# Boris and his vision



## srw (8 Mar 2013)

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Cycling Vision GLA template FINAL.pdf
(Ignore the press reports - they're focussing on the eyecatching stuff. The really interesting bits are in the detail.)

So what do we think? A remarkably farsighted and brave attempt to put cycling at the heart of London, or a vanity exercise in wasting money?

For what it's worth I'm sceptical about some of it - 2,000 cyclists per hour doesn't sound an awful lot for the flagship route, but curiously excited about the idea of having a dedicated lane over the Westway. And the rhetoric is breathtakingly radical - the sort of thing you'd expect out of a Chavez or a Grillo, not a high Tory buffoon.

For me the most important thing is the attempt to de-lycrafy and normalise cycling as a way of getting around London. I pootle around on my 5-mile commute in my suit and wonder why it took me so long to realise that lycra and other special clothes just aren't necessary for short hops. The recognition that there are many different types of cyclists, with different needs, and also that some of the criticism against cyclists is justified are also a breath of fresh air.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Mar 2013)

I think is is a heady mix of ambition and potential. God will be in the detail.

Anything that gets ordinary folk thinking about riding bikes as a serious alternative to other modes is great. I find the language around the de-lycrafy a bit pants. Do we always have to be anti- something in the UK in order to be pro- something else?

I'm entirely for the active promotion of "dress for the destination not the journey" for short urban trips by bike (excepting my own personal spd shoe fetish) but don't see the need to lycra bash to achieve it.

All-in-all I'm excited by it. I class it as a 'very good thing'. especially because where a Tory-led London leads the true blue 'sham, and West Sussex will surely be asked to follow


----------



## Theseus (8 Mar 2013)

Now we need someone like Boris to lead the way for the rest of the country.


----------



## Lee_M (8 Mar 2013)

> lycra and other special clothes just aren't necessary for short hops


 
Agreed, but the problem with London in my personal case is that my commute is 8 miles each way and I get to work a sweaty disgusting horrible mess, no way would I want to do that in my suit.

and I suspect a significant number of London cyclists are in the same boat


----------



## Theseus (8 Mar 2013)

Lee, I fully understand your position, but what is the root of the problem?

Using my situation as an example, OK I don't live or work any where near London ...

I have a hilly (read Pentlands) 10 mile commute each way.
4 days a week I wear shirt and tie office wear. not a suit I will grant you but not far off
1 day a week we have dress down days where the code is more relaxed
4 days a week I dress in lycra to cycle, 1 day a week I ride in wearing the clothes for the office.
I have absolutely no customer facing duties. All back office with meetings over the phone. I have to make an effort to actually see people face to face.
If I could lose the 4 day "smart" uniform I could ride in casual every day.
I have worked for places that have adopted this attitude in the past and believe it or not the business carries on without any problems.

Now I know your situation may require you to wear a suit for some reason, but I suspect that a lot of us are wearing one just because.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Mar 2013)

13 mile commute. To avoid sweating on the commuter takes me around 65 - 75 minutes depending on how cold it is. In summer? I sweat on the climbs, can't help it. Without a shower by the end of the day I'm uncomfortable and smell ripe if I sweat on the way in.

Wearing lycra and sweating freely I can do it in 45 - 50 mins. 

I'm not prepared to sacrifice the extra 30 mins a day to de-lycrafy on anything other than the most occasional basis, when I do the whole thing on my Brompton anyway.


----------



## Mile195 (8 Mar 2013)

I'm very excited by this. The very fact that there has already been so much commitment to cycling (particularly with regard to the Cycle Superhighways and cycle hire schemes) should demonstrate that it's not a 'vanity project'. 

I think some of the timescales might be a bit ambitious, although if they really can acheive some of the points made in the timescales given then that'd be great, but realistically some will take longer to implement.

Like the OP, I like the fact that this is about making cycling the norm and acknowledging the fact that this needs to be done in a way that considers other road users. That was something they didn't do in the 60's, when it was all about getting the motorist to where they needed to be, and ignoring everybody else. For grand schemes like this to work, everybody has to be on board and supporting it, and that means making it appeal to drivers and pedestrians who don't currently cycle.

Great proposals... just hope they acheive all the backing they deserve.


----------



## albion (8 Mar 2013)

Considering the the cycle hire schemes were Kens ideas why the go slow in everything, especially safety?

Boris scrapped the lorry safety lorry back in 2009 so he is culpable in many ways here.
What I saw was a fresh lick of paint and Boris saying cyclists training is the answer.
Partly true but why did he make remove lorry checks ? 
Its not the cyclists doing the killing.

Its worth noting that the police found alternative funding to reverse that Boris decision on ceasing of funds.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Mar 2013)

it's all rhetoric, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. The Westway bike line is pure puffery, but, again, that doesn't make it a bad thing.

The headline thing on semi-segregated cycleways is neither here nor there. All the evidence is that it's critical mass that makes a cycle route and kerbs and bollards don't make for critical mass.

There are two parts of the document that are really interesting

_A cross-London network of high-quality guided Quietways will be created on low-traffic back _
_streets and other routes so different kinds of cyclists can choose the routes which suit them. _
_Unlike the old London Cycle Network, Quietways will be direct. They will be better-surfaced. _
_They will be clearly signed, mostly on the road itself, making it impossible to lose your way. _
_Each route will be delivered as a whole, not piecemeal. And they will not give up at the _
_difficult places._

Now this isn't really about cycling. This is a re-badging of the Home Zone thing, which can make a really positive difference to anybody living or walking on residential streets. That TfL show some signs of moving from the car being allowed to roam as free as the buffalo is good to read - it's just a pity that a perfectly good policy was effectively put on ice in 2008.

The other is this 

_Finally there are particular issues with construction vehicles that need to be tackled as a _
_disproportionate number of recent cycling accidents have involved vehicles in this sector. A recent TfL _
_report into construction logistics and cyclist safety identified 12 recommendations to address these _
_issues. While there have been great strides in improving health and safety on construction sites, similar _
_improvements need to be made in relation to vehicles before they arrive at site. _
_We will lobby Government, the Health and Safety Executive and others to ensure that the principal _
_contractor takes ownership of the road risk associated with a construction site. We will also work with _
_vehicle manufacturers to improve the design of vehicles in the future. While we will push for early _
_resolution of the issues highlighted by this report and publish the outcomes, the first step we will take _
_is to publish our own guidance for Construction Logistics Plans in April this year_

Well......that risk is already owned by the designers, but the HSE has consistently refused to make them accountable. It is for the designers to justify the risk entailed in their design, and to make the contractor aware of those risks, and to insist that the contractor submits a plan for mitigating the risks, which is then properly assessed by the H+S coordinator. And this isn't just big jobs, this is any job. So..........the RIBA doesn't give a monkeys, the ISE doesn't give a monkeys, and the HSE doesn't give a monkeys. The Mayor's plan may make a difference, but, actually, the failure thus far has been the designers.


----------



## srw (10 Mar 2013)

Has anyone got a bad thing to say? I'd expected one of the more rabid anti-segregationists to be up in arms by now.

For what it's worth, I think DZ makes some good points. I suspect the value of this document is in its combination of rhetoric, eye-catching suggestions and solid practical micro-changes. You read that Bozza is a big pictures man, who really doesn't care about the detail - if so, and if he and Gilligan let the minions (who clearly have some good ideas) get on with doing their job, so much the better.



dellzeqq said:


> The headline thing on semi-segregated cycleways is neither here nor there. All the evidence is that it's critical mass that makes a cycle route and kerbs and bollards don't make for critical mass..


Is there actually evidence for this? My best guess would be that kerbs and bollards, and hire stations and maps, and signs and symbols that say "here be cyclists" and "cyclists welcome here" should act as a catalyst to increase the rate of critical mass growth.


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Mar 2013)

CS7 (which is really a re-branding of a hugely successful bus lane) v Tavistock Square. No contest. And now......the routes to each side of CS7 have become big, big successes. Borough High Street is big on bikes - there are more bikes than private cars. Kennington Road is mahoosive.

My view remains the same. We've won. All it takes is time. While CS8, CS5 and CS2 are pathetic in their lack of ambition, and the proposed separated cycle way across Vauxhall Bridge is a nonsense, history tells us that where the combined brain power of TfL and LCC decree we should go, cyclists will find another way.


----------



## Crankarm (10 Mar 2013)

srw said:


> http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Cycling Vision GLA template FINAL.pdf
> (Ignore the press reports - they're focussing on the eyecatching stuff. The really interesting bits are in the detail.)
> 
> So what do we think? A remarkably farsighted and brave attempt to put cycling at the heart of London, or a vanity exercise in wasting money?
> ...


 
Is your post on the one hand supportive of Boris' vision and on the other a rant against those cyclists who choose to wear Lyrcra? Are you a snob?

Boris' vision, believe it when I see it.


----------



## albion (10 Mar 2013)

Supporting cyclists will be the norm anyway.

Britain needs to save cash so cycling is the obvious way to go backward forwards.
It is harsh reality, not Boris that will be the reason for doing it.


----------



## derrick (10 Mar 2013)

When they get everyone on there bikes, where will they get all the lost revenue from ?


----------



## albion (10 Mar 2013)

Since when has increasing the congestion charge ever lost revenue.

Ken got it quite right.


----------



## derrick (10 Mar 2013)

I was thinking more of fuel revenue.


----------



## albion (10 Mar 2013)

Any false revenue from stuff we pay billions to import can't help Britain that much at all.


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Mar 2013)

Crankarm said:


> Is your post on the one hand supportive of Boris' vision and on the other a rant against those cyclists who choose to wear Lyrcra? Are you a snob?
> 
> Boris' vision, believe it when I see it.


are you looking for an argument? Oh, sorry, I forgot.

It's a pork-barrel piece of work, but, the great thing is, not much of it will happen.


----------



## Richard Mann (10 Mar 2013)

There was an awful lot of "we will do xyz" in it. Quite a lot more than they have funding for, I think. The headline number is big, but it doesn't go far if you want quality and new alignments.

They haven't accepted that they have to deliberately take private car capacity out of the system, but it may provide some cover for their doing so _in due course_.


----------



## srw (11 Mar 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> They haven't accepted that they have to deliberately take private car capacity out of the system, but it may provide some cover for their doing so _in due course_.


I think that's the one thing that they _have_ accepted - the talk of Embankment and Westway cycle lanes exactly does that.


----------



## Richard Mann (11 Mar 2013)

srw said:


> I think that's the one thing that they _have_ accepted - the talk of Embankment and Westway cycle lanes exactly does that.


 
I meant private car capacity *that is being used*.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Mar 2013)

looking at the bridge over the West Cross Route, I smell another Emirates Airline in the making. Here's the problem - the line of the bridge (which will cost in the high tens of millions according to Andrew 'Muppet' Gilligan) is really suited for long distance (over 5 miles) trips. But......the over 5 milers are already cycling in their hundreds of thousands, and there may not be that much upward potential. The money might be better spent on the under 5 milers. What do you think, Richard?


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 Mar 2013)

Being primarily anti-segregationalist, my first thought was exactly the same as 2 Petunia plants floating in space 'oh no, not again'.
On further thinking, there's much to commend it IF you take the view that it's a good step forward on a path to better things ... but not a final solution.

Whilst I don't like segregated facilities I can appreciate that for many they will be a godsend or a way into cycle commuting for many afeared of traffic. As long as we that want to bomb along embankment on the road can still do so, then I'm happy.
The quiet streets and routes through them is a no-brainer - Abingdon is very good at this with many a wide path between areas for cyclists and peds linking parks and shops n stuff (and some much used segregated facilities too). A lot of people young and old use bicycles along these routes regularly in Abingdon for day to day stuff. Leaving backs street 'rat-runs to cyclists seems a good idea for cyclist and residents alike.
Linking cycling and railways is essential. Boris needs to kick the train operators.
But unless I missed it in my skim-read ...

I'd have liked to have seen a much greater emphasis on more bus lanes/bus and cycle only routes rather than segregation (even the feted Holland has some horrible segregated schemes)
No mention of extending congestion charge zones or increasing it?
Cross london 20mph zone?
Increased parking charges?
Charging companies for their own parking spaces?
Improved bicycle training for all?
Cycle-priority at lights/complex junctions - to allow a safer car-free get-away?
I'm with dell on critical mass, it's a pursuasive argument, I hope that those that dust down their bikes to amble 'safely' along the embankment bike path or through parks with kids and granny in tow will eventually graduate become part of the critical mass. This might be the encouragement that many need.
On the other side, making driving in London more onerous must be the other driver to encourage people out of their cars and to use alternative transport.
Carrot and stick ....


----------



## Richard Mann (11 Mar 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> looking at the bridge over the West Cross Route, I smell another Emirates Airline in the making. Here's the problem - the line of the bridge (which will cost in the high tens of millions according to Andrew 'Muppet' Gilligan) is really suited for long distance (over 5 miles) trips. But......the over 5 milers are already cycling in their hundreds of thousands, and there may not be that much upward potential. The money might be better spent on the under 5 milers. What do you think, Richard?


 
I thought the Westway bit was just so they could get to the BBC. If it's 10s of millions for a bridge over the West Cross Route it's poor value-for-money. Providing for cyclists on Bayswater Road and sorting out Shepherd's Bush would be a much better idea.

In some ways, the big bucks for 1-3 suburban town centres is the most interesting bit, since it would require some places to do a full network review, which would provoke some severe teeth-sucking. That might result in somewhere coming up with a sensible plan (probably a lot less "Dutch" than some people think), or it might all come to nothing.


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Mar 2013)

the real vanity project is the Embankment. Gilligan reckons it will take a thousand cyclists an hour 'the equivalent of four tube trains'. Well, he's been travelling on different tube trains to me, because all the trains I go on can take close to five hundred people, and, at forty trains an hour in each direction that's...........lots.

The big mistake, and it's an embarrassing one, is to suggest that cycling delivers 'bangs per buck'. Not really. LCN+ was £200 million down the pan, and, when you compare Gilligan's thousand an hour with the hundred plus a minute leaving the top of my road by bus for the price of red paint, you wonder what he's been sniffing.

Small things can achieve a lot. Cutting a suburban road in two, makes a cycle route, makes for a quieter street and costs about £5k.

The bridge, by the way, is 'high tens of millions'.


----------



## srw (12 Mar 2013)

Fab Foodie said:


> I'd have liked to have seen a much greater emphasis on more bus lanes/bus and cycle only routes rather than segregation (even the feted Holland has some horrible segregated schemes)
> No mention of extending congestion charge zones or increasing it?
> Cross london 20mph zone?
> Increased parking charges?
> ...


Apart from the parking charges - boroughs have no need of encouragement to whack up parking fees, since it's a sellers market - all of that's in there.


----------



## Richard Mann (12 Mar 2013)

srw said:


> ... all of that's in there.


 
My impression was that EVERYTHING was in there, including quite a lot of mutually-contradictory stuff. Great for coalition-building, not-so-good for delivering value-for-money.

VE is a symbolic project, and goes round a lot of destinations (a bit like the cycle tracks in Seville). I was amused that it's shown on the river side of the Embankment - simplifies conflicts with cars, but makes it less convenient for shorter trips. Very telling. But it oughtn't to be that expensive, so as _grand projets_ go, it's got a good symbolism/cost ratio. And if it's the trigger that makes them sort out Parliament Square, then it'll be a good thing.

If they want to reduce central London overcrowding on the tube, the way to do it is buses & walking and radial cycle routes from the inner suburbs. There's no business case in providing explicitly for long-distance cycling.


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Mar 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> My impression was that EVERYTHING was in there, including quite a lot of mutually-contradictory stuff. Great for coalition-building, not-so-good for delivering value-for-money.
> 
> VE is a symbolic project, and goes round a lot of destinations (a bit like the cycle tracks in Seville). I was amused that it's shown on the river side of the Embankment - simplifies conflicts with cars, but makes it less convenient for shorter trips. Very telling. But it oughtn't to be that expensive, so as _grand projets_ go, it's got a good symbolism/cost ratio. And if it's the trigger that makes them sort out Parliament Square, then it'll be a good thing.
> 
> If they want to reduce central London overcrowding on the tube, the way to do it is buses & walking and radial cycle routes from the inner suburbs. There's no business case in providing explicitly for long-distance cycling.


you say that........have you seen the 'Go Dutch' proposal for Parliament Square? It's abysmal. But, apparently, shared surfaces are so last year..........

The bike lane on the Embankment will stop buses going down there for all time. A real shame - if it happens. I suspect it won't


----------



## Richard Mann (12 Mar 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> you say that........have you seen the 'Go Dutch' proposal for Parliament Square? It's abysmal. But, apparently, shared surfaces are so last year..........


 
I'd certainly expect TfL to manage a much better design than LCC.


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Mar 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> I'd certainly expect TfL to manage a much better design than LCC.


you might be disappointed. Have you seen the 'island bus stops' slated for Stratford High Street?

I think in all seriousness, Richard, TfL has had a lobotomy.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Mar 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> you might be disappointed. Have you seen the 'island bus stops' slated for Stratford High Street?
> 
> I think in all seriousness, Richard, TfL has had a lobotomy.


Lobotomy? Nah, body snatchers from LCC have had their wicked way more like.





"He's riding on the... the... the... the... ROAD!"


----------



## Richard Mann (13 Mar 2013)

Correction: I'd certainly expect TfL to manage a much better design than LCC.

(those floating bus stops on Stratford High St - a comically misnamed road - aren't bad in principle, though you'd think they'd manage to keep the track reasonably straight and level, and put wide crossings before and aft, not a perpendicular one in the middle: it's not like nobody's ever done this before, you know)


----------



## Lee_M (13 Mar 2013)

Touche said:


> Lee, I fully understand your position, but what is the root of the problem?
> 
> Using my situation as an example, OK I don't live or work any where near London ...
> 
> ...


 
yepo, unfortunately I have to wear a suit because I am contact with clients all the time. I dont have a problem with people riding in their office gear as long as they dont stink when they sit next to me, but I know for me thats not the case (it's also not the case for some I see come into the office dripping in sweat then just sit down and start work - yeeuucchh)

I think its great to get more people on bikes, but why the denigration of people wearing lycra ? (not by you - by Boris et al)


----------



## srw (14 Mar 2013)

Lee_M said:


> I think its great to get more people on bikes, but why the denigration of people wearing lycra ? (not by you - by Boris et al)


What denigration? All he's saying is that there is currently a perception that you need to wear special clothes to cycle in London. In fact, quite often you don't. The boundary between dressing up and not dressing up will differ from person to person and cycling style to cycling style, but it's somewhere well north of 5 miles at a reasonable potter - and in central London a reasonable potter is very nearly as quick as a full-out blast because of the traffic lights.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2013)

srw said:


> What denigration? All he's saying is that there is currently a perception that you need to wear special clothes to cycle in London. In fact, quite often you don't. The boundary between dressing up and not dressing up will differ from person to person and cycling style to cycling style, but it's somewhere well north of 5 miles at a reasonable potter - *and in central London a reasonable potter is very nearly as quick as a full-out blast because of the traffic lights.*


Which is why in nearly every large European city you see most cyclists dressed for the destination not the journey.


----------



## Lee_M (14 Mar 2013)

srw said:


> What denigration? All he's saying is that there is currently a perception that you need to wear special clothes to cycle in London. In fact, quite often you don't. The boundary between dressing up and not dressing up will differ from person to person and cycling style to cycling style, but it's somewhere well north of 5 miles at a reasonable potter - and in central London a reasonable potter is very nearly as quick as a full-out blast because of the traffic lights.


 
"we need to de-lycrafy" - sounds like denigration to me - your view may differ 

I'm glad if you can ride 5 miles without needing to change for a days work - I need to change, my bike gear is well sweaty at the end of my 8 mile commute


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (14 Mar 2013)

Lee_M said:


> "we need to de-lycrafy" - sounds like denigration to me - your view may differ
> 
> I'm glad if you can ride 5 miles without needing to change for a days work - I need to change, my bike gear is well sweaty at the end of my 8 mile commute


I see it more as an attempt to make cycling appear less elitist and less intimidating. I know lots of people who feel self-conscious about wearing lycra shorts and there is a distinctive UK style of cycling that puts a premium on performance and kit. There's nothing wrong about using the commute as an overtly physical activity. There's equally nothing wrong about wearing regular clothes for a regular commute. I think besuited riders hopping onto their Bromptons and casual riders hiring Boris Bikes, etc, serve to make cycling appear more accessible, more everyday.


----------



## Lee_M (14 Mar 2013)

my commute is overly physical mainly because my hybrid is heavy!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2013)

Lee_M said:


> "we need to de-lycrafy" - sounds like denigration to me - your view may differ
> 
> I'm glad if you can ride 5 miles without needing to change for a days work - I need to change, my bike gear is well sweaty at the end of my 8 mile commute


If you ran a 10km race you'd wear running gear, special and specialised clothes and need a shower when you crossed the line.

If you walked 10km to a pub you wouldn't.

It ain't the weight of your hybrid making you sweat but the speed at which you insist on propelling that weight.


----------



## Lee_M (14 Mar 2013)

GregCollins said:


> If you ran a 10km race you'd wear running gear, special and specialised clothes and need a shower when you crossed the line.
> 
> If you walked 10km to a pub you wouldn't.
> 
> It ain't the weight of your hybrid making you sweat but the speed at which you insist on propelling that weight.


 
I dont think you've seen me ride 

BTW if I walk 10k anywhere I'd be sweating


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2013)

Lee_M said:


> I dont think you've seen me ride
> 
> *BTW if I walk 10k anywhere I'd be sweating*


You and me both Lee you and me both.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Mar 2013)

I think you're both on the Felpham ride. Perspiring together!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2013)

On a bike, at night, I glow, not sweat.


----------



## ianrauk (14 Mar 2013)

GregCollins said:


> On a bike, at night, I glow, not sweat.


 

Hi Viz?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Hi Viz?


Let me reflect on that for a moment!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (15 Mar 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> I think you're both on the Felpham ride. Perspiring together!


If people conspiring together is a conspiracy, should people perspiring together be a perspiracy?


----------



## porteous (18 Mar 2013)

Years ago, in Bangor, we had an elderly gentleman who used to cycle round town on a ladies 1940s sit up and beg bike while wearing a mixture of rubber fetish gear and boy scout uniform (Including the Baden Powell hat). Now that's class!


----------



## albion (17 Jul 2013)

On his pet project he is 'as grandiose as Hitler'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Thames-Estuary-airport-grandiose-Hitlers.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/15/boris-airport_n_3598033.html

"you throw everything you have got on the roulette table and hope you got it right."

No need to get out of bed with that gigantium effort?


----------



## Frood42 (19 Jul 2013)

It reads great, and that proposal in combination with the proposal of sending cars underground could make London much more pleasent.
Might happen in the next 20-30 years... and then it might have to be re-done in another 10-20 years as they couldn't get it right first time...


----------



## albion (6 Aug 2013)

"Mr Johnson, the Mayor of London, indicated that he has commissioned a tricycle version of one of his London “Boris bikes” to be built by Barclays, the sponsor of the scheme in the capital."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...le-to-acculturate-him-to-joys-of-cycling.html

Ask a question and as often as not it becomes bizarre reading. One bike to be moved on as fast as possible, I'm sure.


----------



## albion (28 Nov 2013)

What with cyclists only getting what they deserve, the bottom 16% in IQ get what they deserve , and his greed. (That coming at a time of long term investment abandonment and job scuttling).
Its certainly going to be one hell of a ride if he gains power via what is increasingly looking to be a nightmare vision. Third Reich here we come?


----------



## GuardTwin (29 Nov 2013)

I'm up for making things safer for people but I hope they separate peds and bike paths so it is obvious that people should not walk in them and sit back and look at the poorly designed ones like a bike path painted towards a lamp-post... that is like a cartoon road with a painted tunnel on the wall.


----------



## albion (6 Dec 2014)

Well that 'considering car free Sunday' sounds to me is that it is a cheap way to lower the massively increased illegal London diesel pollution now condemning many citizens to an early grave.

It seems sad that many non car owners Londoners have to pay for diesel with their life.


----------



## Mile195 (6 Dec 2014)

albion said:


> Well that 'considering car free Sunday' sounds to me is that it is a cheap way to lower the massively increased illegal London diesel pollution now condemning many citizens to an early grave.
> 
> It seems sad that many non car owners Londoners have to pay for diesel with their life.


Illegal, but only because the EU say so. London hasn't hit its target but has had a very good go at it. Rather than recognise that, I understand they just slapped us with a fine, thus taking money away from implementing more pollution reduction measures. Nice.

We're a city of over 7'000'000 people. I don't own a car, but I don't expect everyone else's car and its emmissions to disappear overnight. That said, if it does disappear for 1 Sunday a month, I shan't complain about it!


----------



## albion (6 Dec 2014)

Mile195 said:


> ... London hasn't hit its target but has had a very good go at it. ...


Are you sure? Methinks it is going well in reverse with 50% of new cars using diesel, something totally unsuitable for congested London.

Yet, in going for the guy who ceased the congestion charge extension scheme, did people get what they wanted ?


----------



## jarlrmai (6 Dec 2014)

The lycra thing is because only hardcore cyclists cycle because the conditions are such that only the hardcore survive. If you are hardcore you are either riding a long distance or riding fast or extending the commute so you wear the gear, also you wear it cos you own it and you've sorted out your work conditions so you can wear it and get changed.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Dec 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> The lycra thing is because only hardcore cyclists cycle because the conditions are such that only the hardcore survive. If you are hardcore you are either riding a long distance or riding fast or extending the commute so you wear the gear, also you wear it cos you own it and you've sorted out your work conditions so you can wear it and get changed.


blimey!


----------



## albion (8 Dec 2014)

Here's some actual vision put into action beyond the lick of blue paint that created highly dangerous cycle lanes 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/paris-m...plus-100m-for-bike-lanes-20141207-1227bg.html

It is interesting in that Paris is suffering the same catastrophic diesel pollution as London . Uncannily, leaving the EU/raising the white flag is not their answer to things.


----------



## albion (30 Jun 2015)

Here is a small bit of what a real mayor for the actual people can do.

http://nytimes.com/2015/06/30/nyreg...votes-to-freeze-rents-on-one-year-leases.html


----------



## albion (25 Jun 2016)

Well, by some quirk of fate, Boris may be in the process of reducing car usage in London by a large amount.

The London meltdown smells cleaner to me, though I am a bit unsure if winning this particular vote was ever part of his plan.


----------

