Cycle campaigning

Posted on
Page
of 68
First Prev
/ 68
Next
  • riding a bike is a safe

    Ok.

  • There's no 'foot-dragging'. The Mayor's merely busy putting London's finances in order, and that affects cycling, too. London's finances were thrown into chaos during Johnson's time in office due to his incompetence and neglect. He cancelled the Western Extension to the Congestion Charge and was profligate and inefficient in many of his funding programmes (not limited to transport or cycling or cronyism like the Garden Bridge), effectively no more than a doormat at times.

    I think that there'll be an announcement along sometime which will reveal that Johnson had far less money available for cycling than he claimed and promised people money that didn't exist. I can't prove that, but the value of the cycling component in schemes that were done just doesn't add up. Perhaps Gilligan's trying to pre-empt that and spin his own story.

    In his first couple of months in office, Khan has already made policy announcements which put firmly in the shade anything Johnson ever did (or didn't) for London's environment, such as announcements on air pollution, or the excellent announcement the other day of action to move the focus of development away from the centre only and to increase mixed use away from there.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sad­iq-khan-london-s-future-depends-on-devel­oping-the-suburbs-a3377091.html

    https://www.london.gov.uk/get-involved/h­ave-your-say/all-consultations/city-all-­londoners

    This is extremely important, easily the most important land development policy that can be undertaken in London, and of huge importance for cycling, too. Cycling thrives on the short, local trip, and the more people can do things locally, the more they will cycle. There's no reason why someone shouldn't be able to live, work, send their kids to school, or go out in the evening all in one place, cycling or walking all the way. Reducing the need to travel is the paramount, high-level transportation objective. It'll take years to turn the rudder, as London's like a supertanker, but this is the right direction.

    I'm no Labour party partisan, but I experienced firsthand how badly London was run during Johnson's time, and it feels so good to see important things being taken care of again.

  • I'm certainly not giving BoJo a free pass...he's left many white elephants that are going to hold London back for a while. That being said in the current political climate which is becoming increasingly hostile to cycle campaigning, I see the need for continued campaigning to reduce the wiggle room for Khan and friends otherwise we'll fall down the list of priorities...

  • "Ealing Cycling Campaign has finally won its campaign to prevent McDonald’s running an access road across the proposed Cycle Superhighway on the A40. The issue has taken hundreds of hours of campaign work stretching over two years, as McDonald's took the case first to a public inquiry and then to the High Court. The restaurant chain finally withdrew its appeal last week. The access road, to a new drive-through restaurant at Gipsy Corner, would have put cyclists at risks of being side-swiped by vehicles turning left off the A40 and crossing the planned new cycle path. The restaurant will still go ahead, but with access via Leamington Park - a solution we suggested two years ago."

  • About time. Peter Mynors of ECC deserves a medal for his efforts on that. Or a new bike.

  • Wasn't Ealing council also against McDonalds proposal. Or they flip flopped or something, initially approving the plan then rejecting it?

  • They approved it initially, before Ealing Cycling Campaign pointed out what the problem was. This is old but: http://lcc.org.uk/articles/mcdonalds-app­eal-against-safe-superhighway-dismissed

  • Not sure best place for this but defo relevant. Also belongs in epic wtf

    https://twitter.com/steinsky/status/9740­20384579293184?s=20

  • why is it always people that look like they're a full english away from a massive aneurysm that consistently regurgitate this basic rabble rousing arseflop?

  • Love this


    1 Attachment

    • Screen Shot 2021-03-15 at 19.10.49.png
  • Whoever at LCC that controls their reddit account needs a bit of a talking to.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/londoncycling/c­omments/n6xfaw/ever_wondered_how_your_cy­cle_can_help_you/gx9nez9/

  • Tldr n'all that I'm afraid. I headed straight to the comments which are predictably frothy.

  • The pro-cycling comments are very solid though.

  • Thought this was interesting, coming from a tory:
    "However, we must not fall into the trap of listening to the loudest voices in our party – or perpetuated myths on Twitter – as reasons for scrapping or never implementing these schemes. Imperial College London found no evidence that cycle superhighways worsened traffic congestion in London. In Kensington and Chelsea, independent polling found just 30 per cent of those surveyed were against the Kensington High Street cycle lane. This is not an isolated case as surveys have consistently found that the majority of residents support LTNs too – perhaps unsurprisingly, as who wouldn’t favour traffic moving from residential streets to main roads?

    Polling in March this year shows just 16 per centof people oppose LTNs, whereas 47 per cent support them in London. Supporting cycle schemes is a vote-winning policy and for Conservatives to remain relevant in cities and amongst future generations we must embrace many Briton’s desires to cycle safely."

  • It's interesting to try to think of arguments that will speak specifically to a conservative/Conservative/libertarian/cl­assical liberal mindset. It's also really important, since that's where a huge amount of the anti-cycling rhetoric comes from. In no particular order the following strike me as having potential:

    • Roads are a public space that we have historic rights to use. People shouldn't be excluded from using the roads because they don't have a car, but they currently are because of the situation on the roads.
    • Children should be able to play outdoors and have the independence that safe cycling affords them.
    • Businesses actually benefit from more diverse approaches to personal transport.
    • Running a car is simultaneously expensive and cheap: it is expensive from the view of a hard-working family (TM), who could well use that money for something else, but it is cheap inasmuch as it is hugely subsidised by people who don't drive and the true cost of motoring (pollution, congestion, collisions etc.) to the driver should be much, much higher if they were actually paying their way.
    • Cycles are often just the right tool for the job.

    Unfortunately it's really difficult to get through with these arguments unless you can convince them of a the fundamental underlying logic chain that goes something like:

    • The state and use of the road network are not natural, organic creations, but rather the result of policy decisions.
    • People's transport choices (which involve various trade-offs of cost, time, reliability, comfort, simultaneous benefits (like exercise or listening to the radio), and self-identity) are constrained and driven by the environment that these policies have put in place.
    • The situation that we see now is therefore not the result of people voting with their feet/wallets in some utterly unconstrained, free-market Utopia. It is not the inevitable and immutable endpoint of any transport system but the result of a series of policy decisions that has had some obvious negative consequences (e.g., the Westway) and some less obvious consequences (e.g., the creeping exclusion of children from the public realm)
    • The ultimate result of this is that people (with specific emphasis on some groups: children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and to a lesser degree women) are being prevented from making a free choice as to how to exercise their right to use the roads and to choose the form of transport that is both best for them for the journey in question and best for those around them. This exclusion is just as real as if it were mandated directly by policy.
    • The end result is injustice and a situation that ultimately is disadvantageous for everyone to some degree or another and can be redressed only by the means that it was imposed: policy.

  • You wouldn't believe the amount of argument in our club today that elicited. Baseball bats would get a better result blah blah blah .

  • I know this is serious business, but...

  • There is the new Cycle Savvy Driving programme just launched, targeting learner drivers through their driving instructors. The aim is to help drivers understand how to interact positively with people on cycles
    https://www.cyclesavvydriving.co.uk/

    There is online materials and will be an on-cycle practical element for some

  • Text of email complaint to Lincs police:

    Dear sir/madam

    On the 07/06/2021 Marc Jones sent this tweet:

    Marc Jones on Twitter: "I’d love to see more cycle lanes, I cycle with
    my daughter and love it. Let’s not pretend though that all cyclists
    use cycle lanes and equally that all people cycling in pedestrian
    areas care less for the safety of others. Doesn’t make all cyclists
    culpable, most aren’t.…

    https://twitter.com/MarcJonesLincs/statu­s/1401959705430405121

    I would like to make a formal complaint about Mr Jones.

    Your criteria for complaints says that you can get involved when complaints are made about behaviour when the victims:

    were present when the alleged inappropriate conduct took place, or close enough to see or hear the inappropriate conduct, or have been adversely affected* by the incident"

    *Being adversely affected may include distress, inconvenience, loss or damage, or being put in danger or at risk. "

    Marc Jones is broadcasting to his seven thousand followers all over the country that he feels that lawful, correct cycling is transgressive and "culpable"- in his own words, and that when he sees a cyclist avoid a cycle lane he thinks they are doing something wrong. This directly impacts my safety and the safety of any vulnerable road user on a bicycle because people on bikes are regularly subjected to road rage and even assaults by drivers who share the PCC's antipathy toward road users doing nothing wrong by using the road rather than a cycle lane. Cyclists have been seriously hurt by drivers enraged at their shunning of a cycle lane.

    The PCC is encouraging the toxic enmity on the roads that hurts people, by your own definition my complaint falls under your remit because all vulnerable road users including me are now placed in danger by Jones' remarks that confuse drivers about basic road rules. The last thing we need is a PCC adding to the widespread confusion among drivers about the rules on cycle lanes. The PCC is making the roads more dangerous for me and others and using your own definition this qualifies as being adversely affected.

    The PCC is confusing his seven thousand followers about basic road traffic rules. The adverse effects of this confusion can cause serious harm to entirely blameless road users. I consider this serious enough for you to consider.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Yours sincerely

  • Streatham LTN


    1 Attachment

    • ED6A65C1-A111-4831-A7EB-53A42429C4F7.jpeg
  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Cycle campaigning

Posted by Avatar for Oliver Schick @Oliver Schick

Actions