# beards



## dellzeqq (7 Mar 2012)

So...this morning, having enjoyed a cup of coffee bought for me by our fave Bike Cop (post Leveson I’m not allowed to buy), I was waiting at a red light when a chap on a touring bike pops up, helmet and beard denoting a degree of cycling seriousness, and hands me a card. It’s from these guys www.londonersonbiikes.org . I turn it over, and it’s got three crosses in boxes, and beside those three crosses, three statements

1. I want Londoners to be safe on bikes
2. Transport is the one thing the Mayor really controls
3. So I’m voting with my bike on 3 May 2012

Well, setting aside number 2 being wrong.... number 1 strikes me as twattery of a high order. Not unique twattery of course, because the LCC’s head office, the entirely risible CEGB, and half a dozen of the cycleblogerati are telling us that riding a bike in London is simply suicidal. Squish! Squash! That’s another one down, and ain’t it awful. So I handed the card back and said I’d be voting for Ken. To which this bearded plank says ‘Ken’s done nothing for cyclists’.

Well, excuse me, but I seem to remember two hundred million quid being thrown at LCN+ because that was what the LCC asked for. Of course they’re now asking for something else entirely, having neatly overlooked the obvious, which is that their brainchild turned out to be useless. Not, by the way, that I’m making a big point about Ken and cycling, because however much I despise the egregious Johnson, he too has thrown really big money at cycling, and is continuing to do so in the shape of Cycling Superhighways (which the LCC wanted as well) and the Barclays hire bikes (LCC ditto). In fact if you add it all up I reckon that nigh on £300million has been lavished on cycling in London, which equates to something over a grand for every regular cyclist.

Anyroadup, apparently two thousand cyclists have promised to vote the way that ‘londonersonbikes’ decides to direct them. Now I could simply curl my lip in the direction of those who are willing to take directions on how to vote, but, hey, it’s their vote.....the really, really startling thing is that Beardybloke thought I would be impressed by this. Two thousand votes? No candidate worth his or her salt would scratch their arse for two thousand votes. Then again, the LCC, fresh from their damp squib of a protest at Blackfriars, is bigging up the ‘Go Dutch’ petition by telling us that they’ve got ten thousand signatures. Well, here’s the deal...........

Ten thousand signatures do not buy another two hundred million quids worth of Dutch cycle lanes any more than two thousand signatures gets you a bike shed. Cycling campaigners in London had better wake up and smell the coffee – we are, pound for vote, the most pampered bunch in the entire capital, albeit that the pampering was of our own design and crap.

Not that the LCC are the worst of the bunch – far from it. The CEGB wants entirely separate cycle lanes at a cost that would be measured in billions. David (Beardy) Hembrow is spitting tacks at the LCC because their ‘Go Dutch’ campaign is insufficiently Dutch (and he’s plagiarised the LCC’s illustrations to prove it).

 Anything anybody can provide, at whatever cost, is simply not good enough for London’s cycle campaigners who, if the truth were known, will not be satisfied until all ‘vehicular cyclists’ are shot and all bikes confined to bike lanes which will be so wide that half of London will have to be flattened to make way from them (here, for ‘Teef’s benefit is Superstudio’s take on cycle paths...)





Does any of this matter? Not really..... Those craaazzzzy ‘vehiculars’ still swan down CS7 on bikes of varying quality, knees akimbo, buttcracks popping out of the tops of their jeans, spokes jingling like a marimba band. Cycling is simply happening, much to the dismay of the sturm und drangists.

Like I said, Ken and Johnson are going to look at two thousand votes and scarcely trouble to disguise their indifference. The ten thousand LCC signatories will move on to petitions new.

But......... then again, perhaps it does matter just a little bit, because perhaps in presuming far, far too much the LCC has shot itself, and London’s cyclists in the foot....

You see, the sad truth is that while cycling can be taken for granted by all the candidates, cyclists can’t take the candidates for granted. Collecting a pitiful ten thousand signatures is akin to writing ‘we really, really don’t matter’ in big fat letters on your own forehead. Collect one hundred thousand, and you’ve got a party, but ten thousand gets you a Christmas card from Paddick, the Greens and the BNP. Let’s face it – we are not electorally threatening, and anything that happens after the election will be down to the winning candidate deciding, off his or her own bat, that cycling should be supported. Johnson now appreciates how electorally worthless cyclists are – all those hire bikes, all that blue tarmac and those that can be bothered to express an opinion are still weeping and wailing. Ken, who knows full well that the big transport story is the bus, can afford to shrug his shoulders. Given TfL’s shrinking budget, courting London’s cyclists at hellacious expense is over.

So, beardyboys, if you can’t actually pull off a campaign that is big, just keep quiet, and, if it’s not too much trouble or too demeaning, have the goodness to say ‘thank you’ to two candidates, who, for reasons entirely of their own making, have done their best for cycling. And, next time you’re waiting at a red light with thirty or forty other cyclists, look around you and ask yourself what these people know that you don’t. And remember the wise words of Schopenhauer - beards are a form of disguise and should be suppressed by the police.


----------



## martint235 (7 Mar 2012)

I am actually one of the 2,000. Not because I have any intention of being told how to vote but because it was also linked to the recent "flashride"* around Westminster. I agree though that whenever I get an email from Londonersonbikes that screams "2000 people already signed up" I feel slightly sorry for them. You could have got 2000 signatures by standing outside the away end of St Andrews last night with a petition topped "Don't Hire Benitez". With a population of around 7 million (I think), to be a force in London you really need at least 5% of that.

* I always thought "flash" things: dances, sit-ins etc were in some way secret until they had happened not highly publicised events?


----------



## youngoldbloke (7 Mar 2012)

By the way - BEARDS have F all to do with it. I ride a road bike - race bike even. I obey 'the ruIes', don't have panniers or a bar bag, and I use Look Keo cleats. I don' t have a subscription to the Guardian either, I shave my legs but not my face.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Mar 2012)

youngoldbloke said:


> By the way - BEARDS have F all to do with it. I ride a road bike - race bike even. *I obey 'the ruIes'*, don't have panniers or a bar bag, and I use Look Keo cleats. I don' t have a subscription to the Guardian either, I shave my legs but not my face.


Rule #50
// Facial hair is to be carefully regulated.
No full beards, no moustaches. Goatees are permitted only if your name starts with “Marco” and ends with “Pantani”, or if your head is intentionally or unintentionally bald. One may never shave on the morning of an important race, as it saps your virility, and you need that to kick ass.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Mar 2012)

youngoldbloke said:


> By the way - BEARDS have F all to do with it. I ride a road bike - race bike even. I obey 'the ruIes', don't have panniers or a bar bag, and I use Look Keo cleats. I don' t have a subscription to the Guardian either, I shave my legs but not my face.


Keos are beardy cleats. Always have been, always will be.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (7 Mar 2012)

I have a friend who thinks he might want to grow a beard, any advice?


----------



## Friz (7 Mar 2012)

threebikesmcginty said:


> I have a friend who thinks he might want to grow a beard, any advice?


 I went with the chin beard, no mustache. It was getting harder and harder to chat to the girl in the shop (on my way home) while the snot kept running into it...

Yeah I know. Nice image.


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Mar 2012)

threebikesmcginty said:


> I have a friend who thinks he might want to grow a beard, any advice?


 Yeah, he should also grow a pony-tail ... to ensure we know to avoid him from any angle ....


----------



## MacB (7 Mar 2012)

threebikesmcginty said:


> I have a friend who thinks he might want to grow a beard, any advice?


 
you have a friend!!!!!


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Mar 2012)

threebikesmcginty said:


> I have a friend who thinks he might want to grow a beard, any advice?


 
If he's growing a beard because he thinks it's easier than clean shaving every day or two... he's going to be disappointed. A beard requires constant grooming if you don't want to look like a tramp, and I don't mean one of these dudes...



if he thinks that growing the ZZ Top beard will be easier than the constant grooming to keep it looking neat & tidy, he's in for another shock. I had a big beard once. After a few months I decided to shave it off because I was suddenly single and wanted to look youthful again. I found a wallet, two forks, an eraser, a half used pack of postage stamps (1st class too!) and a rather gruesome looking half-eaten baguette which was well past its sell by date. In fact I remember loosing that.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Mar 2012)

I follow in the excellent footsteps of our forebears and only shave once a week, twice if I have a 'Really Important Meeting' to attend.


----------



## Crackle (7 Mar 2012)

MacB said:


> you have a friend!!!!!


 
I thought it was a 'friend' much like I have a 'mate' who's in this terrible situation, what should he do....


----------



## Crackle (7 Mar 2012)

1755316 said:


> Are we back to RichP's mate's prospective infidelity?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (8 Mar 2012)

MacB said:


> you have a friend!!!!!



Yes, I have friends.
Well actually more like acquaintances.
No, more sort of 'nod of acknowledgement' types.
Maybe it's actually a wary look and cross the street.
There are folk I've met who haven't told me to "f*ck off".
Or phoned the police.


@Fab Foodie, you're in the book for liking Mac's post.


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Mar 2012)

anyroadup. Here's 'Christopher Mahon' on the matter

When I voted in the LCC poll for "Go Dutch" I voted on the manifesto of this blog. I am puzzled how vehicular cyclists have inserted killer ASLs into LCC' s designs. Don't they realize they lost the vote? Doesn't LCC management realize that vehicular cycling was REJECTED in that vote? What can we do?​ 





get yourself a shave, Chris!
​


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Mar 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> anyroadup. Here's 'Christopher Mahon' on the matter
> 
> When I voted in the LCC poll for "Go Dutch" I voted on the manifesto of this blog. I am puzzled *how vehicular cyclists have inserted killer ASLs* into LCC' s designs. Don't they realize they lost the vote? Doesn't LCC management realize that vehicular cycling was REJECTED in that vote? What can we do?​
> ​


Dell, have you been out with the brushes and the green paint again... that's taking localism too far...


----------



## JohnTCC (8 Mar 2012)

Does all this mean I have to shave off my beard


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Mar 2012)

JohnTCC said:


> Does all this mean I have to shave off my beard


Of course not. But the velominati may hunt you down...


----------



## youngoldbloke (8 Mar 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Of course not. But the velominati may hunt you down...


OMG


----------



## wiggydiggy (9 Mar 2012)

I have a beard and love it, I follow a strict rule of only shaving during BST so that my face is warm in the winter


----------



## JohnTCC (9 Mar 2012)

1756271 said:


> Post a photo and I'm sure that advice would follow.



Yeah... Like thats going to happen


----------



## gaz (16 Mar 2012)

Wasn't it ken that originally approved both the superhighways and cycle hire.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Mar 2012)

gaz said:


> Wasn't it ken that originally approved both the superhighways and cycle hire.


sort of. TfL were working on the cycle hire from about 2005, but the intention was that it cover the 32 boroughs, and Brent (I think) and one other Conservative borough were having none of it, so it got bogged down. The Cycling Superhighways were already planned by the time of the last election, although some, such as CS3 and CS8 have been messed about with since the election

Johnson claims to have spent £206M on cycling and who's to say he's wrong? My question is - does that represent a good deal for Londoners who don't cycle. I suspect that, while the Barclays Bikes may boost tourism, and the Superhighways have undoubtedly made a difference, I couldn't make the case that it has.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Mar 2012)

Beards are a safety item.

The bigger the beard the better.

The compression of the wiry and strong fibres in beard hair absorbs the energy of impact and prevents head and facial injuries.

I fell off my bike once and did not suffer a head injury therefore this is true... I hate to think what injuries I would have incurred if I had been beardless!

I don't know how you can all possibly be out there on bicycles risking death and injury just because you feel that beards are uncool!


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Mar 2012)

1771696 said:


> Easy, there will be calls for afros next.


I prefer the Celtic look!

Oh and please note the useful accessory braids for adding LEDs, and reflective strips


----------



## gaz (19 Mar 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Beards are a safety item.
> 
> The bigger the beard the better.
> 
> ...


Keep up, we've already discussed in the helmet threads that a blond wig is the ultimate safety item for cycling. + a boob job.


----------



## Inertia (19 Mar 2012)

gaz said:


> Keep up, we've already discussed in the helmet threads that a blond wig is the ultimate safety item for cycling. + a boob job.


I think the three b's, (Blonde wig, Boob job PLUS Beard) will definitely result in you being given more space on the road.


----------



## Hacienda71 (19 Mar 2012)

Yeh, but you could end up with a rotational head injury with a beard if you come off, it might get caught!


----------



## Davidc (19 Mar 2012)

Inertia said:


> I think the three b's, (Blonde wig, Boob job PLUS Beard) will definitely result in you being given more space on the road.


 
More space at the pub too.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Mar 2012)

gaz said:


> Keep up, we've already discussed in the helmet threads that a blond wig is the ultimate safety item for cycling. + a boob job.


 
How tacky and so very "Jordan"!

A wig and a boob job..............whatever happened to the natural look?


----------



## Linford (19 Mar 2012)

The e-biking beard I work with on hearingthis sum spent declared that £300 million was about £900 million lesss than should have been spent.
I say £300 million isn't much when you have 2 graduates in suits waiving clipboards around for every 1 Latvian or lithuanian bloke with a shovel in their hands


----------



## Dan B (19 Mar 2012)

gaz said:


> Wasn't it ken that originally approved both the superhighways and cycle hire.





Ken said:


> Q: Would you keep the "Boris bikes"?
> 
> A: When I started this in July 2007, my instruction to TfL was simply go to Paris, take the Vélib' scheme and bring it to London. For some reason, they did not take the Vélib' scheme and they've gone for this much more expensive one that Boris has brought in.


From http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/30/ken-livingstone-policies-not-personalities


----------



## Jezston (20 Mar 2012)

Some points, some more serious than others:

1. All you haters suck my beard. You jelly. Everyone criticising beards clearly lacks the machismo to pull one off themselves and rather than facing up to their inadequacies try to make out there is something _wrong _with beards. I especially mention 'Greg Collins' who says he only shaves twice a week - clearly by the end of the week he's nearing schoolboy bumfluff stage whilst the more manly of us are already harbouring a family of birds. Shame on all of you.

2. I think it's a bit silly to dismiss the efforts of the LCC and other such groups as purely for the benefit of cyclists, as if we are one rigid group of individuals that never changes in number. We need to get more - much, much more - people onto bikes in our cities and out of cars, and perception of safety is the biggest issue. Although I agree that LCC campaigning on "ooh this is dangerous fix it" may be a double edged sword.

3. From that image, are the LCC actually ANTI vehicular cycling? I accept that fast, assertive vehicle cycling isn't for everyone (wish more people on here accepted that) and they'd rather be segregated and tootle along blissfully away from cars in cycle lanes, but are the LCC now actively rejecting our views and needs?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Mar 2012)

Jezston said:


> Some points, some more serious than others:
> 
> 1. All you haters suck my beard. You jelly. Everyone criticising beards clearly lacks the machismo to pull one off themselves and rather than facing up to their inadequacies try to make out there is something _wrong _with beards. I especially mention 'Greg Collins' who says he only shaves twice a week - clearly by the end of the week he's nearing schoolboy bumfluff stage whilst the more manly of us are already harbouring a family of birds. Shame on all of you.
> 
> ...


Hey don't single me out. I got soul, and a tab to prove it. Unlike LCC, whose soul has been sucked out through the pump hose of a dutch bicycle. Whereas CEGB are all soul and no corporeal substance.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Mar 2012)

Got to shave at least three times this week. Important meetings with important people in that London. Suits, ties, cuff links and shiny shoes and _everything_.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Mar 2012)

Jezston said:


> Some points, some more serious than others:
> 
> 1. All you haters suck my beard. You jelly. Everyone criticising beards clearly lacks the machismo to pull one off themselves and rather than facing up to their inadequacies try to make out there is something _wrong _with beards. I especially mention 'Greg Collins' who says he only shaves twice a week - clearly by the end of the week he's nearing schoolboy bumfluff stage whilst the more manly of us are already harbouring a family of birds. Shame on all of you.


we feel your pain! To be honest Mr. BeardyCycliyMan approached me with another card last night. I can only think that this is because he didn't recognise me. I had a beard. I made some crack about beardies to the cyclist with me, How we laughed! But then my companion had a beard as well. Lesson - beards are comic whether you have one or not



Jezston said:


> 2. I think it's a bit silly to dismiss the efforts of the LCC and other such groups as purely for the benefit of cyclists, as if we are one rigid group of individuals that never changes in number. We need to get more - much, much more - people onto bikes in our cities and out of cars, and perception of safety is the biggest issue. Although I agree that LCC campaigning on "ooh this is dangerous fix it" may be a double edged sword.


well, sorry, but for nigh-on a decade they got pretty much everything they wanted. Now there's been a putsch in the LCC, and the beardies have taken over and they want something different. Which nobody can afford, and very, very few people want (signatures now up to 15,000 which is completely rubbish). 



Jezston said:


> 3. From that image, are the LCC actually ANTI vehicular cycling? I accept that fast, assertive vehicle cycling isn't for everyone (wish more people on here accepted that) and they'd rather be segregated and tootle along blissfully away from cars in cycle lanes, but are the LCC now actively rejecting our views and needs?


the people who won the vote do blame 'vehicular cyclists' for the absence of segregated cycle lanes. Yes, peeps, they really are that mad..........


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> the people who won the vote do blame 'vehicular cyclists' for the absence of segregated cycle lanes. Yes, peeps, they really are that mad..........


Like some later day Rebecca I stalk the streets at night destroying segregated infrastructure. It's a wonder I'm not in jail.


----------



## Jezston (22 Mar 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> the people who won the vote do blame 'vehicular cyclists' for the absence of segregated cycle lanes. Yes, peeps, they really are that mad..........


 
Any more info on this? And what was 'the vote'?


----------



## wiggydiggy (22 Mar 2012)

Hmmm reminds me:

Winter






Summer


----------



## RedRider (22 Mar 2012)

I don't have a beard but sometimes I tuck my trouser legs into my socks.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Mar 2012)

I can't look at that image without wishing to send him a £5 Boots voucher for "male grooming products".


----------



## Vikeonabike (3 Apr 2012)

This whole thread smacks of Beardism and I demand the moderators remove it.
Actually on a more serious note, I blame your fathers for your lack of understnading of the importance to male vitality and masculanism of the beard.
For instance 
Then of course there are good reasons for having a beard 
Not to mention good advice to all the ladies out there:


----------



## angus h (4 Apr 2012)

So... cleanshaven LoB volunteer & 80% vehicular cyclist here. 80% because I use the cycle bypass at E&C instead of riding the roundabout like True Vehicularists are apparently supposed to.

Regarding #2. Hyperbole perhaps, but the only other area he/she has significant clout in is policing.

3700 signups of 300k regular cyclists is not a huge amount, true; even less so when you consider there's another 1.5M Londoners out there who'd like to ride a bike regularly but say they are put off by road danger. Having said that, our budget to date has been less than what some of your bikes are probably worth (and mine, before some half-awake cretin in a Clio drove in to the back of it). We're not part of LCC & have no outside funding. With Boris & Ken being neck-and-neck in the election (which could well be won or lost by a margin less than 10k, as it goes), with a few more supporters we'll be at a size where they're prepared to put something on the table in return for those votes.

Anyhow. LoB doesn't take sides in the infrastructure debate. Nor helmets, nor facial hair. The volunteer group has everyone from round-the-world riders & people who've been commuting longer than I've been alive, to Pashley princesses & Hoxton hipsters. What we do ask is that the politicians take notice of not just the 300k people who ride bikes now, but the 1.5m who'd like to (and the millions more who'd probably take it up if it even seemed like something they could consider). I know that as a fast-ish, vehicular cyclist myself, many are suspicious of spending & infrastructure... frankly I couldn't care less. Getting cars off the roads, making the city's air cleaner, putting more travelers out in the open & being part of their communities instead of caged up in metal boxes, making the streets more liveable.. all those are more important to me than whether my average commute speed is 12mph or 17mph. As a solo rider, I can go almost anywhere in London on a bike right now, mostly without a sense of intolerable danger. But I can't take my kids to the museums on a Nihola; my parents, aunts, in-laws etc. would never dream of making a ten-mile journey across London by bike; and I believe it's only right that we should try to change this. As far as the implementation goes - Dutch, Danish or anything else - is of secondary importance.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Apr 2012)

well, if I was unimpressed before, I'm even more unimpressed now. If it's not about infrastructure, and it's not even about cyclists, but, rather, about getting cars off roads, then we can all go home now - it's Ken's mission in life to get cars off roads (and when I say mission I'm going back to 1971 at least) and Johnson's stated desire to look after the motorist.


----------



## ianrauk (4 Apr 2012)

angus h said:


> S1.5M Londoners out there who'd like to ride a bike regularly but say they are put off by road danger.


 
How did you get to this figure of 1.5m?

Asking a few people here at work, it's not just road danger that puts people off cycling (though it is one of the excuses) rather then many other 'excuses' that are trotted out.

Including...
Too far to cycle.
It rains all the time.
Have work stuff to carry.
Have clothes to carry.
Don't want to get all sweaty.

All rubbish excuses. Bottom line is people like their cars and prefer other methods of transport.

Your figure of 1.5m Londoners would like to cycle to work? No I don't think so, so I will take that with a huge pinch of proverbial salt.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Apr 2012)

Though it grieves me to agree with anyone who lives in the suburban hell that is Orpington I have to say Ian's PoV matches mine pretty well; excuses, excuses, excuses.

If you, and ten's of thousands of folk like you can daily happily do 10 mile trips across London by bike, and other people claim they can't, surely the problem lies in the mindset of the other people not in the infrastructure or on the roads.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. 16 Londoners died on the roads last year. Tragic waste. How many Londoners died of diseases related to obesity?


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Apr 2012)

ianrauk said:


> No I don't think so, so I will take that with a huge pinch of proverbial salt.


and there's nothing wrong with that. We have a great bus system, a decent underground and a decent suburban railway system (south of the river). If cycling doesn't appeal to individuals then that's fine by me. 

Cars are now pretty thin on the ground within zones 1 and 2, and there is no way to reasonably reduce commercial traffic. The clever bit will be to beef up public transport in the suburbs (bus lanes being the most likely option) which is precisely what Johnson has set himself against.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Apr 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> and there's nothing wrong with that. We have a great bus system, a decent underground and a decent suburban railway system (south of the river). If cycling doesn't appeal to individuals then that's fine by me.
> 
> *Cars are now pretty thin on the ground within zones 1 and 2*, and there is no way to reasonably reduce commercial traffic. The clever bit will be to beef up public transport in the suburbs (bus lanes being the most likely option) which is precisely what Johnson has set himself against.


A visitor from Paris commented on this to me a week or so ago.


----------



## srw (4 Apr 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Cars are now pretty thin on the ground within zones 1 and 2


 I've just looked out of the window. It's the height of rush hour on a main road in EC3. During one phase of the traffic lights there were:
3 private cars (one of which may have been a minicab)
3 motorbikes
1 bus
1 London cab
...
and 10 bikes.

I'm quite used to drawing up at the lights at Holborn circus and passing 4 buses and 6 taxis.


----------



## angus h (5 Apr 2012)

1.5m comes from 25% of all Londoners who say they'd like to travel by bike but are put off by road danger. Doesn't necessarily mean commuting. Probably does mean a lot of the sub 5 mile car trips that show up in the DfT statistics, and the army of chubby secondary school kids jamming the buses where I live.

A similarly unrepresentative sample in my office gives road danger - or, you might say, road unpleasantness - as by far the #1 reason (although as they're healthy under 35s in Z2+3, shame on anyone who complains of distance). Danger is not just the outright risk of being killed or injured, it's the mindset you have to maintain to stay safe.

Mindset vs actual situation is not black & white, I don't think people are that dense (at least when presented with the carrot of saving huge sums of money). It's perhaps more that they don't want to deal with the threat level, even if they know they're capable of doing so safely (after all, it's easier to not crash in to anything on a bike than it is in a car - something most people apparently think they can do).

Was at a talk given by LCC the other night. They are by no means anti-vehicular. Far from it, in fact. What they reject is one-size-fits-all solutions and dogma - what works in the Square Mile (narrow roads, slow traffic, adult commuters & couriers) isn't going to work around Orpington (wide roads, fast cars, 7-year-olds who'd like to cycle to school & grannies pootling to the shops), and vice versa. "Go Dutch" seems to be more of a campaign hook than anything else - they have been doing this stuff for years & know the (time, money) realities of rolling out that kind of engineering.

The reason LoB doesn't take sides in the infra debate is that, first and foremost, no solution (regulatory-vehiculal, infrastructure based or both) can be made to work well enough for all the people who would _like_ to cycle without substantial political will behind it. Beyond that, we're just a bunch of people who ride bikes, so we in no way have the expertise or authority to recommend Dutch over Danish infrastructure, or the specifics of how Strict Liability would be implemented under UK law. What we are is a mechanism for building political will, by showing there's crucial votes to be won in a tightly fought election.


----------



## ianrauk (5 Apr 2012)

angus h said:


> 1.5m comes from 25% of all Londoners who say they'd like to travel by bike but are put off by road danger.


 
Where did this info come from & who undertook this massive poll?
Where can we see the results of this poll
It must have been a bloody substantial bit of work to poll that many people.


----------



## angus h (5 Apr 2012)

That's not how polling works & you know it! Will get the source for you when I see the organisers on monday.


----------



## ianrauk (5 Apr 2012)

angus h said:


> That's not how polling works & you know it! Will get the source for you when I see the organisers on monday.


 

Then don't come out with quotes such as "1.5m comes from 25% of all Londoners who say they'd like to travel by bike but are put off by road danger" Put the exact amount of people polled ie 4 out of the 10 people we polled etc which we can then inflate to 1.5million people.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Apr 2012)

angus h said:


> What we are is a *mechanism for building political will*, by showing there's crucial votes to be won in a tightly fought election.


 whatever that means - and no you're not. 3000 votes (and that includes Martin who signed it because he's a nice chap) is nothing. It's akin to writing 'PLEASE IGNORE' on your forehead. It's an embarrassment.


----------

