding. Karlee
  • Score: 3

12:08pm Thu 13 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

Chingford Badger wrote:
Looks good on the surface, but what happens when the cyclist gets out of the wonderful new bit, back on to crowded Lea Bridge Road or Hoe street? How much safer will they be there? Woud it not have been better to devise a system of cycleways avoiding the main roads?
There already is an extensive network of "quiet" cycleways across the whole borough and most of London, yet we're still at 2 percent of all traffic being cyclists. This idea fails to entice people to get on their bikes. Why? Because it invariably routed them all round the houses and still saw regular conflict points.

We really have to look at the cycling solutions other countries and cities have used successfully. Portland, in the US, has leapt massively up in terms of cyclists, as has New York. How? Segregated lanes on main roads *and* calming residential areas. It's not one or the other - it's both! The bid - and the plan from now on for all clued-up councils - is to both tame main roads for cycling and calm quiet back streets.

That's because cyclists want direct, fast routes to get to destinations - in other words, main roads. But to get grannies, kids, everyone cycling these need to be fully segregated and have junction treatments so cyclists and motor vehicles don't come into conflict. The bid does this in key places. This also visibly shows people in cars (the aforementioned grannies, kids, parents etc.) that they would be safe cycling - they can see it right next to them.

Cyclists also want to be able to ride through quiet areas to get to and from their front door, to visit friends, to cut through areas. But they don't want to be routed all round the houses on limited routes that still see them facing aggressive crossings or fast patches. The bid has three "villagised" areas around central Walthamstow that enable this - quieter, calmer roads for the people who live on them and quieter calmer roads for cyclists to get from A to B how they want.

(And, btw, Lea Bridge Road is set to be massively tackled, Hoe Street to a lesser extent in the bid - as Karlee says, the bid's online - have a look at it.
[quote][p][bold]Chingford Badger[/bold] wrote: Looks good on the surface, but what happens when the cyclist gets out of the wonderful new bit, back on to crowded Lea Bridge Road or Hoe street? How much safer will they be there? Woud it not have been better to devise a system of cycleways avoiding the main roads?[/p][/quote]There already is an extensive network of "quiet" cycleways across the whole borough and most of London, yet we're still at 2 percent of all traffic being cyclists. This idea fails to entice people to get on their bikes. Why? Because it invariably routed them all round the houses and still saw regular conflict points. We really have to look at the cycling solutions other countries and cities have used successfully. Portland, in the US, has leapt massively up in terms of cyclists, as has New York. How? Segregated lanes on main roads *and* calming residential areas. It's not one or the other - it's both! The bid - and the plan from now on for all clued-up councils - is to both tame main roads for cycling and calm quiet back streets. That's because cyclists want direct, fast routes to get to destinations - in other words, main roads. But to get grannies, kids, everyone cycling these need to be fully segregated and have junction treatments so cyclists and motor vehicles don't come into conflict. The bid does this in key places. This also visibly shows people in cars (the aforementioned grannies, kids, parents etc.) that they would be safe cycling - they can see it right next to them. Cyclists also want to be able to ride through quiet areas to get to and from their front door, to visit friends, to cut through areas. But they don't want to be routed all round the houses on limited routes that still see them facing aggressive crossings or fast patches. The bid has three "villagised" areas around central Walthamstow that enable this - quieter, calmer roads for the people who live on them and quieter calmer roads for cyclists to get from A to B how they want. (And, btw, Lea Bridge Road is set to be massively tackled, Hoe Street to a lesser extent in the bid - as Karlee says, the bid's online - have a look at it. PsiMonk
  • Score: 4

3:42pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Ferdy54 says...

They'll have plenty of money left to give all the cyclists eye tests. They can ask them all what is the top colour of traffic lights and what does it mean?

They can also tell them the wide concrete thing at the side of the road is a pavement and its not for cyclists.

Overall a big waste of money for a few cyclists that might obey the rules. That stupid thing at Whipps Cross Road is a good example. I've often seen cyclists not using that path they made and actually ride in the road!!! If I see them in my mirror I keep all the way over to the left so they cant come up the inside of me!
They'll have plenty of money left to give all the cyclists eye tests. They can ask them all what is the top colour of traffic lights and what does it mean? They can also tell them the wide concrete thing at the side of the road is a pavement and its not for cyclists. Overall a big waste of money for a few cyclists that might obey the rules. That stupid thing at Whipps Cross Road is a good example. I've often seen cyclists not using that path they made and actually ride in the road!!! If I see them in my mirror I keep all the way over to the left so they cant come up the inside of me! Ferdy54
  • Score: -2

5:02pm Thu 13 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

Ferdy54 wrote:
They'll have plenty of money left to give all the cyclists eye tests. They can ask them all what is the top colour of traffic lights and what does it mean?

They can also tell them the wide concrete thing at the side of the road is a pavement and its not for cyclists.

Overall a big waste of money for a few cyclists that might obey the rules. That stupid thing at Whipps Cross Road is a good example. I've often seen cyclists not using that path they made and actually ride in the road!!! If I see them in my mirror I keep all the way over to the left so they cant come up the inside of me!
Ah yes, Ferdy54, the voice of the red-blooded driver coming in late - stuck in traffic were you?

1. Study after study finds motorists break more road rules more often than cyclists. See this for a recent debunking of Jeremy Clarkson's oh-so-hilarious go at cyclists not understanding the difference between red and green https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=xgN5BhAs
4I8 In other words, maybe while you're giving cyclists eye tests you give all motorists the same - after all, a huge TRL study found them to be majority at fault in 74 percent of UK cycle-vehicle collisions.

2. You're 40x more likely to be killed on a pavement by a car than a cyclist. So you might also want your eyes tested for a sense of perspective. Yup, pavement cyclists = annoying. But pavement cyclists do not = dangerous. And why are pavement cyclists on the pavement? Because they're terrified of aggressive drivers on the road. The whole some cyclists are on the pavement = no cyclist ever ever deserves any better facilities at all seems a bit silly, a bit mid-90s Top Gear.

3. One of the reasons why the bid is so good - it's about getting people of all ages and abilities using bikes to get around instead of cars. I really don't understand the hostility some car drivers have towards cyclists. Firstly, we're your neighbours, your friends, your family, we're parents, we're children, we're co-workers - so treating us as an alien species, and suggesting that we're to blame for everything from congestion to cancer seems a bit weird. And, again, every bike on the road = 1 less car. Does that really need spelling out - more bikes = less congestion, less pollution, less obesity etc. But hey, let's just pretend that we can all own more and more cars and drive more and more and that doesn't have any consequences at all.

4. How many times, oh Lord, how many times? Here's a clue you myopic driver you - read the other comments before you post. The reason why cyclists don't use "that stupid thing at Whipps Cross Road" as you call it, is because a) they don't have to, b) they don't want to. Why do they not want to? Well, for some because it's often full of pedestrians - see your earlier comments about cycling on the pavement. And for others because it's covered in slippery gravel. Which is hardly an ideal cycling surface. And for others because it's not where they want to be going. When the council and the government start making cycle facilities like they do in Holland, for instance, then expect to see lots of people cycling on them, like they do in Holland. When we get stop-start rubbish, don't be too surprised if we're not bothered to use the rubbish.

5. You seem surprised by cyclists actually being "in the road!!!" Where do you want us to be? On the pavement? You just told us all off for that one. So, instead, you want us to be on the pavement for the 50m where there's a cycle lane, then on the road, then off. That way injuries lie. Plus, you know, you may want to read the Highway Code - it's a little thing that you're meant to know all about as a driver. There's a section in there about where cyclists are allowed to go. I think you'll find I can summarise it as "the road".

But hey, what do I know, I don't even pay road tax?! (Hint: road tax doesn't exist and most cyclists are also... shock horror... drivers.)
[quote][p][bold]Ferdy54[/bold] wrote: They'll have plenty of money left to give all the cyclists eye tests. They can ask them all what is the top colour of traffic lights and what does it mean? They can also tell them the wide concrete thing at the side of the road is a pavement and its not for cyclists. Overall a big waste of money for a few cyclists that might obey the rules. That stupid thing at Whipps Cross Road is a good example. I've often seen cyclists not using that path they made and actually ride in the road!!! If I see them in my mirror I keep all the way over to the left so they cant come up the inside of me![/p][/quote]Ah yes, Ferdy54, the voice of the red-blooded driver coming in late - stuck in traffic were you? 1. Study after study finds motorists break more road rules more often than cyclists. See this for a recent debunking of Jeremy Clarkson's oh-so-hilarious go at cyclists not understanding the difference between red and green https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=xgN5BhAs 4I8 In other words, maybe while you're giving cyclists eye tests you give all motorists the same - after all, a huge TRL study found them to be majority at fault in 74 percent of UK cycle-vehicle collisions. 2. You're 40x more likely to be killed on a pavement by a car than a cyclist. So you might also want your eyes tested for a sense of perspective. Yup, pavement cyclists = annoying. But pavement cyclists do not = dangerous. And why are pavement cyclists on the pavement? Because they're terrified of aggressive drivers on the road. The whole some cyclists are on the pavement = no cyclist ever ever deserves any better facilities at all seems a bit silly, a bit mid-90s Top Gear. 3. One of the reasons why the bid is so good - it's about getting people of all ages and abilities using bikes to get around instead of cars. I really don't understand the hostility some car drivers have towards cyclists. Firstly, we're your neighbours, your friends, your family, we're parents, we're children, we're co-workers - so treating us as an alien species, and suggesting that we're to blame for everything from congestion to cancer seems a bit weird. And, again, every bike on the road = 1 less car. Does that really need spelling out - more bikes = less congestion, less pollution, less obesity etc. But hey, let's just pretend that we can all own more and more cars and drive more and more and that doesn't have any consequences at all. 4. How many times, oh Lord, how many times? Here's a clue you myopic driver you - read the other comments before you post. The reason why cyclists don't use "that stupid thing at Whipps Cross Road" as you call it, is because a) they don't have to, b) they don't want to. Why do they not want to? Well, for some because it's often full of pedestrians - see your earlier comments about cycling on the pavement. And for others because it's covered in slippery gravel. Which is hardly an ideal cycling surface. And for others because it's not where they want to be going. When the council and the government start making cycle facilities like they do in Holland, for instance, then expect to see lots of people cycling on them, like they do in Holland. When we get stop-start rubbish, don't be too surprised if we're not bothered to use the rubbish. 5. You seem surprised by cyclists actually being "in the road!!!" Where do you want us to be? On the pavement? You just told us all off for that one. So, instead, you want us to be on the pavement for the 50m where there's a cycle lane, then on the road, then off. That way injuries lie. Plus, you know, you may want to read the Highway Code - it's a little thing that you're meant to know all about as a driver. There's a section in there about where cyclists are allowed to go. I think you'll find I can summarise it as "the road". But hey, what do I know, I don't even pay road tax?! (Hint: road tax doesn't exist and most cyclists are also... shock horror... drivers.) PsiMonk
  • Score: 9

8:22pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Spoons1972 says...

Ferdy54 wrote:
They'll have plenty of money left to give all the cyclists eye tests. They can ask them all what is the top colour of traffic lights and what does it mean?

They can also tell them the wide concrete thing at the side of the road is a pavement and its not for cyclists.

Overall a big waste of money for a few cyclists that might obey the rules. That stupid thing at Whipps Cross Road is a good example. I've often seen cyclists not using that path they made and actually ride in the road!!! If I see them in my mirror I keep all the way over to the left so they cant come up the inside of me!
Yadda yadda yadda
I played a little counting game today as I cycled from Blackhorse Road to the top of Forest Road. I wondered how many traffic light junctions would I see cars waiting in the space reserved for bikes. Guess how many junctions, go on, guess! Yes, that's right, every single one.
[quote][p][bold]Ferdy54[/bold] wrote: They'll have plenty of money left to give all the cyclists eye tests. They can ask them all what is the top colour of traffic lights and what does it mean? They can also tell them the wide concrete thing at the side of the road is a pavement and its not for cyclists. Overall a big waste of money for a few cyclists that might obey the rules. That stupid thing at Whipps Cross Road is a good example. I've often seen cyclists not using that path they made and actually ride in the road!!! If I see them in my mirror I keep all the way over to the left so they cant come up the inside of me![/p][/quote]Yadda yadda yadda I played a little counting game today as I cycled from Blackhorse Road to the top of Forest Road. I wondered how many traffic light junctions would I see cars waiting in the space reserved for bikes. Guess how many junctions, go on, guess! Yes, that's right, every single one. Spoons1972
  • Score: 8

11:54pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Ferdy54 says...

A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to.

And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?
A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to. And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1? Ferdy54
  • Score: -1

12:02am Fri 14 Mar 14

PsiMonk says...

Ferdy54 wrote:
A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to.

And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?
After your scintillating post what do you expect? Do go away.
[quote][p][bold]Ferdy54[/bold] wrote: A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to. And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?[/p][/quote]After your scintillating post what do you expect? Do go away. PsiMonk
  • Score: 1

6:49am Fri 14 Mar 14

Spoons1972 says...

Ferdy54 wrote:
A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to.

And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?
Ah, I see. So cars need only leave the space for cyclists free if they can see a cyclist? Using that logic a cyclist can run a red light if they can't see a car or pedestrian coming?
[quote][p][bold]Ferdy54[/bold] wrote: A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to. And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?[/p][/quote]Ah, I see. So cars need only leave the space for cyclists free if they can see a cyclist? Using that logic a cyclist can run a red light if they can't see a car or pedestrian coming? Spoons1972
  • Score: 7

10:28pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Ferdy54 says...

Spoons1972 wrote:
Ferdy54 wrote:
A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to.

And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?
Ah, I see. So cars need only leave the space for cyclists free if they can see a cyclist? Using that logic a cyclist can run a red light if they can't see a car or pedestrian coming?
Not at all. You said you saw cars in the boxes at every junction. How many cyclists were they in the way of? Did you see any in your survey?
[quote][p][bold]Spoons1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferdy54[/bold] wrote: A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to. And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?[/p][/quote]Ah, I see. So cars need only leave the space for cyclists free if they can see a cyclist? Using that logic a cyclist can run a red light if they can't see a car or pedestrian coming?[/p][/quote]Not at all. You said you saw cars in the boxes at every junction. How many cyclists were they in the way of? Did you see any in your survey? Ferdy54
  • Score: -1

10:31pm Fri 14 Mar 14

faro0485 says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Ferdy54 wrote:
A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to.

And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?
After your scintillating post what do you expect? Do go away.
He asked a question. Do not tell him to go away.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferdy54[/bold] wrote: A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to. And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?[/p][/quote]After your scintillating post what do you expect? Do go away.[/p][/quote]He asked a question. Do not tell him to go away. faro0485
  • Score: 0

8:10am Sat 15 Mar 14

Spoons1972 says...

Ferdy54 wrote:
Spoons1972 wrote:
Ferdy54 wrote:
A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to.

And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?
Ah, I see. So cars need only leave the space for cyclists free if they can see a cyclist? Using that logic a cyclist can run a red light if they can't see a car or pedestrian coming?
Not at all. You said you saw cars in the boxes at every junction. How many cyclists were they in the way of? Did you see any in your survey?
Yes, me. I was on my bike and unable to use the cycle section at every single junction.
[quote][p][bold]Ferdy54[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spoons1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ferdy54[/bold] wrote: A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to. And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?[/p][/quote]Ah, I see. So cars need only leave the space for cyclists free if they can see a cyclist? Using that logic a cyclist can run a red light if they can't see a car or pedestrian coming?[/p][/quote]Not at all. You said you saw cars in the boxes at every junction. How many cyclists were they in the way of? Did you see any in your survey?[/p][/quote]Yes, me. I was on my bike and unable to use the cycle section at every single junction. Spoons1972
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Sat 15 Mar 14

echo17 says...

Ferdy54 wrote:
A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to.

And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?
At least you read it. Hopefully you learnt something
[quote][p][bold]Ferdy54[/bold] wrote: A very condescending reply from PsiMonk that I couldn't even bother replying to. And with regard to the reply from Spoons1972. While the cars were parked in the bike bit of the road, at all the junctions you surveyed, how many cyclists were there wanting to get in there? 5? 10? 1?[/p][/quote]At least you read it. Hopefully you learnt something echo17
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree