Evening Standard launches Cycle City

prj45
prj45 Posts: 2,208
edited February 2009 in Commuting chat
From a paper that spent years demonising cyclists comes Cycle City.

It seems that now that we have a cycling Mayor (that lovely Boris what the Standard spent months bigging up ) cyclists are OK after all (I suspect that if Ken Livingstone had started cycling it would've prompted the Standard to up it's anti cycling rhetoric not quell it).

http://cycle.standard.co.uk/

And Andrew Gillligan seems to be London's cycling spokesperson (the guy that thinks it's a good idea to bring back open backed buses); I reserve the right to raise an eyebrow.
Photos - Blog - Bike

Comments

  • Littigator
    Littigator Posts: 1,262
    Hey don't knock it. Any positive press must surely help eh?!
    Roadie FCN: 3

    Fixed FCN: 6
  • passout
    passout Posts: 4,425
    Does no harm but it is a waste of time and money.

    The only way to get many more people cycling is to make motoring even less attractive/viable.
    'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    passout wrote:
    Does no harm but it is a waste of time and money.

    The only way to get many more people cycling is to make motoring even less attractive/viable.

    No, no, no. That's a bad passout. This government needs to do more carrot and less stick.
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • Gavin Gilbert
    Gavin Gilbert Posts: 4,019
    That Gilligan is involved is pretty much enough to make me throw my commuting bike in the corner and not touch it again.
  • cjcp
    cjcp Posts: 13,345
    Gavin Gilbert wrote:
    That Gilligan is involved is pretty much enough to make me throw my commuting bike in the corner and not touch it again.

    Oh God. He wears the same jacket as me.
    FCN 2-4.

    "What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
    "It stays down, Daddy."
    "Exactly."
  • Gavin Gilbert
    Gavin Gilbert Posts: 4,019
    cjcp wrote:
    Gavin Gilbert wrote:
    That Gilligan is involved is pretty much enough to make me throw my commuting bike in the corner and not touch it again.

    Oh God. He wears the same jacket as me.

    Ah! But Gilligan has the logo "I am an inaccurate toad with a history of falsehoods and embelshments" emblazoned on the back of his.

    99% of journalists suck and Gilligan is the worst form of journalist.
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    passout wrote:
    Does no harm but it is a waste of time and money.

    The only way to get many more people cycling is to make motoring even less attractive/viable.

    So wrong! I think this looks pretty decent and should genuinely help people considering taking up cycling in London. And I loathe the Standard.
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • Bassjunkieuk
    Bassjunkieuk Posts: 4,232
    They should just link to here, if SCR doesn't encourage people to commute by bike then nothing will :-)
    Who's the daddy?
    Twitter, Videos & Blog
    Player of THE GAME
    Giant SCR 3.0 - FCN 5
  • flattythehurdler
    flattythehurdler Posts: 2,314
    Who is andrew gilligan?
    Dan
  • cjcp
    cjcp Posts: 13,345
    Posting a link might be safer...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gilligan
    FCN 2-4.

    "What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
    "It stays down, Daddy."
    "Exactly."
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    cjcp wrote:
    Posting a link might be safer...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gilligan

    Ohhhhh I see! It's him! That Hutton/Kelly/etc palaver thing...

    Is that why you guys dislike him? Or is it because he didn't like ken?
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • MrChuck
    MrChuck Posts: 1,663
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    passout wrote:
    Does no harm but it is a waste of time and money.

    The only way to get many more people cycling is to make motoring even less attractive/viable.

    No, no, no. That's a bad passout. This government needs to do more carrot and less stick.

    I see what you're saying, but is giving people incentives to stop doing things that are generally seen as bad the way forward? Should companies who pollute rivers, for example, be paid to stop doing it or fined if they continue?
  • flattythehurdler
    flattythehurdler Posts: 2,314
    The Gilligan chap from the Kelly thing told the truth. Does anyone here seriously think that that dossier wasn't "sexed up" a bit? It seems the height of restrained journalism to me. TBlair and campbell produced a packet of fcucking lies and sent young men to their deaths, oh and tens of thousands of innocent civilians. The fact that the republicans were going to pile in regardless is moot. Clarkson nailed it when he wrote that blair (I won't give him the dignity of a capital letter again) saw that his future on the far side of the Atlantic would be more lucrative on the after dinner circuit, and sent underequipped, under resourced, underprotected young men to pointless deaths.

    Sorry sorry sorry.
    rant over.
    Dan
  • Sleipnir
    Sleipnir Posts: 4
    It is good to have a champion, even its a self appointed one to speak up for cyclists!

    Could do with one here in the West Midlands. We have a borough here, Sandwell, where men have a life expectancy is five years less than average; the death rates are amongst the highest in the country and where the biggest causes of death are heart attacks largely due to a lack of physical activity.

    Did they spend £63 million on swimming pools or cycling routes? No, they spent the money on an art gallery in West Bromwich called The Public. The papers call it the most ill judged building since The dome.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/dono ... -Dome.html

    Look at what Sustrans are doing with £50 million. Think of what they might have done with another £63 million? :cry::cry::cry:
  • b0y1nterupted
    b0y1nterupted Posts: 124
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    passout wrote:
    Does no harm but it is a waste of time and money.

    The only way to get many more people cycling is to make motoring even less attractive/viable.

    No, no, no. That's a bad passout. This government needs to do more carrot and less stick.

    i think we need to do both,

    make motoring less attractive yes but the alternatives have to be a lot more attractive than they are at the moment
    FCN 4

    thereback.jpg
  • MrChuck
    MrChuck Posts: 1,663
    b0y1nterupted wrote:
    make motoring less attractive yes but the alternatives have to be a lot more attractive than they are at the moment

    I don't know about this, it seems to shift the responsibility and make it somebody else's problem and an unsolvable problem at that. I think by 'attractive alternative' most people mean 'something with all the convenience and privacy of my car but without the traffic, and requiring no effort on my part' and I can't see that ever coming.

    Of course there are people who really do have no alternative, but I think laziness rather than lack of options is more of an issue for a lot of others.
  • cjcp
    cjcp Posts: 13,345
    MrChuck wrote:
    b0y1nterupted wrote:
    make motoring less attractive yes but the alternatives have to be a lot more attractive than they are at the moment

    I don't know about this, it seems to shift the responsibility and make it somebody else's problem and an unsolvable problem at that. I think by 'attractive alternative' most people mean 'something with all the convenience and privacy of my car but without the traffic, and requiring no effort on my part' and I can't see that ever coming.

    Of course there are people who really do have no alternative, but I think laziness rather than lack of options is more of an issue for a lot of others.

    (Apologies for being a bit London-centric here). Public transport isn't going to become a viable alternative in London in a hurry. Having had the misfortune to drive in London's morning rush hour recently, I cannot see what the attraction is. It's bananas.

    You'd need more drastic measures to force people out of their cars, like increasing the number of pedestrianised or public transport-only areas/zones. But, and I may be wrong here, that would presumably conflict with the profit-making motives of those who operate the congestion charge. As I say though, I may be wrong.

    Deliveries in the middle of the night - not 9am when Fenchurch St is narrow enough as it is in parts. Would this drive up the cost of products? They wouldn't have to pay the congestion charge though.

    In the 'burbs, the effect of reducing the number of cars on the school run is there for all to see this week.
    FCN 2-4.

    "What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
    "It stays down, Daddy."
    "Exactly."

Categories