The New Cross to Victoria Cycle Superhighway

TfL has launched a public consultation about the proposed cycling "superhighway" that will run from New Cross to Victoria from 2013. They say:

We’re proposing to introduce a new cycle route between New Cross Gate and Victoria. Barclays Cycle Superhighway Route 5 (CS5) would run via Peckham, Camberwell, Kennington and Vauxhall. The new route would bring substantial changes to the road layout to improve safety for cyclists, including:

- More space for cyclists and buses, through reallocation of road space
- New mandatory cycle lanes, all at least 1.5 metres wide Improvements for cyclists at 52 junctions, including new
- Advanced Stop Lines, cycle feeder lanes, and speed reduction measures
- An innovative cycle ‘early-start’ facility at Vauxhall Bridge Road/Millbank to help cyclists get ahead of traffic
- Banning some turns for cars and lorries to reduce conflict with cyclists
- Extended 20mph speed limit in New Cross

The original plan was to extend this route as far as Lewisham but TfL said "constraints on Lewisham Way and the New Cross one-way system" forced its truncation. Instead, nearly 1km of new cycle lanes will be painted along the route.


Anonymous said...

I'm so happy !!

Darylh said...


Anonymous said...

Does this mean there will be Boris bikes at NXG?

Brockley Nick said...

No, that scheme is unrelated.

Hmnnnn said...

These cycle super highways are such a waste of money, simply painting a strip of blue along main a road doesn't simply make it safer for cyclists.

The very idea that cyclists have to share a "lane" with buses is ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

It's awful all the way along New Cross, Peckham & Camberwell. The same old blue paint that will do nothing to get mums and kids on bikes. So much for Boris' pledge to "Go Dutch"...

Anonymous said...

I agree.

This is just shuffling road space around with a bit of paint.

Where are the dedicated cycle paths railed off and completely separate from the traffic?

Where are is the cycle storage?

Where a the lockers and showers for commuters?

If we are serious about encouraging people to use cycles as the primary mode of transport.

Are these cheaply done, rather half-hearted measures just a bit of window dressing?

Anonymous said...

What annoys me more is that this will end up costing millions, so that when it's complete and cyclist groups inevitably complain about how bad conditions are for cycling in London, Boris can just turn around and say "What are you on about? We've been spending a record amount on cycling infrastructure over the years".

No good spending millions if you're not getting good quality, value for money results.

mikey said...

just rode from london to amsterdam. the dutch cycling infrastructure is remarkable. not just in towns either. out in the country, the cycle lanes aren't just different coloured tarmac but are entirely seperate to the roads. by about ten yards. and they're silky smooth. and bikes get right of way on roundabouts. now i see why they don't tend to wear helmets over there. i know that it was designed that way from the off (or certainly looks like it) and ours very much hasn't been (thanks ctc) but nevertheless, if you want to see it done proper, go there. so good it made me sad.

Tom said...

It's sad that this is seen as the best we can do by TfL. This could be a fantastic opportunity to implement a genuinely safe and useful route for cyclists of all ages and abilities with a segregated lane.

It looks like this scheme will share exactly the same giant flaws that the other super highways in the city have: nothing to keep cars out of the lane, car parking in the lane, nothing to protect cyclists from swerving vehicles or turning HGVs.

mk said...

@mikey it wasn't designed that way from the off. if you look at photos of holland circa 1970s, they had roads that looked very similar to the way ours do today (they even used ASLs back then), so we essentially have roads that are some 40 years out of date.

*However*, the Dutch have already been through the trial and error of making cycling work - all we have to do is copy them. And that shouldn't take anywhere near 40 years.

Problem is, TFL are still designing to make cycling inconvenient and unattractive, such that only those brave enough will dare to try.

Anonymous said...

The problem with Londoners is they overplay the risks of cycling in London. Look at Boris Bikes - a station on every corner and Mungo won't give it a go because it doesn't have 6 metres of space around the cycle lane (and brought in by a Tory administration, natch).

The simple fact is that if you hop on a bike and keep your wits about you, biking in London, both on and off special lanes, is an absolute doddle. The traffic we all like to complain amount make cutting through the queues a breeze.

Try cycling in the country on twisty B roads with no viability if you want precarious.

Oh, you won't, because it's not on your doorstep.

Lou Baker said...

What they should really do is improve the lighting in
Burgess Park. That, combined with Surrey Canal Walk, gives you an almost completely traffic free journey from Peckham to Oval. Lovely in the summer - but a lack of lighting makes it a poor option this time of year.

Anonymous said...

I think they like to keep cycles out of parks full of pedestrians, prams and so on.

The concept of dedicated cycle lanes is somehow troubling in the UK.

It is all a bit sad really, no joined up policy and cycle organisations seem to have been quite as much to blame as the car lobby.

The bit on the CTC makes depressing reading on Wikipedia. We could have had dedicated cycle lanes long ago but the cycle lobby didn't want them.

I would have thought dedicated cycle paths for commuters would have been a great idea.

I guess this route is a step in the right direction, but we have a long way to go before we catch up with the Dutch in this respect.

I dream of dedicated highways above the road for fast commuting into central London. Lock up the bike in a store, shower, them suited and booted for work.

Provide the infrastructure for this and cycling will become the default mode of transport.

headhunter said...

The whole segregated cycle facilities versus vehicular cycling is a contentious issue. Not all cyclists want defined, walled off cycle routes. Certainly developing a proper network of dedicated cycle routes would encourage mums, kids and other 'non cyclists' to get on their bikes rather than into cars or onto busy public transport but keen, faster cyclists usually prefer to be on the road. In fact current cyclists who can maintain a speed of more than 18mph are currently advised not to use off road dedicated cycle paths. The problem with dedicated cycle lanes is that they are not maintained, litter strewn, often occupied by pedestrians and unfit for faster riders yet in many countries cyclist are expected to or legally obliged to use them where they exist and if cyclists do not, they get even more hostility from motorists than at the moment...

Anonymous said...

In this country we have a bad attitude to cyclists, and the space and respect they need to use the roads - this is what should be tackled before this kind of petty administration.

Go to a scandinavian country like Denmark and see how the cycling community get along there - it's very good - because of a mutual respect between cyclists and motorists - a respect that even extends to cyclists stopping at red lights!

Until that time comes cyclists should be de-regulated (as little as they are) entirely - mutual respect, thats what it's all about.

ps, I rode a bike about London for 20 years (and have the scars to prove it)


Anonymous said...

This sounds great! Hopefully they'll put one along the Old Kent Road too.

Brockley Jon said...

Agree with most of the comments here, even Lou :)

There's a documentary on the BBC tonight, 'War on the Roads' (WAR!), which is proving more than a little controversial amongst the cycling community. From the teaser it looks like it will contain plenty of footage of cyclists riding like spanners, so won't do much for our cause.

Anonymous said...

As a cyclist who regularly uses a long dedicated cycle lane along Brick Lane I am constantly amazed by the speed some other cyclists go, and the overtaking moves some of them make. If the twenty is plenty campaign takes off, I for one would like it applied to cyclists. Slowing motor traffic would do more for cyclists and is achievable in a short time scale. The holier than thou attitude of the cycling lobby is also a little hard to stomach. Better cycle training would go a long way to reduce accident stats imho.

Anonymous said...

For Brick Lane read Cable Street in previous post, need coffee.

Brockley Jon said...

The cycle training issue is key in two areas, imho:

1. General traffic training for new commuters and the like.

2. Absolute basic 'rules of the road' training for recreational riders especially teenagers, who seem to have little or no road sense whatsoever from what I see. I fear this might be a lost cause!

If anyone knows of any local cycling charities (that hopefully don't have a holier than thou attitude that anon mentions!) then let us know about them here. I'm sure a lot of us would be happy to do our bit and get involved.

mk said...


I don't deny that training is an important part of improving cycling conditions in this city, but when are we actually going to get around to changing the roads? We wouldn't need so much training if the roads weren't so unforgiving to novices/teenagers/kids.

More to the point, how on earth are we supposed to instil enough road sense into a child that will equip them to cycle down the Old Kent Road?

People make mistakes. We shouldn't allow the current environment (where one mistake can be lethal) to prevail. The Dutch/Danes have designed roads to allow for people of all ages/experience to learn and make mistakes along the way, without worrying about potentially fatal consequences. It's about time we did the same.

Anonymous said...

Obviously it would be lovely to have properly dedicated cycle lanes and other such infrastructure but, in the (long, long) meantime, Lewisham Council offer free cycle training for kids and adults of all abilities. Have a look on the road safety page of their website.

Anonymous said...

Here is the war on the roads documentary on iplayer.

Quite even handed. Some bad car drivers, some bad cyclists.

Sadly it highlights and dramatises the problem more than it looks at any solution.

Anonymous said...

And as if to illustrate the point a cyclist was killed in Stepney this morning in a collision with a lorry.

Last night's documentary was fairly average, the usual confrontational cyclists and irate drivers.

But the woman who managed to get the company who owned the truck that killed her daughter to fit sensors and better mirrors was pretty inspirational though. They should be mandatory on all large vehicles.

headhunter said...

Awful "documentary", sensationalist in the extreme. No reasoned argument or discussion, no conclusions, just YouTube clips of cyclists and motorists yelling at each other.... It was more like ride tube than a proper doc, basically stoked the fires of hatred on the roads. Not what you'd expect from the BBC...

Unknown said...

In the past year I have been in four collisions while negotiating heavy traffic, each causing me injury. In one instance I was struck by a car in passing and was able to take down his licence number. I reported him to the police for hit and run and was sent a form to complete. A few weeks later I received an email from them saying that they did not intend to prosecute, but if I paid £10 they would give me his details and I could open a civil case against him. The whole system seems indifferent if not hostile to innocent cyclists.

I am afraid that the next one could be fatal. I am scared of the invective and hatred from motorised traffic turning into road rage where I become intentionally injured or killed.. My principal reason for supporting Boris was his promise to remove bendy buses. Unfortunately, that is all he has seemed to do, and I will not be fooled again.

It takes an injury to a celebrity, like poor Mr Wiggins, for any significant notice to be taken.

idriveabikeandrideacar said...

And yet @Dave Vorster when a cyclist smashes a car wing mirror and then cycles off (through a red light, hopping up a curb and turns down a one way street the wrong way making it impossible to be followed) the motorist hasn't even the option of a civil claim as there is no way of identifying the cyclist.

If the Police had no evidence of a crime being committed (other than your word) then they have no case to put forward to the CPS (who would have been consulted on the weight of evidence put forward by yourself). Just because you didn't get your 'justice' doesn't mean the whole system is hostile towards 'innocent' cyclists. You could have paid the £10 and followed it up yourself, stop complaining about something that you decided to not pursue.

And in my honest opinion, any cyclist who has no regard for the rules of the road (i.e stopping at red lights and not cycling on pavements) have no right to complain about what happens on the road.

4 accidents in a year? I have been cycling in central London to and from work for 4 years and have never had an accident, or come close to one...say a lot don't you think?

Dave said...

You seem to think that I am a  "cyclist who has no regard for the rules of the road (i.e stopping at red lights and not cycling on pavements) have no right to complain about what happens on the road."

I do regard the rules of the road. One of the collisions was when I stopped at the red light and was struck from behind by a motorist. I don't ride on the pavements endangering pedestrians, one of whom stepped out into the flow of traffic, right in front of me causing me to go base over apex avoiding him.

As for never having an accident, you are simply fortunate as statistics are firmly against it. You are also grammatically incorrect, you don't "Drive a bike", you ride one. Put away your holier than thou attitude and consider how you drive your car.

Brockley Central Label Cloud