Boris and his vision

[srw]

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

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

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

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

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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

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

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

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

 

[Theseus]

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

 

[Lee_M]

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

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

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

 

[Theseus]

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

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

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

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

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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

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

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

 

[Mile195]

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

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

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

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

 

[albion]

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

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

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

 

[dellzeqq]

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

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

There are two parts of the document that are really interesting

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

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

The other is this

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

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

 

[srw]

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

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

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

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

 

[dellzeqq]

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

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

 

[Crankarm]

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

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

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

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

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

Boris' vision, believe it when I see it.

 

[albion]

Supporting cyclists will be the norm anyway.

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

 

[derrick]

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

 

[albion]

Since when has increasing the congestion charge ever lost revenue.

Ken got it quite right.