The problem is that it's not where we are now; it's where we need to be in 10 year's time.Around 70% of car journeys are under 5 miles. Meanwhile we have horrible air pollution that is estimated to cause 40,000 premature deaths per year. Something has to change.We also have lot of new building work going on. There are those huge developments in Brentford, and Ealing have just approved the ridiculous development on Bollo lane which will give us another 900 flats. We can't continue with driving being the default mode of travel.Before someone says "electric cars", they aren't the solution. The biggest source of particulate pollution is tyre and brake dust. Battery powered electric cars will a be a little better on brake dust as they will use regenerative braking, but they are heavier, so will be worse on tyre dust.There is also the congestion issue to consider. Between Brentford, Bollo Lane, and various other developments, there will be a huge amount more pressure on the local roads. Similar overdevelopment is going on all over London. (I know Bollo Lane is officially supposed to be a "car free" development, but it will create a huge number of deliveries, and Uber journeys). Without a major shift in transport, the roads will become completely gridlocked.Much as people champion public transport, it isn't the whole solution. Unless you live right on top of a Tube station, a door to door journey is normally a lot quicker than public transport. At my last four workplaces, cycling has been significantly quicker than public transport. My wife's journey to work is even worse. It's 3 buses, or a walk to the station, a train, and a bus. That's never going to be viable by public transport. People want the convenience and speed of door to door.The only way to get door to door transport that won't cause congestion and major pollution is for the vast majority of people to use two wheels for that 70% of journeys under 5 miles. That is the long term goal. A good number of journeys over 5 miles are also possible to do by bike as well. I used to cycle just under 8 miles when I worked in the centre of London.The authorities have realised this, and are taking steps to get people cycling. They have messed up the implementation, but the intent is right.If I look at the new lane on the High Road, I have mixed feelings. For me personally, it is a waste of time. The traffic light phases on the High Road by the Catholic church are ridiculously short for cyclists. If the other junctions are the same, then it could easily add 5 minutes to the journey compared to using the main carriageway. At the same time, if I'm out with my 9 year old daughter, I wouldn't take her on the main carriageway of the High Road, so it serves a purpose.These lanes are about encouraging people to cycle who are inexperienced, and less confident. They will help with that.The High Road needs a lane each side that goes with traffic. We also need a lane along the A4 if you actually want to get somewhere in a reasonable time. With all the junctions on the High Road, it is much slower, and also a lot more dangerous. There is a much higher risk of getting hit by a car at a junction. There are a lot more pedestrians as well. I've cycled over 30,000 miles in London and my only trip to A&E was caused by a pedestrian.If we want to get people out of their cars, then cycling needs to be a quick way of getting somewhere. That means lanes along roads like the A4. If we are taking space away from traffic, take it from the A4. You get queues where it goes from 3 lanes into 2 for the flyover, so just make 2 lanes all the way along. It won't affect capacity much, as you are just moving the pinch point, rather than creating an additional one. With Crossrail on the way, that should take cars off the road getting to and from Heathrow, so even if there is some capacity reduction, it shouldn't hurt too much anyway. For a cyclist, it will probably save the best part of 10 minutes getting to Hammersmith, and be much lower risk without all the junctions and pedestrians.There needs to be some carrot as well as stick. There is talk that the government will subsidise electric bikes, which is a good idea. Now we are out of the EU, they should also ditch the EU standard, and use the standard that Canada and some US States do, where electric bikes can provide assistance up to 20mph, instead of 15mph. That would cut journey times significantly, and make cycling more attractive. 20mph is easily achievable on a conventional bike if you are fit, so it would make sense to allow electric bikes to do 20mph.Contrary to what people think, there are also some safety benefits to 20mph electric bikes. I see quite a few electric bikes doing a LOT more than 15 mph, because people start messing with them and removing the governors that cut them out at 15mph. If they could do 20mph, a lot less people would monkey with them, which would be a good thing. Also, with all the 20mph limits in place now, there would be a lot less dodgy overtaking manoeuvres by car drivers, which would improve safety. Even in higher speed limit areas, drivers are less likely to get frustrated behind a cyclist at 20mph, and will be less likely to try stupid overtakes.
Al Webber ● 2099d