# Cities Fit for Cycling - The Times



## gaz (1 Feb 2012)

The times have launched a campaign to improve cycling across the country after one of their reporters was stuck by a lorry only yards away from her workplace, she has been in a comma since.

The 8 point manifesto.

Trucks entering a city centre should be required by law to fit censors, audible truck-turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.
The 500 most dangerous road junctions must be identified, redesigned or fitted with priority traffic lights for cyclists and Trixi mirrors that allow lorry drivers to see cyclists on their near-side.
A national audit of cycling to find out how many people cycle in Britain and how cyclists are killed or injured should be held to underpin effective cycle safety.
Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes, providing £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure. Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.
The training of cyclists and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.
20mph should become the default speed limit in residential areas where there are no cycle lanes.
Businesses should be invited to sponsor cycleways and cycling super-highways, mirroring the Barclays-backed bicycle hire scheme in London.
Every city, even those without an elected mayor, should appoint a cycling commissioner to push home reforms.
Read more, sign the pledge and watch the video >
p.s. I feature in the video, talking about camera use.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Feb 2012)

The brief low quality clip at 1:04 is mine.


----------



## Spinney (2 Feb 2012)

Also in this thread:
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-times-on-our-side.94826/


----------



## PpPete (2 Feb 2012)

I see no video. Is this because I havnt paid my Murdoch for on-line access to what used to be a quality newspaper?
EDIT
Video started - and then stopped again "Lost Connection"


----------



## srw (2 Feb 2012)

Hooray! Nothing in there that's particularly controversial. We can argue till the cows come home what "world-class infrastructure" is, but for £100m it won't be anything particularly offensive - and we all know it'll never happen.


----------



## summerdays (2 Feb 2012)

Well I've sent off my letter to my MP!


----------



## PpPete (2 Feb 2012)

Also - but to try and a bit of "balance" I've asked him, at the same time, to press the local Constabulary to crack down on the large, and seemingly growing, number of "ninjas" round here.


----------



## stowie (2 Feb 2012)

I am heartened by the fact that a national newspaper has decided to air this - although the fact that one of their reporters got seriously injured is horrible.

This surely shows a certain sea-change in thinking about cycling? The demands from the Times seem, in the most part, reasoned and coherent. The cycling audit is something that does amaze me. I assume this isn't done currently even at local (eg. London) level? If not, how on earth can policy be implemented and measured?

This is the sort of campaign that can change perceptions. I know that we can argue until everyone is _really_ bored about cycling funding and facilities, "ninja" and vehicular cyclists etc. But this is unimportant at the moment with regards to The Times campaign. The important thing is that a national newspaper - still hugely respected - has seen cycling and cycling safety a big enough issue to run a campaign.

Now I await for the Mail to run a similar campaign....


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Feb 2012)

stowie said:


> I am heartened by the fact that a national newspaper has decided to air this - although the fact that one of their reporters got seriously injured is horrible.
> 
> This surely shows a certain sea-change in thinking about cycling? The demands from the Times seem, in the most part, reasoned and coherent.


 You mean the same 'The Times' than ran the squalid Matthew Parris piece ... oh the irony ...


----------



## stowie (2 Feb 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> You mean the same 'The Times' than ran the squalid Matthew Parris piece ... oh the irony ...


 
Yes, but at least they have changed their line for the better. The Parris article was in 2007 - it would be interesting to know if this type of article would be published by the Times these days. Maybe I am in a hopelessly optimistic mood today, but I think this is yet another reason to be hopeful that there is a change in attitude.


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Feb 2012)

stowie said:


> Yes, but at least they have changed their line for the better. The Parris article was in 2007 - it would be interesting to know if this type of article would be published by the Times these days. Maybe I am in a hopelessly optimistic mood today, but I think this is yet another reason to be hopeful that there is a change in attitude.


 Yep, now it's happened to one of their own, they've seen the light .... how many more eh?

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that we are slowly seeing a sea change and changing the lazy meedja perception of cycling and cyclist is in IMHO a very big and important step.
Time will tell if this is the moment, I'm still looking for a flying pig ....


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Feb 2012)

stowie said:


> Yes, but at least they have changed their line for the better. The Parris article was in 2007 - it would be interesting to know if this type of article would be published by the Times these days. Maybe I am in a hopelessly optimistic mood today, but I think this is yet another reason to be hopeful that there is a change in attitude.


I think we all of us have no choice but to be optimistic. 

The conversion of the Standard (accepting that this conversion was part of a whole bigger thing after the long-overdue departure of the loathsome Johnson croney Veronica 'Wad'ley, now copping £64k for ten days work at your expense, Stowie) has been remarkable to behold. But, then again, newspapers do conversions. Look at the Mail and Hitler.

In circulation terms the Times is a London paper, and they see London cyclists as young with an above average education and income. The press is awash with Cav, Wiggins and Wiggle. This is a belated marketing move, chasing the Standard and the Grauniad.


----------



## Richard Mann (2 Feb 2012)

The cynic in me was wondering if other cycling Tories might quite like to see Boris forced to change his tune. Or be humiliated. Or both.


----------



## BSRU (2 Feb 2012)

I'd like some of that money spent on increasing the number of traffic police on our roads enforcing the law.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Feb 2012)

Richard Mann said:


> The cynic in me was wondering if other cycling Tories might quite like to see Boris forced to change his tune. Or be humiliated. Or both.


That's a decent question. Look out for a bit of back-stabbing closer to May. 

Having said that I think any NI paper puts one thing first, and one thing only - revenue.


----------



## growingvegetables (2 Feb 2012)

Hmm - just listened to Radio 4 news; despite the DfT "spin" (may be an unkind word?), the BBC report mentioned *only* the fact that the number of cyclists KSI went *up* by 8% compared to the 12 month period ending September 2010 (and compared to falls in pedestrian, motorcycle and car user casualties).

Good timing by the Times 

Edited - also reported here


----------



## marinyork (2 Feb 2012)

I think it's all very good apart from point 8. Can't see point 8 being much use at all in many places. The additional airing to points 4,5 and 6 is very good.


----------



## Bigsharn (2 Feb 2012)

My personal opinion:

I'm sure that someone has said before now, that *if* set up correctly, an existing lorry doesn't have a blind spot, other than the wingmirror itself and the area just underneath a cab. I'm unsure how true this is, but HGV drivers' having the correct mirrors should be a higher priority (rather than throw more money at the situation)
I agree with the redesigning of the junctions, there's one in particular locally to me where I'm surprised a cyclist (or pedestrian) hasn't been killed, the amount of people jumping red there.
Good idea, but I doubt every single person in britain would reply. There are 13m cyclists according to the above video, but how many of those are the kind that jump red/ride on the pavement and give the rest of us a bad name? (and how many of THOSE would bother replying?)
What are next generation cycle routes? Is this like the current substandard cycling infrastructure, but not-yet-built? Or is it decent width cycle lanes, that conform to guidelines on not putting cyclists in the door zone or in a position where they're impossible to see at junctions? I reckon that £100m should be put towards getting rid of the current (and mostly flawed) cycle infrastructure and filling in the potholes that would crack a rim or cause a p'ture.
Wholeheartedly agreed.
I can't see this making much of a difference, most people on the roads (in my experience, anyway) are hitting 10-15mph. It doesn't matter if someone is clipped by a wingmirror at a 10mph or 100mph, the less experienced cyclist will be going down (and these are the ones that need protecting the most).
From what I read, most cycle superhighways are useless. I can only speak from local experience, but York's go at making a cycle superhighway is... not brilliant, to say the least
This, I disagree with. Every city and town should have a consult for designing new infrastructure, and for both pedestrian AND cyclists' safety.
...but that's just my 2 cents


----------



## marinyork (2 Feb 2012)

Bigsharn said:


> What are next generation cycle routes? Is this like the current substandard cycling infrastructure, but not-yet-built? Or is it decent width cycle lanes, that conform to guidelines on not putting cyclists in the door zone or in a position where they're impossible to see at junctions? I reckon that £100m should be put towards getting rid of the current (and mostly flawed) cycle infrastructure and filling in the potholes that would crack a rim or cause a p'ture.


 
I think there it's not so much literally whatever next generation cycle routes means but broadcasting the idea that cycling should get a certain pot of money outside schemes. As campaingers we have big problems any time a scheme comes along where there might be the opportunity to get some cycling stuff done. Councils say yeah we might give you some money or we might not give you any money at all and it's all up in the air. Setting a precedent for getting cash would make life an awful lot easier in theory.


----------



## growingvegetables (2 Feb 2012)

Dunno - there's lots to pick at in the 8 points. However

- first, it's higher profile than any other campaign I've seen; t'ain't just cyclists whinging


- and second (and I've been back to read it several times, cos I didn't believe it), helmets aren't mentioned - halleluiah! (Aye, and this isn't the place for a helmet debate either, please  ).


----------



## andy_spacey (2 Feb 2012)

Holland and Denmark offered years ago to help the UK government in the set-up and improving the cycling routes and they just blanked them. I watched a vid a few weeks about. The Holland and the Denmark spend something like 10 euro per person in the country on cycling and this country spends £1.
Rip of Britain.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Feb 2012)

OK, I've written to my MP (again). I would encourage others to do that as well (through the Times web site linked in the OP).

If you're interested, this is my letter, but please use your own words as it has more impact:



> Dear David Crausby,
> 
> You may recall that I have written to you before about the serious need to improve conditions for cyclists on our roads. Whilst I was grateful that you did respond, and passed on my concerns to the relevant Government Department, I was also disappointed that you accepted their rather unsatisfactory replies without applying any further pressure.
> 
> ...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2012)

PpPete said:


> Also - but to try and a bit of "balance" I've asked him, at the same time, to press the local Constabulary to crack down on the large, and seemingly growing, number of "ninjas" round here.


Interesting. I'm working with local plod as part of our local cycling forum to encourage PCSO's to stop and talk to ninjas simply because being seen to sponsor this has won us shed loads of support for other cycling things from locally influential non-cyclists. Come the autumn we hope to get a discount deal with a local shop so the PCSO's can give a voucher to the great unlit encouraging them to buy some lights.

(I even put an 'I <3 my bike' style bell on one on of my bikes to get an influential blue-rinser on our side. Will I stop at nothing?)


----------



## dawesome (3 Feb 2012)

Today's Indie:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-demand-action-on-cyclist-deaths-6348784.html

This is all over Twitter. What happened to The Times reporter is just horrible.


----------



## style over speed (3 Feb 2012)

Even the BBC has noticed, maybe todays tragedy in the city will be reported rather than ignored as usual


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16874726




> Has a new wave of cycling bloggers changed the debate?
> It is difficult for the mayor to ignore cyclists
> Cycling safety seems to be moving up the political agenda with The Times newspaper launching its campaign on Thursday.
> 
> When the Thunderer gets behind an issue then politicians usually take note.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Feb 2012)

style over speed said:


> Even the BBC has noticed, maybe todays tragedy in the city will be reported rather than ignored as usual
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16874726


 
I do wish they wouldn't make it look as though it's just a parochial London issue, though. Despite the number of highly publicised deaths, London is probably one of the better (or less bad) places to cycle because of the sheer numbers of cyclists. This issue is a National one.


----------



## PK99 (3 Feb 2012)

The idea of cycle lane up the inside of lines of parked cars (item 5 on the times graphic) is lunacy - permanently in the passenger door zone!

Plus, exhortation to cyclists never to position themselves to the left of the lane at a junction and never to travel up the inside of an HGV at junctions would be a good first step.


----------



## mumbo jumbo (3 Feb 2012)

The Times campaign is most welcome and the video is excellent.

But it occurs to me that the trade can easily and should do more. Cycling generally, commuting in particular, is on the up. More inexperienced cyclists on the road increases the risk of tragedies like this. If every bike sale was accompanied by a leaflet (or something) covering 

key safe road cycling techniques
key bits of the Highway Code / the law
with details of how to find out more / where to get training, there is a chance that some of these incidents could be avoided. 
mj


----------



## gaz (3 Feb 2012)

*FYI... Robert Elms 10am 04/02/12 94.9FM (BBC London) will be talking about cycle safety.*
Guests include

The writer from The Times that did the main article about Cities fit for Cycling (forgot his name)
Someone from the LCC (I don't know who it is)
Someone from a lorry company (forgot which company)
And my self


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Feb 2012)

gaz said:


> *FYI... Robert Elms 10am 04/02/12 94.9FM (BBC London) will be talking about cycle safety.*
> Guests include
> 
> The writer from The Times that did the main article about Cities fit for Cycling (forgot his name)
> ...


 
Thanks for letting us know - not at all too early for a lazybones like me. Hope it goes well for you (and cyclists...).


----------



## AnotherEye (4 Feb 2012)

BSRU said:


> I'd like some of that money spent on increasing the number of traffic police on our roads enforcing the law.


This is my thinking as well. We see careless driving everyday & some habits (like not indicating) become almost the norm. Prosecutions only happen if there has been a collision (& then only sometimes). There would be very few road deaths if all road users were to abide by the Highway Code. £100M could put 2,000 traffic police on watch for a year. Roadusers would then know that their carelessness would sooner or later be logged & persistent carelessness would lead to prosecution.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Feb 2012)

gaz said:


> *FYI... Robert Elms 10am 04/02/12 94.9FM (BBC London) will be talking about cycle safety.*
> Guests include
> 
> The writer from The Times that did the main article about Cities fit for Cycling (forgot his name)
> ...


 
Where waz ya, Gaz? Good to have the issues aired but I thought the programme was a bit inconsequential. Though admittedly, I missed a bit of Charlie Lloyd, the LCC guy. I'll see whether I can catch up on iPlayer later on.

I was very glad that it wasn't a phone-in show. Whenever someone lances a boil, the pus is the first to come out....


----------



## gaz (4 Feb 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Where waz ya, Gaz? Good to have the issues aired but I thought the programme was a bit inconsequential. Though admittedly, I missed a bit of Charlie Lloyd, the LCC guy. I'll see whether I can catch up on iPlayer later on.
> 
> I was very glad that it wasn't a phone-in show. Whenever someone lances a boil, the pus is the first to come out....


I was on just after 11 (only 10mins ago).


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Feb 2012)

gaz said:


> I was on just after 11 (only 10mins ago).


 
Aha, I jumped the gun. The programme moved onto something unconnected with cycling so I went out before it started snowing (which it didn't). I have to say everybody was very civil out on the roads today - I'll put that down to the weather and not the campaign


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Feb 2012)

Not all of the articles labelled under the campaign are productive or useful. E.g. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309134.ece
"Cycling in cities has become a counter-culture and cyclists anarchists of the road who think rules don’t apply to them"
"They have turned the roads into a them-and-us battleground by operating their own system."


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Feb 2012)

A good article from John Snow: "_The Times _Cycling Manifesto is good as far as it goes, but there is a serious dimension missing: human rights. The dominant creature on the urban road is the single-occupancy car. One person in a motorised 60 sq ft metal box. And what are we cyclists — one person on a thin strip of tubing with two wheels. One has the power, the presence and the rights; the other is deprived of all three. Is that equality under the law?"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> A good article from John Snow: "_The Times _Cycling Manifesto is good as far as it goes, but there is a serious dimension missing: human rights. The dominant creature on the urban road is the single-occupancy car. One person in a motorised 60 sq ft metal box. And what are we cyclists — one person on a thin strip of tubing with two wheels. One has the power, the presence and the rights; the other is deprived of all three. Is that equality under the law?"





1710117 said:


> We lack rights? I don't think so. We may lack sufficient support and enforcement for those rights but at heart they are ours.


 
But in a stand-off between my rights and their might, my rights may as well not exist.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Feb 2012)

1710117 said:


> We lack rights? I don't think so. We may lack sufficient support and enforcement for those rights but at heart they are ours.


I think he is talking about rights in practice rather than just in theory.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Feb 2012)

1710245 said:


> I did understand that, I just thought that it might be good idea to remind us that we don't need anything new by way of laws etc just the will to uphold the existing ones.


Well, I think we do. When motor vehicles bring most of the risk to the roads, but cyclists and pedestrians bear most of the costs and consequences when it goes wrong, we definitely need a change in the law. Presumed liability is the norm in Europe; there are just five exceptions, of which the UK is one.

[EDIT: Corrected "four exceptions" to "five exceptions".]


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Feb 2012)

1710267 said:


> I wouldn't turn it down but I'd rather have the laws regarding acceptable standards of behavior on our roads enforced properly.


I agree, but we just don't have the money to pay for a police officer to be stationed on every street corner 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.


----------



## Fab Foodie (4 Feb 2012)

1710267 said:


> I wouldn't turn it down but I'd rather have the laws regarding acceptable standards of behavior on our roads enforced properly.


 
I guess this is an ask too far ....


----------



## Fab Foodie (4 Feb 2012)

1710412 said:


> No its not.


 But maybe too much to hope for ....


----------



## AnotherEye (4 Feb 2012)

For the 3rd day running I've bought the Thymes, I'm bothered by _"cyclists: look out for parked cars, they might suddenly open their doors .... Look out for wing mirrors as well as through the back windscreen to see if anyone in the car might be about to open a door"_ (p6 of today's guide). So they don't want to encourage us to give 3ft clearance (might slow down the traffic flow).

The biggest threat to cyclists is the poor standard of some drivers, I've yet to see that mentioned, we need to get some of them off the road permanently & the rest to fear the possibility.

(same as I just posted to CTC forum).


----------



## Fab Foodie (4 Feb 2012)

Yep, like everything in life, we spend too much on cures and not enough effort on the causes ....


----------



## mumbo jumbo (5 Feb 2012)

I just went back to The Times campaign page and came across a safe cycling graphic - 12 points around a bike wheel, which you click through to see the issue explained. It was rather good but now I can't find it again! If you find it, can you post a link please?


----------



## PK99 (5 Feb 2012)

mumbo jumbo said:


> I just went back to The Times campaign page and came across a safe cycling graphic - 12 points around a bike wheel, which you click through to see the issue explained. It was rather good but now I can't find it again! If you find it, can you post a link please?


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309631.ece#tab-5


----------



## AnotherEye (5 Feb 2012)

PK99 said:


> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309631.ece#tab-5


thanks PK99, I looked but found the site hard to navigate.
As I posted yesterday; tip*5 is so worrying!


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (5 Feb 2012)

mumbo jumbo said:


> I just went back to The Times campaign page and came across a safe cycling graphic - 12 points around a bike wheel, which you click through to see the issue explained. It was rather good but now I can't find it again! If you find it, can you post a link please?


I looked at that yesterday. To be honest, I wasn't that impressed. It looks as though it has been done in a hurry and, as well as having a number of typos and grammatical errors, I don't like some of the messages that it contains.

In 3, they misquote the highway code by stating: "leave as much space when overtaking a cyclist as you would when overtaking a car", which is even more ambiguous than the original HC version: "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car".

In 5, the advice is very bad. You shouldn't rely on looking for signs that a door might open; you should assume it will and cycle far enough away that it doesn't matter.

In 7, the cyclist in the picture is cycling far too close to the bus. They should be in the middle of the lane there. (And the text says nothing about this.)

In 8, the left-turning cyclist should not have moved close to the kerb before turning; they should be in primary position up to and around the turn, until they are clear of the junction.

In 9, the cyclist is riding too close to the kerb; they should be about 1 metre away, and even further out if there is a pedestrian there. (And the text says nothing about this.)

Interesting subliminal helmet message in 10, by the way.

I'm a bit suspicious of the stopping distances in 11. They seem too short to me, though I haven't checked them out.

There are also lots of issues that could have been included in there that haven't.


----------



## AnotherEye (5 Feb 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I looked at that yesterday. To be honest, I wasn't that impressed...


 I think that you're right on all counts, will you write to them?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (5 Feb 2012)

Oh, good grief!


> *The future: cycle highways*
> Visions of covered tubes full of cyclists dance in the head of an architect ...


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309140.ece


----------



## GrasB (5 Feb 2012)

User said:


> Why? It's common sense.
> 
> In fact, it's probably the least offensive tip. Number 6 is far worse...


Because you shouldn't be riding in a position to actually need to worry about that!


----------



## AnotherEye (5 Feb 2012)

User said:


> Why? It's common sense.
> In fact, it's probably the least offensive tip. Number 6 is far worse...


The Highway code advises cyclists to pass parked cars with 3ft. clearance; much better advice than looking into every car as you pass.
*6, looks like good advice to me; why do you disagree?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (5 Feb 2012)

User said:


> Why? It's common sense.
> In fact, it's probably the least offensive tip. Number 6 is far worse...


See http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cities-fit-for-cycling-the-times.94824/post-1710876


----------



## AnotherEye (5 Feb 2012)

User said:


> ... As for number 6: have you actually read what they're telling motorists?


OK the wording might be weird but I cannot see any objection, I think it's good advice to motorists. Also, cycle lanes that lead to Advanced Stop Lines are a death trap, I'd rather go 'round the outside or not at all if I'm not sure when the lights are going to change.


----------



## marafi (5 Feb 2012)

Hurray good article and good video. Well done Gaz for your video!


----------



## AnotherEye (5 Feb 2012)

marafi said:


> Hurray good article and good video. Well done Gaz for your video!


??? which video, I just looked back on this thread & 'not sure what you're referring to.


----------



## gaz (5 Feb 2012)

AnotherEye said:


> ??? which video, I just looked back on this thread & 'not sure what you're referring to.


On the main page of the Cities fit for Cycling campaign there is a video, and i'm in it.


----------



## Bigsharn (6 Feb 2012)

User said:


> Many car doors open over 3' wide. If I'm cycling near parked cars, I'm further out than that.
> 
> I do tend to keep an eye on wing mirrors and through the back windows. I also keep an eye out for wheels turned outwards (classic indication they may be preparing to pull out).
> 
> As for number 6: have you actually read what they're telling motorists?


 

I see no problem with that... CBT trains motorcyclists to ride as if everyone is crazy and out to kill them, we cycle as if everyone is crazy and trying to kill us (...or at least I do), so where's the problem?


----------



## GrasB (6 Feb 2012)

The one thing that The Times has done with this is put the phrasing in the perspective of the motorists. Sure they missed out the fact it's the motorists responsibly to make sure that the road is clear for the turn before executing the maneuver. But fundamentally the advice to both motorists & cyclists is sane just worded badly. This is very different to item number 5 which is simply the wrong advice, good or bad wording doesn't help the matter that the advice given is simply incorrect at a fundamental level.


----------



## Rancid (6 Feb 2012)

User said:


> "Cyclists often skip reds at junctions, or undertake". Let's perpetuate the myth that all cyclists are RLJers. After all, it's not as if motorists ever RLJ...


 
On my route to work i cross 4-5 big junctions.
Has to be said >80% of cyclists pay no regard to traffic lights or any road restrictions.
The junction of Longley Road with Tooting High street never ceases to amaze me.
i seem to be the only fool on a bike who bothers to stop and wait at the lights.
The number of cyclists who seem to jump the lights or cut onto the pavement across the pedestrian crossing in the direction of St Georges is alarming.

the question i often ask to myself is why are these people in such a hurry to play silly buggers like they do ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2012)

User said:


> Many car doors open over 3' wide. If I'm cycling near parked cars, I'm further out than that.
> 
> I do tend to keep an eye on wing mirrors and through the back windows. I also keep an eye out for wheels turned outwards (classic indication they may be preparing to pull out).
> 
> As for number 6: have you actually read what they're telling motorists?


Exactly what I was told about motorists when training for my motorcycle IAM test. Pretty sound advice.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2012)

Rancid said:


> the question i often ask to myself is why are these people in such a hurry to play silly buggers like they do ?


"I like cycling because I can ride how I like, through red lights, on the pavement, (the wrong way) down one way streets without it affecting my driving licence"

a quote from a member of our local cycling forum. we nearly wept. He has brought his bomb dodging ways to a small market town in Sussex.


----------



## sheddy (6 Feb 2012)

I think that the CTC are collating the dangerous junctions
nominations to righttoride@ctc.org.uk by noon on Tuesday 7th Feb (no idea why such short notice)


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Feb 2012)

Our road systems and the way we control traffic is designed around motor vehicles. This frequently results in junctions that are less safe for cyclists and situations where obeying the 'rules of the road' is more risky than breaking them. This is an unpopular view with motorists and with many cyclists, but studies such as http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... auses_.htm confirm what many experienced cyclists have observed: Only a tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs. This doesn't mean that every red light should be jumped, but that the safety of the cyclist should come before the strict letter of the rule. Unfortunately many (including many cyclists) are unable to make this distinction.

Here for example is a classic junction where the safest option for a cyclist is to proceed through a red (as long as there are no pedestrians to inconvenience). The camera car is at the stop line; note the distance through the junction.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=barking ... 59.88,,0,0
The safest place to wait, is just by the railings, next to the statue.


----------



## Richard Mann (7 Feb 2012)

Mad@urage said:


> Here for example is a classic junction where the safest option for a cyclist is to proceed through a red (as long as there are no pedestrians to inconvenience). The camera car is at the stop line; note the distance through the junction.
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=barking ... 59.88,,0,0
> The safest place to wait, is just by the railings, next to the statue.


 
Not even an ASL.
Of course the thing to do (if you know the lights aren't going to change in the next few seconds) is to get off, wheel your bike across the line and the pedestrian crossing, then get back on.

One possible solution is putting the ASL beyond the pedestrian crossing, with a give-way gate onto the pedestrian crossing. This is effectively what the Dutch do (cyclists give way to pedestrians rather than have a red light).


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Feb 2012)

Rancid said:


> On my route to work i cross 4-5 big junctions.
> Has to be said >80% of cyclists pay no regard to traffic lights or any road restrictions.
> The junction of Longley Road with Tooting High street never ceases to amaze me.
> i seem to be the only fool on a bike who bothers to stop and wait at the lights.
> ...


I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe that. RLJing along CS7 is low and declining


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Feb 2012)

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309631.ece#tab-5 

number 4 is rubbish, but, thankfully, nobody's interested


----------



## BentMikey (7 Feb 2012)

AnotherEye said:


> The Highway code advises cyclists to pass parked cars with 3ft. clearance; much better advice than looking into every car as you pass.
> *6, looks like good advice to me; why do you disagree?


 
3 feet? 7 feet is what I usually leave.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Feb 2012)

Mad@urage said:


> Our road systems and the way we control traffic is designed around motor vehicles. This frequently results in junctions that are less safe for cyclists and situations where obeying the 'rules of the road' is more risky than breaking them. This is an unpopular view with motorists and with many cyclists, but studies such as http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... auses_.htm confirm what many experienced cyclists have observed: Only a tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs. This doesn't mean that every red light should be jumped, but that the safety of the cyclist should come before the strict letter of the rule. Unfortunately many (including many cyclists) are unable to make this distinction.
> 
> Here for example is a classic junction where the safest option for a cyclist is to proceed through a red (as long as there are no pedestrians to inconvenience). The camera car is at the stop line; note the distance through the junction.
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=barking ... 59.88,,0,0
> The safest place to wait, is just by the railings, next to the statue.


 
Can't agree with any of that, I'm afraid. Just take the lane, and obey the highway code. No need for jumping lights there, and it won't improve your safety. Sitting just by the railings is not a good place to be - you want to be at least three feet out, but preferably in the middle of your lane.


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Feb 2012)

You can disagree all you want BM, I used to ride it regularly. By the railings keeps you well out of the way of traffic exiting Green St. and is far enough ahead to reclaim the lane when the lights are in favour of proceeding.


----------



## GrasB (7 Feb 2012)

Question isn't what to do once you've put your self in a problematic position. The question is why have you put your self in such a vulnerable position to start with!


----------



## BentMikey (7 Feb 2012)

Mad@urage said:


> You can disagree all you want BM, I used to ride it regularly. By the railings keeps you well out of the way of traffic exiting Green St. and is far enough ahead to reclaim the lane when the lights are in favour of proceeding.


 
I'm sorry you don't like my criticism, but what you're suggesting makes your safety worse without any doubt at all. You can ride very safely and entirely within the highway code, and far better than the way in which you suggest dealing with that junction.


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Feb 2012)

Yes, of course. That's why ASLs were implemented in so many junctions.


----------



## GrasB (7 Feb 2012)

Because cyclists barge to the front of the traffic then have no where to go so are left hanging about in no mans lane ripe for off-the-line left hooking. The ASL allows for a cyclist who progressed to the front of the queue if traffic without 2 shreds of common sense to have a space to take up primary where they can be well see. It's a *broken fix* for people like you who behave in an idiotic manner around junctions.

The reality is if you hang back a few vehicles let them deal with lead boot brigade (hey if there are metal boxes about I might as well let them deal with the crashing bit, they come off much better than I would.


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Feb 2012)

I agree it's a broken fix, as are the cycle lanes on the left leading up to it. I don't agree that filtering to the front of a queue is idiotic; it is simply using the advantages of a bike to facilitate my journey.


----------



## GrasB (7 Feb 2012)

Filtering is fine, filtering right to the front is idiotic as you put your self in the firing line for all the impatient twits to have a good go at running you over when the lights turn green. From 2 or 3 cars back I can't remember the last time I ended up having to get out the way of someone trying to beat the car behind me across the junction however I regularly see cyclists & motorists having to take evasive action at the front of the queue for this reason. Trying to justify breaking the law by using the fact you take up poor road position at a junction is futile.


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Feb 2012)

Nope, when I was riding that road, waiting 2 or 3 cars back from the lights was not a safer option. Drivers would deliberately drive at cyclists doing that. The only times I've ever been hit at a traffic-light junction were when I was stopped in a queue or when I was stopped at the stop line. Going ahead of the stop line was simply the safe place to be.


----------



## GrasB (7 Feb 2012)

Mad@urage said:


> Nope, when I was riding that road, waiting 2 or 3 cars back from the lights was not a safer option. Drivers would deliberately drive at cyclists doing that. The only times I've ever been hit at a traffic-light junction were when I was stopped in a queue or when I was stopped at the stop line. Going ahead of the stop line was simply the safe place to be.


Sorry but reading this you sounds exactly like a person who needs to stop cycling until they get a clue about road positioning.


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Feb 2012)

Sorry but reading your reply, you sound like exactly the sort of person who thinks they know it all


----------



## BentMikey (7 Feb 2012)

Mad@urage said:


> Nope, when I was riding that road, waiting 2 or 3 cars back from the lights was not a safer option. Drivers would deliberately drive at cyclists doing that. The only times I've ever been hit at a traffic-light junction were when I was stopped in a queue or when I was stopped at the stop line. Going ahead of the stop line was simply the safe place to be.


 
I don't see ASLs as a safety measure at all, and it doesn't help us even slightly.

Your experience as quoted above is at odds with the vast majority of other cyclists, and a range of experts on good cycling practices. Taking the lane several cars back is most definitely safer than being out in front. Please don't try to justify poor riding technique on a safety basis, when the reality is it has only a selfish impatient basis.


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Feb 2012)

1713915 said:


> Deliberately?


Yes. I've had motorists tell me they are going to run me off the road and attempt to do just that. I have been attacked with screwdrivers, metal rods (car slewed in front of me, four jumped out, all armed - I didn't stop and made an illegal manoeuvre to escape ) and golf clubs. Forty years of cycling, mostly in London, mostly long before the upsurge in cycling improved or safety has been eventful at times. I've had drivers pass so close they caught my pedals in their wheel arch; I've had the front wheel skewer pulled out by an overtaking car; I was riding in primary long before there was even a name for it, because that gave me room to move away when necessary. I've learned how to lean into a car that insists on side-swiping me, such that I stay upright and simply gouge his door with my handlebars. Of course this is unpopular with the modern gentle cyclist types who predominate on boards such as this and I'm glad that most cyclists no longer have to learn how to cope with this (most of the time).


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Feb 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I don't see ASLs as a safety measure at all, and it doesn't help us even slightly.
> 
> Your experience as quoted above is at odds with the vast majority of other cyclists, and a range of experts on good cycling practices. Taking the lane several cars back is most definitely safer than being out in front. Please don't try to justify poor riding technique on a safety basis, when the reality is it has only a selfish impatient basis.


Ever had drivers try to physically push you off the road BM? It happened quite a bit back in the 70s/80s. Walton Bridge was a favourite place for them to try it too.

Edit to add: Your replies have exactly the same tone as people used to use, to tell us we should cycle in the gutter. "Stay several cars back" / "Stay in the gutter". Experience taught me they were wrong. Good riding position (which has since become accepted and is now 'official best practice') was simply what kept us alive. Moving through and away from the traffic is simply what kept us away from their wheels (and kept our wheel axles away from their wheel arches).


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Feb 2012)

I don't mind ASLs if you cam 'make them stick' by which I mean if you can get to the front, and get in a pretty central position in your lane (and not against the railings). I think the problem arises when people make for the ASL and the traffic starts moving when the light turns green - the bikes on the right have to accelerate like s*** off a shovel to get in to the lane, or even to get from the right hand side of two lanes in to the left hand lane, the bikes between two lanes of cars have to go left with a big signal, and the bikes on the left hand side stand a chance of being left hooked. 

So, in a general way, BM's advice is good - if you are not darn sure you can get to the front, then wait however many cars back.

My personal beef with ASLs is that they encourage Islington cyclists wearing Converse 'sneakers' and cardigans to go to the front and wobble about on their lamentable steel framed 'fixies' in front of me (hoping to jump the light), so that they slow me down when I take off. I subject these untermenschen to my famous close pass, which involves brushing past them at 40kph and then immediately cutting them up. I award myself extra points for a well-aimed gob.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Feb 2012)

absolutely - but which one of us has not been caught?


----------



## summerdays (7 Feb 2012)

I like ASL's and do think they benefit the sensible cyclist, so one that watches the lights as they are filtering forward and is constantly assessing where they could rejoin the traffic if necessary (I've never had a problem being let back into the traffic if I have miss timed it). Once at the ASL I'm going to be faster over the junction than most motorists would be (as long as it isn't uphill) when the lights change. I do get annoyed at cyclists who then stop in the gutter or stop on the left hand side of the box if they are turning right.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Feb 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> absolutely - but which one of us has not been caught?


Indeed. It reminds me of a FNRttC when I got caught in a canyon made of two accelerating London Buses. I did honestly think it was going to end badly. We all make errors of judgement.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Feb 2012)

Mad@urage; no consolation I know but in the main I find London drivers much more chilled these days, on my occasional forays on the mean streets than I ever did as a regular cycle commuter '99 - '05.

Deliberate acts of retaliation for slights, perceived or real, were, in those days, rather too common, but maybe it was just a Stockwell, Brixton, Clapham, and all points to Croydon thing.


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Feb 2012)

Greg, I understand it has calmed down, what with the increased numbers of cyclists etc. & I'm very glad of that. Last time I cycled regularly in London was back in '02 - that was when I was riding around Barking; Even then it was considerably easier than twenty - thirty years previously. Yes, Wandsworth, from Putney to Brixton and points east was a mad place, very aggressive and challenging. Still, at 12 years old I was cycling around Hyde Park corner, on the junction rather than in the park - so nothing much on the roads fazes me now!


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Feb 2012)

thinking about this, and allowing for the rather odd mix of understandable grief and circulation hunting that brought cycling to the front page of the Times, it is an odd campaign. It's kind of a shopping list devoid of any rationale, or theme or analysis. 'Sort the big junctions' and then 'ride on paths'. It smacks of something home-made, and very temporary. 

Thus far, despite a thunderclap of publicity, it's only got 17,000 sign-ups. That I find really surprising, given the readership, given the pumping from the CTC.


----------



## Richard Mann (7 Feb 2012)

Yes it is odd. Nobody is ever going to build a consensus for action out of "cyclists" (especially since there's such a diversity of opinion).

But the only way the dafter ideas get eliminated is by talking about them (and trying some).


----------



## BigonaBianchi (9 Feb 2012)

_Dear Reader_
Thank you for supporting _The Times_ Cities Fit for Cycling campaign - we are making headway, but we need your help.
A parliamentary debate on the measures called for by _The Times_’s campaign has been scheduled for February 23. For this debate to have real impact we need as many MPs as possible to attend.
Only you can make that happen: we have just _*two weeks*_ to write to our MPs telling them why they should attend. Please take a moment to write via our campaign page thetimes.co.uk/cyclesafe
We also need to spread the word and ask as many people as possible to write to their MP. Please help by posting the link to our public page thetimes.co.uk/cyclesafe and forwarding this e-mail to friends, family and fellow cyclists.
You are one of 23,000 people who have signed _The Times_ Cities Fit for Cycling manifesto - this campaign has generated radio and TV coverage the length and breadth of the country as well as official backing from all quarters. But we need to keep the pressure on ministers to bring about real change.
We will update you on progress in the next couple of weeks. With your help, we can make Britain's cities fit for cycling.




James Harding
Editor of _The Times_


----------



## summerdays (9 Feb 2012)

Yes I got one of those too!


----------



## Sore Thumb (9 Feb 2012)

1717276 said:


> Bollocks, I've been riding on the road since I was 7. I don't need to jump to your two week agenda.



I don't agree with all the campaign is saying and I have been pessimistic about the whole thing. However they somehow managed to get a debate in the commons after only a few days of the campaign. How many years would it take all the cycle campaign groups in the country to achieve the same thing? 

You never know it might be a turning point after all.


----------



## summerdays (10 Feb 2012)

I agree - I think The Times campaign may reaching places that normal cycle campaigners don't reach! And like you think that some of the information they are giving out isn't good - why don't they get in someone to give proper advice!!!


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 Feb 2012)

My own attempt at improving the Times's 8 point manifesto:


> The law should be changed so that, in civil cases relating to incidents involving motor vehicles and other, more vulnerable road users, the driver(s) of the motor vehicle(s) are held liable for all damages unless they can prove that the incident was caused wholly by the vulnerable road user’s negligence.
> All road junctions must be assessed for danger to vulnerable road users, and redesigned giving priority to safety over traffic flow where that is not already the case, including the introduction of priority traffic lights for cyclists, and Trixi mirrors that allow lorry drivers to see cyclists on their near-side.
> Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget (£100 million a year) should be earmarked for highways improvements of direct benefit to cyclists, based on existing research literature, to provide a world-class cycling-friendly infrastructure, and businesses should be invited to sponsor such improvements. Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.
> Cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test, and a high profile publicity campaign should be implemented to ensure that all road users: are aware of the needs of cyclists, understand fully the cycling practices recommended under the Bikeability training programme, and are in no doubt as to their responsibilities towards other road users.
> ...


(Posted on my blog as well.)


----------



## fimm (10 Feb 2012)

I like point 7 in particular, MrHappyCyclist


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Feb 2012)

It cannot ever be illegal not to follow _guide_lines... You'd need to get the guidelines enshrined in law as regulations.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 Feb 2012)

GregCollins said:


> It cannot ever be illegal not to follow _guide_lines... You'd need to get the guidelines enshrined in law as regulations.


Right now they are guidelines. If the mechanism for making it illegal not to follow them is to turn them into "regulations", then fine, I don't really care how it's done, so long as it's done.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Feb 2012)

well, I'm sorry, but that removes one of the key elements of accountability. Highways authorities should be answerable to the people in their area, not to a national code. And, for what it's worth, many of the most ridiculous cycle facilities tick every box.


----------



## PK99 (11 Feb 2012)

GregCollins said:


> It cannot ever be illegal not to follow _guide_lines... You'd need to get the guidelines enshrined in law as regulations.


 
... and those regulations could never be as comprehensive as the guidelines as guidelines (almost by definition) give scope for variance according to circumstances.

Plus, changing guidelines as (say) technology changes is far easier than changing legislation.

And, "I fully complied with the regulations" is a defence, whereas guidelines leave the responsibility for fitness for purpose clearly with the designer.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Feb 2012)

PK99 said:


> ... and those regulations could never be as comprehensive as the guidelines as guidelines (almost by definition) give scope for variance according to circumstances.
> 
> Plus, changing guidelines as (say) technology changes is far easier than changing legislation.
> 
> And, "I fully complied with the regulations" is a defence, whereas guidelines leave the responsibility for fitness for purpose clearly with the designer.


not the case on the continent.


----------



## mumbo jumbo (13 Feb 2012)

I added 4 further points to The Times manifesto when I wrote to my MP:

1. All trade bike sales to be accompanied by a guide to safe road cycling techniques and details of where to get cycle training. 
2. Change the duty of care for all road users from "due care and attention" to "utmost care and attention".
3. Introduce presumed liability in civil cases against motorists who hit cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
4. Change sentencing guidelines so that motorists who kill vulnerable road users receive a mandatory custodial sentence. 

I await his researcher's reply...!


----------



## mumbo jumbo (13 Feb 2012)

mumbo jumbo said:


> I added 4 further points to The Times manifesto when I wrote to my MP:
> 
> 1. All trade bike sales to be accompanied by a guide to safe road cycling techniques and details of where to get cycle training.
> 2. Change the duty of care for all road users from "due care and attention" to "utmost care and attention".
> ...


Outstanding. I've had a reply already as follows:
"Thank you for your email and taking the time to write to Roger on this matter. I will pass on your email to him but he does share your concerns and has signed up to support The Times campaign and is very happy to do so."
There is no comment on any specific points or issues but this is a good start.

mj


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (13 Feb 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> well, I'm sorry, but that removes one of the key elements of accountability. Highways authorities should be answerable to the people in their area, not to a national code.


Well, local accountability isn't working very well right now is it?



dellzeqq said:


> And, for what it's worth, many of the most ridiculous cycle facilities tick every box.


Most of the ones near me don't, but I'd be interested to see some examples of ones that do. My hope is that, since it would probably be impossible to meet the guidelines on most of the ones I know without taking whole lanes away from motor traffic, they would simply have to remove them (or reduce motor traffic capacity).


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Feb 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Well, local accountability isn't working very well right now is it?


that's democracy. Go out and do some canvassing



MrHappyCyclist said:


> Most of the ones near me don't, but I'd be interested to see some examples of ones that do. My hope is that, since it would probably be impossible to meet the guidelines on most of the ones I know without taking whole lanes away from motor traffic, they would simply have to remove them (or reduce motor traffic capacity).


I take it you don't use the bus........


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (13 Feb 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> I take it you don't use the bus........


Not often, no. Before I started having problems with my hip, I'd walk the 3 miles from town before I'd catch a bus (and often did). I'd be very happy to see lanes turned into bus/cycle lanes, though.


----------



## semislickstick (14 Feb 2012)

Having just been looking around the Roadsafe site, I see they say the Times effort has many ill-informed aspects and have offered a link to the London Standard
http://www.roadsafe.com/news/default.aspx

Cycle Safety Campaign launched in London (7 Feb 12)
The London Times has launched a public campaign and 8-point manifesto calling for cities to be made fit for cyclists. Although many aspects of the campaign are ill-informed it does seek to engage cyclists themselves in working with others to reduce the death and injury to this vulnerable group.
*Cycle Safety*

A counter to the Times proposals has been published in The London Evening Standard in an excellent article and well - informed article by Simon Jenkins(ROADSAFE's words). It can be read here.
Published: 9 February 2012


----------



## growingvegetables (15 Feb 2012)

semislickstick said:


> A counter to the Times proposals has been published in The London Evening Standard in an excellent article and well - informed article by Simon Jenkins


 Hmmm - there's a bit of Jenkins article makes me squirm. "Cycling accidents overall have risen slightly but this is attributable to the soaring number of cyclists," is (in the words of so many threads in CC) a straw man.

A crude comparison of stats from Leeds City Council

- cyclists as a %age of people travelling into/out of Leeds city centre during rush hour = 0.9% (doubled in 10 years or something)
- but cyclists constitute 8% of the road casualty KSI figures, 75% of which happen in rush hour.

Yup - a (generous) fraction of 1% in numbers, but several times that in terms of KSI casualties?

I kinda resent this easy slippery argument that casualties are down to the increased number of cyclists. It's a sneaky, sly "blame the victim" argument.


----------



## YahudaMoon (16 Feb 2012)

Chris Boardmans take on the situation

Sorry if its been posted before

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309130.ece


----------



## Titan yer tummy (17 Feb 2012)

As advised I wrote to my MP and asked him to sign the EDM.

I have received this response. 

Thanks for your e mail. I very rarely sign an EDM - never if possible. They have no impact within Westminster and each costs £350 to the taxpayer. However PR companies and the like suggest they have impact as it makes them look like they have done something. Many MPs sign them to placate constituents knowing full well they are useless. I think that is dishonest. It would often be much easier to sign but I do not. They are expensive and a con. As I said I will try to attend the debate if I do not have to be in another committee. 

Does anyone know if what he claims is right.

TyT


----------



## CopperCyclist (17 Feb 2012)

Chris Boardmans suggestion: A sign at a roundabout or where a road narrows that reads “motorists, give priority to cyclists” would have a massive impact on road safety by giving a clear instruction to both parties. It would cost little to implement and, in most cases, I doubt it would have much effect on traffic flow. In my opinion that simple signage, indicating a change of priority, would do more good for cyclists than 1,000 miles of cycle lanes that take me miles out of my way

It's simple and elegant, and I like it - although I'd maybe scratch the roundabout part, in case you get cyclists interpreting it as they ALWAYS have authority and just pull straight out onto it without looking - you know there will be at least one!

For pinch points and the like though, it's a really nice idea.


----------



## CopperCyclist (17 Feb 2012)

Titan yer tummy said:


> As advised I wrote to my MP and asked him to sign the EDM.
> 
> I have received this response.
> 
> ...



He is right about the cost of an EDM. However, I once replied (on a different subject) to my MP, pointing out that I, and the other numerous people writing to him WERE taxpayers, and despite his personal feelings, I and the others would be more than happy for a proportion of our taxes to be spent on this EDM. I therefore asked him to reconsider based on the fact that a number of his taxpayer constituents were aware of the cost, aware of the potential lack of impact, but still felt strongly enough to want the EDM to go ahead.


----------



## srw (18 Feb 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> He is right about the cost of an EDM.


I doubt it. It feels like a nonsense number either pulled out of thin air or calculated by the simplistic expedient of dividing the annual cost of the EDM department by the number of EDMs in a year. One more EDM (or even a hundred more) probably wouldn't actually cost any more to process.

The point about sticking a notice up on the noticeboards is pretty accurate, though.


----------



## sheddy (22 Feb 2012)

Afternoon debate on Thurs 23rd Feb - http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/ab...tch-the-cycling-safety-parliamentary-debate-0


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Feb 2012)

^ and I bet that is more than turn up to the debate...

... happy to be proved wrong though.


----------



## 2Loose (24 Feb 2012)

77 reportedly turned up Greg, happy now?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2012)

2Loose said:


> 77 reportedly turned up Greg, happy now?


Not really. 650 MPs in the commons and scant more than 10% of the members turned up in a country where thousands die on the roads every year...

How many do you think would turn out for a motoring related debate? The entire stinking pile is in thrall to the car.


----------



## semislickstick (24 Feb 2012)

2Loose said:


> 77 reportedly turned up Greg, happy now?


Is there a list of names?


----------



## semislickstick (24 Feb 2012)

semislickstick said:


> Is there a list of names?


 Found it...
*Ian Austin, Maria Eagle, Tessa Jowell, Kerry McCarthy, Andrew Smith, Lilian Greenwood, Susan Jones, Kate Hoey, Alison Seabeck, John Leech, Mark Lazarowicz, Ben Bradshaw, Zac Goldsmith, Sir Gerald Kaufman, Nia Griffith, Sadiq Khan, Jeremy Corbyn, Heidi Alexander, Stella Creasy, Tony Cunningham, Jim Cunningham, Karen Buck, Martin Horwood, Andrew Slaughter, Meg Hillier, Jason McCartney, Andrew George, Tom Brake, Fabien Hamilton, Guy Opperman, Julian Sturdy, Rehman Chishti, John Howell, Richard Harrington, Rob Wilson, Jack Lopresti, Mark Hunter, Sir Alan Beith, Simon Kirby, Andrew Bingham, Michael Ellis, Mike Weatherley, Sarah Woolaston, Jane Ellison, Gavin Barwell, Mark Menzies, Graham Evans, Paul Maynard, Nigel Mills, Fiona Bruce, Angie Bray, Tessa Munt, Jonathan Lord, Bob Stewart, Neil Carmichael, Andrew Selovs, Stephen Lloyd, Oliver Colville, Shailesh Vara, Sir George Young, Richard Graham, Norman Baker, Andrew Jones, Julian Huppert, Steve Brine, Robin Walker, Sir Bob Russell, Diane Abbott, Jo Swinson, Seema Malhotra, Rushinara Ali, Stephen Pound and Sheila Gimor.*

My MP .....
www.jonathandjanogly.com/
Member of Parliament for _Huntingdon_ and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice.....Did not. I can't wait to find out why he didn't.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2012)

semislickstick said:


> My MP .....
> www.jonathandjanogly.com/
> Member of Parliament for _Huntingdon_ and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice.....Did not. I can't wait to find out why he didn't.


 
I think he may have other priorities like appeasing the roads lobby...

"I and many of my constituents are somewhat dismayed that the process of building the new
A14 is not now well underway."


----------



## totallyfixed (24 Feb 2012)

semislickstick said:


> Found it...
> *Ian Austin, Maria Eagle, Tessa Jowell, Kerry McCarthy, Andrew Smith, Lilian Greenwood, Susan Jones, Kate Hoey, Alison Seabeck, John Leech, Mark Lazarowicz, Ben Bradshaw, Zac Goldsmith, Sir Gerald Kaufman, Nia Griffith, Sadiq Khan, Jeremy Corbyn, Heidi Alexander, Stella Creasy, Tony Cunningham, Jim Cunningham, Karen Buck, Martin Horwood, Andrew Slaughter, Meg Hillier, Jason McCartney, Andrew George, Tom Brake, Fabien Hamilton, Guy Opperman, Julian Sturdy, Rehman Chishti, John Howell, Richard Harrington, Rob Wilson, Jack Lopresti, Mark Hunter, Sir Alan Beith, Simon Kirby, Andrew Bingham, Michael Ellis, Mike Weatherley, Sarah Woolaston, Jane Ellison, Gavin Barwell, Mark Menzies, Graham Evans, Paul Maynard, Nigel Mills, Fiona Bruce, Angie Bray, Tessa Munt, Jonathan Lord, Bob Stewart, Neil Carmichael, Andrew Selovs, Stephen Lloyd, Oliver Colville, Shailesh Vara, Sir George Young, Richard Graham, Norman Baker, Andrew Jones, Julian Huppert, Steve Brine, Robin Walker, Sir Bob Russell, Diane Abbott, Jo Swinson, Seema Malhotra, Rushinara Ali, Stephen Pound and Sheila Gimor.*
> 
> My MP .....
> ...


Another posh boy, this may interest you:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/jonathan_djanogly/huntingdon


----------



## semislickstick (24 Feb 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> Another posh boy, this may interest you:
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/jonathan_djanogly/huntingdon


He sounds delightful doesn't he? Unfortunately this area is a safe bet for the Conservatives, no idea why. I asked him to attend or sign something before(possibly the CTC 20mph limits) and got a pathetic reply along the lines of....My hands are tied as its a Labour government and I'm a Conservative, you best vote conservative next time.... So, really, I'd like to see how he side steps it this time.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2012)

semislickstick said:


> He sounds delightful doesn't he? Unfortunately this area is a safe bet for the Conservatives, no idea why. I asked him to attend or sign something before(possibly the CTC 20mph limits) and got a pathetic reply along the lines of....My hands are tied as its a Labour government and I'm a Conservative, you best vote conservative next time.... So, really, I'd like to see how he side steps it this time.


 
Something along the lines of "My hands are tied as its a Coalition government and I'm a Conservative, you best vote conservative next time..."


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Feb 2012)

isn't there a lesson here? Get involved in stuff that makes a difference, rather than run around waving your hands in the air telling us that we're all going to die. My case (cycle campaigning is dying on its derriere) rests.


----------



## fimm (24 Feb 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> isn't there a lesson here? Get involved in stuff that makes a difference...


 Such as? (genuine question).


----------



## Fab Foodie (24 Feb 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> isn't there a lesson here? Get involved in stuff that makes a difference, rather than run around waving your hands in the air telling us that we're all going to die. *My case (cycle campaigning is dying on its derriere) rests*.


 
FWIW, I'm increasingly of the opinion that you are absolutely correct.

Helping to get more bums on bikes, generating confident converts is not only hugely rewarding, it's also the way to cycling salvation ....
I'm a believer.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Feb 2012)

fimm said:


> Such as? (genuine question).


and a fair one. Getting to know the way your local council works and getting specific on their asses when you see a problem. Going to really, really boring meetings (there's a few more reallys in there). Tapping up your councillor. Contributing to TfL guidance, which tends to get picked up on outside of London. And, dare I say it, running bike clubs.

I realise this is a local thing, but campaigning organisations like the LCC borough groups, Cambridge Cyclists, Bricycles (from Brighton) and so on have made a difference. I've not always been happy with that difference, but that's my problem not theirs. 

What bothers me is that we're being sold emotional states masquerading as campaigns, and, for almost all of the population - either those that don't ride a bike or those that ride bikes and don't feel particularly drawn to campaigning, those emotional states are an irrelevance.


----------



## fimm (24 Feb 2012)

Thank you.
I do see some things that "Spokes" - which is the local campainging group - put out, and there's a local forum which I've looked at occasionally but not posted on yet. Think local, rather than worrying about all you far-away southern people...


----------



## Poacher (24 Feb 2012)

Ye Gods!! Kate Hoey attended? Last time I heard, she wasn't exactly on the side of cyclists.

"According to the former Sports Minister, cyclists - not car drivers - are the real menace on Britain's roads, claiming they are accountable for poor road safety and aggressive behaviour.
Dubbed lycra louts, she describes them as selfish, rude, law-breaking and infuriatingly smug."

Has she had a change of heart, or was she there to interrupt?


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Feb 2012)

she's got a constituency to keep hold of, and that constituency probably has more cyclists than any other, except, possibly, one or two in Oxford and Cambridge.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> isn't there a lesson here? *Get involved in stuff that makes a difference*, rather than run around waving your hands in the air telling us that we're all going to die. My case (cycle campaigning is dying on its derriere) rests.


But the art is in telling _what_, in a persons specific context, will make a difference... that can be very hard to tell, and then to do, whereas blogging/bookfacing/wittering about it is, frankly, dead easy. For me the biggest difference is that taught us by the bomb-dodgers; when people get on their bikes, in numbers, and ride, in numbers, the whole power dynamic on our streets changes in favour of cyclists.

I suspect we need to do less campaigning and more promoting of cycling as safe, fun and money saving (n+1 excepted.) on the streets as they are now.


We are all going to die btw, but I suspect for most of us arm waving and cycling with have cock all to do with it.


----------



## Richard Mann (24 Feb 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> she's got a constituency to keep hold of, and that constituency probably has more cyclists than any other, except, possibly, one or two in Oxford and Cambridge.


 
Nicola Blackwood (Con, Oxford West and Abingdon) wasn't there. Andrew Smith (Lab, Oxford East) was (and spoke much good sense).


----------



## Fab Foodie (24 Feb 2012)

Richard Mann said:


> Nicola Blackwood (Con, Oxford West and Abingdon) wasn't there. Andrew Smith (Lab, Oxford East) was (and spoke much good sense).


 I noted Nicola's absence. I don't know where she sits on cycling, all I see from the guff coming through the doors are lots of lovely photographs of Nicola with everyman and his dog and nothing much else (come back Dr Evan all is forgiven).
Perhaps our Freewheeling group should collar her for our Spring Cycle rides festival, I'm sure there will be a photographer somewhere .... 
Cynicism aside, this is an opportunity locally to make a small difference.

But I think dell and GregCollins have it right here. Lots of good assertive local action can reap benefits. I'm not a man iof letters and would probably commit suicide or murder at sitting through a council meeting, but I can get bums on seats and encourage and mentor, so that's my small but useful contribution. More cyclists and gentle infrastructure changes can and will have a major impact.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Feb 2012)

blimey ol' riley - I've just googled Nicola. Need help wording the invite FF?


----------



## srw (24 Feb 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> blimey ol' riley - I've just googled Nicola. Need help wording the invite FF?


Remember - she's a _Tory_.


----------



## snorri (24 Feb 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Not really. 650 MPs in the commons .


..but not all represent London constituencies, and this campaign is quite clearly not a nationwide(UK) campaign.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Feb 2012)

snorri said:


> ..but not all represent London constituencies, and this campaign is quite clearly not a nationwide(UK) campaign.


Scotland hasn't yet got independence or devo max, The Times is a national newspaper, cities are located all over the UK, and a good number of the MP's who went weren't from London seats


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (24 Feb 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Scotland hasn't yet got independence or devo max, The Times is a national newspaper, cities are located all over the UK, and a good number of the MP's who went weren't from London seats


Yes, there were a whole 3 just from the tiny hamlet that is Greater Manchester!


----------



## snorri (24 Feb 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Scotland hasn't yet got independence or devo max, The Times is a national newspaper, cities are located all over the UK, and a good number of the MP's who went weren't from London seats


The Times is an English national newspaper whose Scottish edition has a very low circulation, I have never seen copies on the shelves around here. The campaign suggested we write to our MPs in an attempt to enlist their support, apparently unaware that our MPs have no say in transport issues. References to the Highways Agency and DfT are further indications of the regional nature of the campaign.
I'm not knocking the campaign, just knocking the claims that it is a national campaign.


----------



## Fab Foodie (24 Feb 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> blimey ol' riley - I've just googled Nicola. Need help wording the invite FF?


 If you can get the top tory totty into lycra and on a bicycle, I'll lend you my Mont Blanc (you're not left handed are you?) and supply the Basildon Bond!


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Feb 2012)

I agree with Snorri in this sense - the Times is published across the UK but its circulation is concentrated in London and Roseland. The profile of cycling in London is far removed from the profile of cycling in the rest of the country (setting aside Oxbridge hotspots) and I cannot imagine newspapers running cycling in search of circulation with anything other than London in mind. The Times is pitched straight at the Evening Standard readership, and the ES has been majoring on cycling for three years.

The spread of MPs probably reflects the pressure exerted by constituents.

What is remarkable, Snorri, is that the campaign, while articulated in London, is founded on fear, and that fear would be more rational in every part of the UK except London. Lenin's point about the revolution starting in the very place where the proletariat were best off, and getting better off is entirely applicable here - setting aside the uncomfortable fact that the Times prospectus, and 'Go Dutch' are fifteen years out of date.


----------



## Richard Mann (25 Feb 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> If you can get the top tory totty into lycra and on a bicycle, I'll lend you my Mont Blanc (you're not left handed are you?) and supply the Basildon Bond!


 
A cycle chic event might be a bit more likely. The City could probably lend her the mayoral bike for the occasion. Hmm


----------



## stowie (26 Feb 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> blimey ol' riley - I've just googled Nicola. Need help wording the invite FF?


 
My MP attended.







I assumed that I was currently being represented by someone who may not yet have reached their 21st birthday. Then I found out she was only 4 years younger than me. Either she looks young for 35, or I haven't aged well...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 Feb 2012)

I just had a quick skim through and didn't see this link to the recording of the debate - http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=10088

I warn you, it's 2:30 hours long but there are a few good contributions. The honourable member for Totnes began her speech with "30 years ago I fell in love on the back of a tandem''

Sorry if it's already been posted up.


----------



## srw (26 Feb 2012)

stowie said:


> My MP attended.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All done with make-up, hair dye and soft lighting. The bags under the eyes and the slightly weary smile almost make me sorry for her.


----------



## Titan yer tummy (26 Feb 2012)

I have always been nervous of joining in demonstrations. So often the peaceful intentions of the many get hi-jacked by a malignant few and what would have been a perfectly respectable event becomes the subject of righteous (and rightful) indignation and completely detracts from the cause; it ends up doing more harm than good. I have not been on a CM ride. I frequently see it setting up and to be honest I don’t like the look of it and so have never been tempted to join.

I did join the Tour de Danger. I thought it well organised, its intentions were peaceful as were the good natured folk who participated. There was no real intention to obstruct and delay traffic, although this inevitably happened. But there was no deliberate and malicious blocking of junctions just for the sake of it; rather junctions were simply blocked to enable the passing of the peloton. But hey, on a Saturday is this really so serious? Somehow the organisers had done a splendid job ensuring that rent-a-mob had been discouraged from getting involved in this. 

I also joined the Westminster ride on Wednesday. I was stunned at the turnout and take my helmet off to Mark Ames and Danny Williams. Once again the ride was well planned, peaceful and had clearly defined objectives. Our point could be made by a single circuit of Parliament, and that’s all we did and in my view it worked. 

I have viewed the parliamentary debate online. I have never watched a debate of this kind before so at first, when they were crowing that there were 77 MPs present, I thought they were being sarcastic. It was only later that it became clear that for this type of debate this qualified as a sell-out. It was also clear from the debate that the MPs were aware of our ‘demo’ the evening before. It was likewise obvious that our political masters are gradually beginning to wake up to the fact that our cause has traction. 

I had written to my own MP, Col Bob Stewart (Con, Beckenham), and received a slightly edited template response. His editing was to point out that he deprecated law breaking by some cyclists. He also said that due to other commitments he did not think he would be able to attend the debate. I wrote back to him and pointed out that he hadn’t signed the EDM either and he responded that he had a general policy not to sign them on grounds of cost or something. In the end he did attend the debate and spoke – admittedly only to make the same rather negative point about law breaking cyclists. But he did attend.

I congratulate The Times, The LCC, but above all Danny and Mark for forcing this issue onto the agenda, there may be much to do but I sense the wind of change rattling the windows of the halls of power. It will be a brave MP (or one with a significant majority) who does not sit up and begin listening to the cycling constituency. We are at last starting to turn the screw. 

We are perhaps at a watershed it would be too easy for the cycling community to press the wrong buttons and see the valuable work stall or unravel. My greatest fear is that time and again politicians will be called to address the misbehaviour of some of our number. I see this as an increasing threat to our cause. Somehow we have to persuade the RLJers, the no lighters, the 1 way streeters and the pavement jockeys amongst our numbers to change their ways. I feel this is vital to enable us to move the discussion on and gain some of the prizes we seek. I do hope that we can continue the pressure. I think we have a good cause. I believe that politicians recognise it as such and are generally disposed to support us. The next step is in our hands. 

Mark and Danny I await your call!!


----------



## stowie (26 Feb 2012)

Titan,

The "cyclists RLJ / ride on pavements" is a complete straw-man. Firstly, it is a rather odd excuse not to look at improving the lot of the majority because of the activities of some. I cannot imagine motorway widening being put on hold because a significant number of drivers speed and some ignore the highway code. Secondly, it is an excuse for inactivity. There will never be a time when every cyclist obey the highway code and the law to the letter. This is because cyclists are human as well and there will always be some who don't follow the rules. Even if we did manage to get everyone to obey the law, then people like your MP would still find a reason for inactivity - they fundamentally don't get cycling, and don't want to promote or help cyclists, but don't want to actually say it. The good news is that people like this are starting to sound out of step with sentiment, at least of their peers.

The cause is certainly worth pursuing. In fact, I think it more than about cycling - it is about taking the next step to improve our cities for living, working and leisure. It is only when I stand back and look at places like Parliament square that I realise how far we need to go. Here is an iconic site, one that can be recognised around the world, one of the images of London. And it is flanked by narrow pavements and a multi lane racetrack which is almost completely impassable for pedestrians. Or, more locally to me, Bow Church, a lovely building which has graced Bow for 700 years, but is currently stranded in the middle of the A11 / Bow Flyover approach - a road which is more motorway than urban street. When people generally see that this is just madness and destroying communities, then we all will have collectively won.


----------



## AnotherEye (26 Feb 2012)

I fully agree with Stowie (as Chris Peck said on Telly the other day *"97% of pedestrian injuries caused by RLJ'ing are by motor vehicles". Was this ever mentioned in the 'end the war on motorist's [sic]'* discussion?).
Before we get the necessary paradigm shift we need to identify & critique the current one; otherwise all we'll get from the current debate is more narrow cycle lanes that we don't want.
What is the paradigm? I'm not going to name it (I've not done the work) but to start with let's identify some of the symptoms:
* Govt gives subsidy to motorists who replace old car with new.
* fewer children walking & cycling to school.
* pedestrians often have to wait at 2 or more lights to cross a junction (or even just a road).
Please add to this list.


----------



## Lurker (26 Feb 2012)

* Air pollution that kills and injures people (and degrades the environment generally), known to be mainly generated in urban areas from motor vehicles but with no effective steps taken to massively reduce it at source
* Unwillingness to show political leadership - at all levels - to introduce widespread 20mph speed limits and thus reduce road danger at source


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (26 Feb 2012)

Titan yer tummy said:


> My greatest fear is that time and again politicians will be called to address the misbehaviour of some of our number.


Some hooligans go on foot, they are called "hooligans" and pedestrians don't refer to them as "some of our number"; some hooligans drive cars, they are called "hooligans in cars" and motorists don't refer to them as "some of our number"; some hooligans ride motorcycles, they are called "hooligans on motorcycles" and motorcyclists don't refer to them as "some of our number"; but for some reason, when the hooligans are on bicycles, they are called "cyclists" and some cyclists do insist on refering to them as "some of our number".


----------



## AnotherEye (26 Feb 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Some hooligans go on foot, they are called "hooligans" and pedestrians don't refer to them as "some of our number"; some hooligans drive cars, they are called "hooligans in cars" and motorists don't refer to them as "some of our number"; some hooligans ride motorcycles, they are called "hooligans on motorcycles" and motorcyclists don't refer to them as "some of our number"; but for some reason, when the hooligans are on bicycles, they are called "cyclists" and some cyclists do insist on refering to them as "some of our number".


+1


----------



## growingvegetables (26 Feb 2012)

And then we get Julian Sturdy, Conservative, MP for York Outer. Attended the debate.

He has an "interesting" take on it. He is a "great supporter of dedicated cycle lanes if we’re going to get more people out cycling, especially young people.”

There is a wrinkle - he appears to see it, purely and simply, as ....














an opportunity to *secure discounts on business rates for companies*.

No more. No less. Stuff the cyclists. Stuff adequate infrastructure. Stuff safe junctions. Stuff safety. Just help my friends in business.

It's here. Ah well - the band-wagon vultures are already circling.


----------



## Titan yer tummy (26 Feb 2012)

Dear Stowie, AE AND Mr HC,

Are you then suggesting that RLJ, no lights etc. does not have a negative impact on the image of cyclists.

I'm not sure I understand where your coming from

TyT.


----------



## AnotherEye (26 Feb 2012)

Titan yer tummy said:


> Dear Stowie, AE AND Mr HC,
> 
> Are you then suggesting that RLJ, no lights etc. does not have a negative impact on the image of cyclists.


I think it DOES have a negative impact & should be discouraged. However, it's not the main issue. The car is part of everyday life and is in-disposable, regardless of the cost to human life. The bicycle isn't, it's a threat to all of us who believe that our lifestyle is advanced, it's only place is off the road for recreation, it's clearly inferior as it lacks automation!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Feb 2012)

User said:


> As one of the constituents of a neighbouring constituency (South Cambridgeshire, which is the seat of the Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP, Secretary of State for Health), and someone who uses the A14 with depressing frequency both in a car and on a bike, I have to agree with Djanogly I'm afraid...


Yep, just what we need, more new roads.


----------



## GrasB (27 Feb 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Yep, just what we need, more new roads.


In this case yes. The history of the A14 was is was never meant to be a local route, there was supposed to be a companion road for local traffic that was never built. This dual road system was planned in the 70s iirc. So essentially since then the A14 has been running above capacity & it's starting to get critical. The A14 can just about cope with the through traffic mainly generated by transporting goods to/from felixstowe, add in local traffic needs & it's a right nightmare of a road.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Feb 2012)

GrasB said:


> In this case yes. The history of the A14 was is was never meant to be a local route, there was supposed to be a companion road for local traffic that was never built. This dual road system was planned in the 70s iirc. So essentially since then the A14 has been running above capacity & it's starting to get critical. The A14 can just about cope with the through traffic mainly generated by transporting goods to/from felixstowe, add in local traffic needs & it's a right nightmare of a road.


Nearly every road improvement scheme in the UK has a similar rationale. Will building the new road tend to increase or decrease traffic levels? Why does Felixstowe not have adequate rail links to take the freight off the roads? Where is all the local traffic going to and coming from?


----------



## Richard Mann (27 Feb 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Nearly every road improvement scheme in the UK has a similar rationale. Will building the new road tend to increase or decrease traffic levels? Why does Felixstowe not have adequate rail links to take the freight off the roads? Where is all the local traffic going to and coming from?


 
The congestion is concentrated around Cambridge and Huntingdon. It's local traffic that's the problem.

Well strictly, it's the stupidity of the local councils that have kept allowing building of unsustainable developments on the outskirts of Cambridge.


----------



## GrasB (27 Feb 2012)

Richard Mann said:


> The congestion is concentrated around Cambridge and Huntingdon. It's local traffic that's the problem.


Yes & no. The A14 is a much more substantial road along most of it's length compared to the Huntington/Cambridge section & for the most part there are alternative local links along the road. On this section not only have you got a bottle neck on the route you've got no alternative routes for local traffic.



> Well strictly, it's the stupidity of the local councils that have kept allowing building of unsustainable developments on the outskirts of Cambridge.


Recent ones based on the promise of an upgraded A14...


----------



## stowie (27 Feb 2012)

Titan yer tummy said:


> Dear Stowie, AE AND Mr HC,
> 
> Are you then suggesting that RLJ, no lights etc. does not have a negative impact on the image of cyclists.
> 
> ...


 
People like your MP have a negative view on cycling full stop. If they had a positive view, they might consider that RLJ / no light cyclists are an issue, but not one that dismisses the policy and concept of encouraging cycling. They are using the antisocial activities of some people to justify a stance, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Would you MP also think that funding an area for regeneration, for example, is pointless unless they reduce crime (for example vandalism, graffiti) to zero? Or that debating and implementing road policy for motoring isn't worth while whilst some drivers flout laws such as speed limits, insurance and tax requirements and so on?

Fundamentally, if we need to wait for every cyclist to obey every single law flawlessly before considering improving the lot of cycling in the UK, then we may as well give up now.It is as impossible as waiting for every driver to follow the highway code to the letter or for every citizen to obey the law before enacting policies to benefit them.

The debate isn't about law breaking cyclists. If your MP wants an EDM on this, then I am sure he is welcome to raise it. It is about improving conditions on our roads for the majority of cyclists.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (27 Feb 2012)

Titan yer tummy said:


> Dear Stowie, AE AND Mr HC,
> Are you then suggesting that RLJ, no lights etc. does not have a negative impact on the image of cyclists.
> I'm not sure I understand where your coming from.


There is a tendency, as you suggest, for people to stereotype cyclists according to some memories they have of hooligans who happen to be on bicycles. That is wrong of them, but nevertheless true. However, we only reinforce that stereotype further if we associate ourselves with said hooligans by referring to them as "some of our number". Furthermore, we will not change the behaviour of these hooligans by attempting to appeal to their sense of belonging to a community, because they don't have such a sense. The only way to deal with that stereotyping is to stress that those hooligans are not part of any community of cyclists, even if such a thing exists. To acknowledge that they are somehow associated with us, even while tutting and shaking our heads, is counter-productive. That's where I'm coming from, at least. :-)


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (27 Feb 2012)

stowie said:


> People like your MP have a negative view on cycling full stop. ... etc


Oh, and what he ^^^^ said, as well.


----------



## GrasB (27 Feb 2012)

GrasB said:


> Yes & no. The A14 is a much more substantial road along most of it's length compared to the Huntington/Cambridge section & for the most part there are alternative local links along the road. On this section not only have you got a bottle neck on the route you've got no alternative routes for local traffic.


I'll correct my self I was thinking A1(M) to M11 v's A14 not other bits of the A14. So... the Huntingdon to the stretch of the A14 North of Cambridge. This stretch has almost no secondary A roads to take local traffic load & thus is providing a back bone link for 4 different groups of traffic
1) It's the main route out of felixstowe for the west bound traffic. 
2) It handles the A10 traffic heading towards Ely & beyond for vehicles coming from the south of the A14/Cambridge (the alternative is through the middle of Cambridge it's self!)
3) It links 2 minor trunk road you may have heard of - The M11 & the A1(M)
4) Finally we get to the local traffic - It is the only viable route between Huntingdon, St. Ives & Cambridge so has to take that traffic.

No other stretch of the A14 has so much asked of it. There was back in the 70s(?) a planned companion road to take local traffic from Huntingdon back to Cambridge. This is why which is why the Girton interchange is such a mess & as it's such a mess it's a choke point causing congestion on the A14, M11 & A428.


----------



## Titan yer tummy (27 Feb 2012)

stowie said:


> People like your MP have a negative view on cycling full stop. If they had a positive view, they might consider that RLJ / no light cyclists are an issue, but not one that dismisses the policy and concept of encouraging cycling. They are using the antisocial activities of some people to justify a stance, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> Would you MP also think that funding an area for regeneration, for example, is pointless unless they reduce crime (for example vandalism, graffiti) to zero? Or that debating and implementing road policy for motoring isn't worth while whilst some drivers flout laws such as speed limits, insurance and tax requirements and so on?
> 
> ...



Para.1 - This anti-social behaviour is being used by our detractors to avoid the debate. It doesn't really matter whether it's right or wrong. This is what is actually happening. It's no good us wringing our hands and saying oh I do wish they'd listen to the proper arguments. It isn't going to happen. You talk about their position not standing up to scrutiny. It doesn't have to. The motoring constituency aren't going to scrutinise any counter arguments closely now are they. It's no good us pointing to the righteousness of our cause as it disappears down the tube is there?

Para 2. - I don't know what my MP thinks. If you listen to his contribution to the debate you will hear him claim to be a former cyclist. He gave up cycling after a couple of accidents, in one of which he sustained a serious injury. I am not sure how anti-cycling he is. I happen to agree with his comment that he wishes cyclists would obey the law. Law breaking cyclists p155 me off intensely, because I am consistently being asked to defend them when I want to talk about cycling safety issues. 

Para 3. - ".....then we may as well give up" your words not mine but you do have a point. If we can't take the discussion beyond the RLJ/no lights issue what's the point of talking. We are asking the law makers of this country to introduce or enforce laws to improve our lot. It's our part of the deal to make sure we obey the laws already in place.

Para 4. - That's the whole point of my contribution. If the other side can turn it into a debate about something else they have won. We as a cycling community are responsible for getting our house in order. Easy it isn't. But we have to keep trying. This forum isn't a bad place to start. There are people here who justify RLJing. So I'm not talking about some unknown demographic. These people are in our midst.

With best wishes.

TyT


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Feb 2012)

Don't defend law breaking cyclists, when they are criticised. Condemn 'em. Nothing shuts someone foaming at the mouth over ninjas and RLJ and pavement riders faster than "I agree. They are misguided in their actions and something needs to be done to educate them. But I'm sure you'll agree whilst their behaviour change is important it is not as important as (_insert issue you really care about here_).

Well, it works for me....


----------

