London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[gaz]

We've seen £140M go west on LCN+. I'm surprised that people aren't asking for the money back.

If only we could.

 

[stowie]

how is it a disaster? Pedestrians are, quite rightly, given top priority. Are you saying they shouldn't be? Again....show us the drawing

And can you not get hold of the idea that some of us are against spending money on cycling. We've seen £140M go west on LCN+. I'm surprised that people aren't asking for the money back.

I think that government at all levels would view people asking for money back that had been p!ssed away as a somewhat slippery slope.

LCN+, in my limited view,as simply a cyclist, seems to be the wrong idea (using indirect routes) badly implemented (signs that point the wrong way, LCN+ routes landing up at difficult junctions with major routes with no priority). The fact it took £140M to achieve this result seems slightly extraordinary.

However, £140M is a mere drop in the ocean in terms of transport spend. Of which considerably more than £140M could probably be reasonably thought as a bit of a waste of time.

Hierachy of provision looks a wonderful philosophy, but I can't really see much evidence of it in action. I shan't bore you with my example of Tottenham Hale re-organisation (removal of pedestrian crossings to aid traffic flow etc.) to illustrate my point. In my view implementing hierachy of provision would resolve many of the issues in the first place.

BTW - I took the opportunity the other day to use the contraflow at Stratford instead of the one way system. It is a much better route to get to Leytonstone High Road, but the signs seem to exclude all traffic except buses from the lane. Which seems wrong as the crossings at either end have cycle lights. And the buses didn't seem to mind me being there. So thanks for the heads-up. I have spent 2 years going around the Stratford gyratory and never thought the contraflow would be an option because of the signs. I will use the contraflow from now on - much more relaxing!

 

[dellzeqq]

I'm pleased - but do bear in mind that the benefits of the Stratford contraflow can only be truly appreciated at one in the morning in the company of loons. Click the link below. Give it a try.....

 

[Ravenbait]

It's a disaster because despite it being touted as the answer over and over again, we still have virtually nobody cycling in the UK.

Wow. So I was imagining the 7 other people I saw on bikes on my commute this morning, all within the space of a couple of miles? And my hubbie must be imaginary too, because I could have sworn he cycled to work this morning just like he does every other morning. Those other bikes in the bike shed next to mine are evidently someone's Playstation Network avatars or something.

I am someone's imaginary friend!

Sam

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

So few, in fact, that it's impossible to sustain a lively and interesting internet forum. Or a lively and active campaigning membership organisation. Or indeed a government-run bicycle hire scheme, or a commercial magazine, or a charity that funds cycle routes. And you never see a cyclist when you're out and about on a Sunday morning, do you?

To be fair, I don't think "virtually nobody" was meant literally.

Less than 2% of UK journeys under 5 miles are made by bike - a figure that has not changed for two decades.

This is the issue.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Wow. So I was imagining the 7 other people I saw on bikes on my commute this morning, all within the space of a couple of miles? And my hubbie must be imaginary too, because I could have sworn he cycled to work this morning just like he does every other morning. Those other bikes in the bike shed next to mine are evidently someone's Playstation Network avatars or something.

I am someone's imaginary friend!

Sam

Again, to be fair, claiming that "virtually nobody" cycles is probably not a claim that absolutely nobody cycles.

 

[Ravenbait]

Again, to be fair, claiming that "virtually nobody" cycles is probably not a claim that absolutely nobody cycles.

No, but it is a tad hyperbolic. What is the relationship of "virtually" to zero? I would expect "virtually" to be the equivalent of "statistically insignificant", and I'm not sure that this is the case. I don't have absolute figures to hand.

Sam

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I would expect "virtually" to be the equivalent of "statistically insignificant"

Put it this way, if 2 out of 100 kids at a school played, say, basketball, as their chosen sport, and the other 98% played football or rugby instead, I don't think I'd quibble if a teacher said "virtually nobody at our school plays basketball".


I certainly wouldn't think the teacher was claiming that there was a statistically insignificant number of basketball players.

 

[srw]

Put it this way, if 2 out of 100 kids at a school played, say, basketball, as their chosen sport, and the other 98% played football or rugby instead, I don't think I'd quibble if a teacher said "virtually nobody at our school plays basketball".

On the other hand, if the figures were 20 out of 1000, or 200 out of 10,000 in the county I definitely would quibble. You might as well say that virtually no-one in the country plays premiership football. A multi-billion pound industry says you're wrong.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

It is quite clear that the "virtually nobody cycles" comment was not meant literally, but was instead used, figuratively, to express a proportion.

For example, if I said, "virtually nobody in the UK wears clogs, in comparison to the Netherlands" would you waste my time and yours by finding evidence of UK clog wearers?


Of course, if you think ozzage meant, literally, that nobody cycles, then feel free to take issue with a claim that I am absolutely sure he, or she, is not making.

 

[jonesy]

In which case it is, at best, extremely unhelpful, especially when cycling actually has a significant modal share in a number of places. But then ozzage has form for factually incorrect sweeping statements in this thread...

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

In which case it is, at best, extremely unhelpful, especially when cycling actually has a significant modal share in a number of places. But then ozzage has form for factually incorrect sweeping statements in this thread...

Perhaps Ozzage was wrong to say "virtually nobody cycles in the UK" when he or she could have said "a very small proportion of people in the UK cycle".

But I fail to see why that statement was "extremely unhelpful", or indeed why he or she should necessarily have to mention that cycling has a higher modal share in some UK towns and cities. Variation in levels of cycling from place to place is a given in any country, is it not?

Am I allowed to say that "more people cycle in the Netherlands than in the UK?"

Or - presumably - do I have to qualify that statement by saying "more people cycle in the Netherlands than in the UK, although in some places in the Netherlands not many people cycle, and in some places in the UK, quite a few people cycle?" lest I get picked up for making a sweeping statement?

Do you not think you are taking pedantry just a little too far here?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

What I don't really understand is why you speak for Ozzage.

I'm not, nor would I presume to.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

It is not the way it comes across

You evidently cannot distinguish between me taking issue with an interpretation of Ozzage's words, and me speaking for him.

I am no more "speaking for Ozzage" than anyone else who is debating the meaning of the statement with me.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I think that I am capable of making the distinction. When you make five successive replies clarifying and reasserting someone else's post though, it comes across as I say.

And the other people who are reasserting their interpretation of his words?

What a strangely one-eyed view of this discussion you seem to have.