Cyclists are making conjestion and pollution worse - Labour MP

[Sixmile]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...lo-labour-mp-cycle-lane-sceptic-a7532141.html

Well, just when you think you've heard it all from the suits in Westminster. Labours Rob Flello claims that cycle lanes should be removed and more space made for cars as those pesky cyclists are contributing to the poor air quality and causing the conjestion.

 

[Lonestar]

Good idea get rid of the CS 2 and CS 3.

I do like the comments section.

 

[mjr]

Good idea get rid of the CS2 and CS 3.

Nah, just close all the car crossings except the traffic-lit ones.

This is a worrying narrative which I think we should challenge whenever it appears. Is anyone here a consitutent of his who can www.WriteToThem.com ?

The actual claim seems debunked by http://cyclingfallacies.com/en/12/cycling-causes-congestion

 

[Spinney]

Someone needs to show him this (there is a better version somewhere, but this was the first one that google found).

I reckon they should reduce the tarmac for cars even further, so congestion gets worse and more drivers get fed up enough with it to walk/cycle/use bus/use tube...

 

[Lonestar]

Nah, just close all the car crossings except the traffic-lit ones.

This is a worrying narrative which I think we should challenge whenever it appears. Is anyone here a consitutent of his who can www.WriteToThem.com ?

The actual claim seems debunked by http://cyclingfallacies.com/en/12/cycling-causes-congestion

My argument is more about crap cycle lane design more than anything else.

I now find I am taking alternative routes to avoid these ((CS 2 and CS 3) as much as possible and as you already guessed mixing it with traffic again.This was what cycle lanes were designed to avoid,no?

The actual better part of the CS 3 (is mainly non enclosed) after Limehouse heading eastwards.

 

[mjr]

I now find I am taking alternative routes to avoid these ((CS 2 and CS 3) as much as possible and as you already guessed mixing it with traffic again.This was what cycle lanes were designed to avoid,no?

No, sorry, at least not the CS. They're to help London cope with the increased volume and diversity of today's users, in order to keep London moving and the economy growing.

The actual better part of the CS 3 (is mainly non enclosed) after Limehouse heading eastwards.

Can't agree with you there. That section was in a pretty dire state last summer, with uneven surfaces, tight turns around bollards, signposts and street lights, constant motorist harassment because I won't ride in the door zone along Poplar High Street, cobbles, semi-signed diversions and so on. All it needs is a mud section and it would be a stereotypical English cycle route! Has it improved since then?

 

[subaqua]

My argument is more about crap cycle lane design more than anything else.

I now find I am taking alternative routes to avoid these ((CS 2 and CS 3) as much as possible and as you already guessed mixing it with traffic again.This was what cycle lanes were designed to avoid,no?

The actual better part of the CS 3 (is mainly non enclosed) after Limehouse heading eastwards.

Same here . And it seems that it wasn't built me and you . Seems the LCC don't speak for all cyclists ...... just their sort of cyclist .

Even the traffic light junctions are fecking appalling.

East west is so much better constructed although I did see last week that it was flooded in sections.

CS 3 after spice quay gets better up to that point it is a bit of blue paint. Sadly the best bit was existing shared use path put in when A13 was improved. All boris did was plonk some blue paint down .

Still it's segregation innit and that's the best thing . I would love some of those who tweet pics of their kids on the e-w to take them on CS 2 and 3 where it's really crap then make comments sbout how soooopaaah they are .

Sub standard design . Sub standard construction and not one of the big cycling. Pressure groups had the balls to say "OI TfL , NO that's rubbish do it properly . "

 

[DaveReading]

He's not just an MP, he's a member of the Transport Select Committee, FFS.

 

[Lonestar]

The CS 3 Tower Gateway to Limehouse is awful but just about wins it for me as I'm not so sure about Aldgate to Limehouse on the A13 although I use the reverse direction A13.

Poplar High Street is no more of a problem for me than many other roads in London.Although I only use W-E section and come by an alternative route E-W.

CS 3 Also appaling light sequences if they actually work.Although that improves just before Shadwell after clearing them all.I'd say five sets of lights,but that's no problem for the cyclists who jump them all.
Cars likely to come out of blind turning at any second.
Pedestrians too near two way narrow section after Tower Gateway to Limehouse.Not their fault but it's an accident waiting to happen.
CS 2 Left hook heaven.

Last year on the CS 2 I had just missed an incident where a ped was being mopped up off of the CS 2.

At times the CS 2 and CS 3 turn into a RLJing peleton.

 

[mjr]

I wonder if Mr Flello declared his financial interests to the Committee before he made his comments...?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/170109/flello_robert.htm "Road Haulage Association, Roadway House, Bretton Way, Bretton, Peterborough ... salary and national Insurance contributions of around £16,000 pa to be provided for an intern in my Parliamentary office in relation to my duties as Chair APPG Freight Transport and to support me in my work on the Transport Select Committee, from 10 June 2015 until August 2016"

 

[Dogtrousers]

Sigh. He's provided a hypothesis: Loss of road space to cycling infrastructure slows traffic and results in increased pollution. Fair enough. But he's then skipped the bit where you test your hypothesis using empirical data, substituted the standard idiot's "it stands to reason" step and jumped immediately to using it to make predictions, therefore removal of cycling infrastructure will result in decreased pollution.

The fact that he has interests in the haulage industry is fine. Things need hauling. We need people to haul them. Their interests need to be represented.

The fact that he's an idiot is not fine.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

Big fatty attacks cycling while supporting greater car use. What a shockeroonie.

 

[tobykenobi]

First Chris Graying claiming cyclists are not road users now this!

Looking for pro-cycling MPs. The only one who springs to mind is Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter) who has campaigned for better access to public transport for cyclists (bikes on trains) and has opposed moves for compulsory helmet laws.

Any others?

 

[srw]

Big fatty attacks cycling while supporting greater car use. What a shockeroonie.

Enough.

He's a wally. A prat. A cock. A bellend. A numpty. An ignoramus. A know-nothing. An unscientific doofus. A stain on the good name of British politics. In the pockets of vested interests. A shameful embarrassment to the people of Stoke-on-Trent South.

His weight is a complete and utter irrelevance, and it's a stain on the good name of cycling and this forum that that sort of attack is thrown around far too often.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

Nope, I stand by it. If he loved cars less and tried riding a bike once in a while, I might not have cause any longer to call him a big fatty.