Mixed messages in London Mayor’s transport vision

Anonymous

Seen this?

In the policy outline ‘Way to Go’ there is both significant emphasis on pro-car measures that could be seen as anti-cyclist – notably a promise to end the "punishment" of car drivers by "unblocking the roads" – and a slap on the wrist for “some cyclists (who) do not go out of their way to earn the admiration of other Londoners.”.........

biondino

Thanks for this, M.Cole.

Indeed, the cycling section of the paper begins extremely negatively, with a promise to “encourage…whatever steps are possible and necessary to crack down on aggressive cycling.”

How is this negative? Readers of this forum are among the most critical of those with bad road and bike craft - just look at Farmer_Giles' thread the other day. Irresponsible cyclists are a menace and a scourge - I'm astonished that a presumably cycle-friendly journo should consider this a bad thing.

Of course there is the possibility that these "steps" could prove negative for commuters, e.g. compulsory use of cycle lanes where available, or arbitrary speed limits for cyclists. But I would beam if I saw the usually braindead RLJers and pavement cyclists getting done for their idiocy.

biondino

I also think that there are many examples of traffic calming measures causing extra strain to the system - the logic of trying to persuade drivers to stay off the road by creating bottlenecks and jams is totally flawed. Are they intending to remove the measures once the roads are clear? Won't drivers then come back?

Eat My Dust

Depends on what you consider "aggressive". In my experience a lot of drivers get confused between assertive and aggressive.

Kieran_Burns

Interesting second point that Biodino - I would think it to be more logical to make it easier to NOT do something than to make it hard to DO it.

For example: making commuting by other means of transport so easy that the car isn't necessary, rather than making it a nightmare to be in the car.

Positive re-enforcement as it were.

Oh, and i agree: clamping down on ALL idiots, no matter what their means of transport should be included.

Of course, more Police Officers patrolling rather than 1 dimensional boxes (that only are able to catch 1 crime happening in 1 place at 1 time) would be a great step forward. I'd also like to see more officers on bikes as well. this way, THEY get an appreciation for what we go through.

biondino

Eat My Dust wrote:

Depends on what you consider "aggressive". In my experience a lot of drivers get confused between assertive and aggressive.

And that's the key thing - it's an absolutely vital distinction but one that's so easy to get horribly wrong. Does anyone play poker? It's a game which rewards aggression, but so many people see aggression as mindless betting, raising and bullying when it actually has a very specific, subtle meaning and it almost always situation-specific. It seems to me a similar comparison.

Littigator

I saw a courier getting stopped in the middle of Holborn Circus the other day by a cycling copper....it were brilliant!

I note in the article that they have confirmed the phasing out of the bendy buses

HALLELUJAH!

biondino

How much is phasing them out going to cost the city? Ignoring for a second the cyclist's natural glee at such a step, is it anything more than a kneejerk, populist stab at gaining the favour of people who struggle with change?

biondino

(by the way I am a Boris-hating, left wing cyclist who rather enjoys the whole devil's advocacy thing once in a while :twisted: )

cjw

M.Cole wrote:

Seen this?

In the policy outline ‘Way to Go’ there is both significant emphasis on pro-car measures that could be seen as anti-cyclist – notably a promise to end the "punishment" of car drivers by "unblocking the roads" – and a slap on the wrist for “some cyclists (who) do not go out of their way to earn the admiration of other Londoners.”.........

I think this (by M.Cole) paints a rather different picture of the document to the one I have read... read the full document here (rather than just a highlight) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/publications/2008/docs/way-to-go.pdf

Firstly, over 2 pages of the document is dedicated to cycling and has some very good ideas and points;

• Launching a full-scale cycle hire scheme by 2010 in
nine London boroughs
• Creating dedicated routes that give nervous cyclists the
confidence they need
• A big increase in cycle stands and secure parking
for cyclists
• Helping to create cycle hubs and hire schemes in the
outer boroughs
• Considering the possibility of allowing cyclists to turn
left on red

Secondly, the slap on the wrist reflects the reality and public opinion of some cyclists. If it had been silent on the subject, I think the pro-cycle content would have been devalued by ignoring the bad cyclists.

I think the document is balanced and COULD be a good thing.

Littigator

biondino wrote:

How much is phasing them out going to cost the city? Ignoring for a second the cyclist's natural glee at such a step, is it anything more than a kneejerk, populist stab at gaining the favour of people who struggle with change?

They don't work for London's streets they shouldn't have been introduced in the first place. Of course it will cost to correct this problem but that does not preclude implementing the correct solution.

sigh even leftist trotskyites seem to be obsessed purely by cost/benefit these days. What happened to doing things not for cost but becuase they were right

Bring me my harp!

lost_in_thought

Littigator wrote:

biondino wrote:

How much is phasing them out going to cost the city? Ignoring for a second the cyclist's natural glee at such a step, is it anything more than a kneejerk, populist stab at gaining the favour of people who struggle with change?

They don't work for London's streets they shouldn't have been introduced in the first place. Of course it will cost to correct this problem but that does not preclude implementing the correct solution.

sigh even leftist trotskyites seem to be obsessed purely by cost/benefit these days. What happened to doing things not for cost but becuase they were right

Bring me my harp!

Bow of burning gold? Spear? Chariot of fire?

spen666

who is not going to cease from mental fight?

cjw

spen666 wrote:

who is not going to cease from mental fight?

only when we have built Jerusalem.

lost_in_thought

spen666 wrote:

who is not going to cease from mental fight?

Litts, I reckon. Nor shall his sword sleep in his hand...

I have just read this report in its original format, and felt the cycling-related elements were intelligently and respectfully covered. I didn't notice any mention of cycling lanes becoming obligatory.

I also thought that the onslaught against potholes was an excellent plan.

I'm not a boris-hater, and maybe a little naive and gullible, but if this comes off I reckon it will make London a better place to cycle.

*ducks and runs away*

spen666

Are the polish builders foing to be negaged to construct Jerusalem in England's Mean & Peasant Land

prj45

Littigator wrote:

I note in the article that they have confirmed the phasing out of the bendy buses

HALLELUJAH!

Why HALLELUJAH?

Since they've been introduced exactly NO cyclists have been killed by them.

In the meantime normal double decks have killed three that I can remember.

One side effect of removing bendies from a route and replacing them with double decks is MORE vehicles on the road, up to eight more per hour, and much more on the route that goes throught he strand underpass becuase they can only replace bendies with single decks on that route.