Chairman London Cycling Campaign
Comments
-
I'm sure she's already received an onslaught of emails... Cyclists aren't afraid of emails andd the internet in expressing themselves!CookeeeMonster wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
I don't think it's sensitivity, it's perpetuating a stereotypical view of cyclists in London held by white van and minicab man and because it comes from a cycling organisation it's almost legitimising what these people already believe that cyclists shouldn't be on the road and are always breaking the law (unless they're girly girls in flowery skirts on Pashleys)Rick Chasey wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
I don't think anyone's disagreeing that it would be nice to make cycling in London more accessible to women and people "wearing normal clothes", what I and others take umbrage to is that she apparently demonises young (or middle aged) male cyclists in lycra, inferring that they are testosterone charged idiots always breaking the law. She makes this statement based on what evidence? I should say that I haven't actually heard or seen the interview so I've no idea of the actual words she uses but surely there's a way to make your point without making snide and unsupported statements about other types of cyclist....Rick Chasey wrote:Take a look at the average poster on here.
Male, middle aged, gets into petty arguments on the Internet.
She's trying to get more peopld into casual cycling. Where you wear normal clothes, don't work up much of a sweat, and don't race (however silly).
Who here can honestly say they haven't done a bit of shouting on the bike??
We will ride whatever. It's the flakers that need attention.
Think demonising is a little strong.
A lot of people feel that way about cyclists. I think she's trying to say "look, when we say cycle, we don't mean that thing you hate, y'know, with shouty men in the lycra etc but something that's easy and flexible and even something you can do in your dress". Which is correct. And that is something many people don't think. If all the cyclists they see are men in lycra sweating like priests in a whorehouse, then no wonder.
Think we all should be a bit less sensitive
.
Yep I agree with this, wonder if it'll be worth emailing her...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
We kinda are boy racers in lycra aren't we?
I think people are blowing it out of proportion a bit. Noone is saying "take lycra cyclists off the road".
It's just a bit of sales. It's essentially saying 'you don't have to be the negative stereotype to cycle".
Which is right.0 -
-
I don't mind being a boy racer in lycra by I resent the generalisation that boys in lycra RLJ and otherwise break the law and are testosterone fuelled, it's possible to make the point that you want to make cycling more accessible to all without picking on existing cyclists and affirming existing stereotypes which some motorists already feel gives them the right to bully cyclists on the road. I would expect more from someone at a cycling organisation. Basically I agree with what she is saying but don't see why she has to say it at the expense of the existing cycling community...Rick Chasey wrote:We kinda are boy racers in lycra aren't we?
I think people are blowing it out of proportion a bit. Noone is saying "take lycra cyclists off the road".
It's just a bit of sales. It's essentially saying 'you don't have to be the negative stereotype to cycle".
Which is right.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
I feel like I ought to come on here and correct a few misconceptions:
1) Ann Kenrick isn't the CEO of the London Cycling Campaign nor does she £60k a year. As our chair of trustees, she's a volunteer so earns absolutely zero, and gives her time for free to promote London cycling as she and many like her have done for years.
2) No-one at LCC is demonising men who ride a bike and wear Lycra (that describes quite a few of us). The point Ann was trying to make (successfully or not) is that our road system doesn't encourage a cross-section of Londoners to ride a bike, and therefore it's failing. We want city streets that are safe and inviting for everyone to cycle - and that means *everyone* from the fastest commuter to the slowest child or granny.
3) We don't advocate cycle lanes like the one on Grange Road. In fact, we hate the sight of them. Cycle lanes that are not useful to anyone are a complete waste of money and space.
4) Dutch cycling is not slow. The Dutch do *not* design their streets around the slowest cyclist, as some here seem to be suggesting, nor do they make cycle journeys slow and inconvenient. The complete opposite is true: they design streets that are fast, comfortable and safe - this is why LCC is advocating Dutch standards of street design. Long commutes are common in the NL - much more than they are here, in fact.
I've been late for a meeting in Amsterdam and can assure you can absolutely fly across that city on a bike if you have to. Not only that, but in the Netherlands there's actually a problem with too many motor scooters using the bike lanes - the scooters love the cycle paths because their journeys are way faster and more convenient than going on the roads: big wide bike tracks to overtake slower cyclists, smoother road surfaces, shorter waits at junctions, zero one-way systems to deal with, and so on. The scooters use the lanes for historical reasons (we don't think it's a great idea), and there are so many they might well be banned soon. Lycra-clad roadies are a common sight on Dutch cycle paths too - though normally only on the weekend. They don't complain about not riding on the road because they're flying along the bike tracks.
It's time we abandoned the fantasy that Dutch cycling is about long detours on back roads and 2ft-wide cycle lanes. There's so much information out there on the internet that you don't even have to go to the Netherlands to see the truth – spend 20 mins on either of these sites and tell me you prefer jockeying for space on Old Kent Road or risking your neck on a typical British A-road to what they have:
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/
And don't try telling me we'll never get that kind of quality here, because we're winning the arguments left, right and centre. It's time we abandoned our poor standards of street design once and for all.
Mike C
London Cycling Campaign
PS anyone is welcome to email me myfirstname@lcc.org.uk, though don't expect an instant response as I'm on holiday next week. I'll reply when I get back of course.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:I don't mind being a boy racer in lycra by I resent the generalisation that boys in lycra RLJ and otherwise break the law and are testosterone fuelled, it's possible to make the point that you want to make cycling more accessible to all without picking on existing cyclists and affirming existing stereotypes which some motorists already feel gives them the right to bully cyclists on the road. I would expect more from someone at a cycling organisation. Basically I agree with what she is saying but don't see why she has to say it at the expense of the existing cycling community...
Seems fair, but I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on the part I've highlighted of yours. The sort of person who holds that stereotype is not ever going to be persuaded by reasoned arguments, because that requires thought, and whilst they might actually be intelligent on the whole they're unwilling to devote time and thought to what is to them something inconsequential. They'll probably never even read the article, why would they waste time listening to a cyclist? So, in reality, there's no harm done in 'affirming the stereotype' at all.
What they'll be persuaded by is when people in the office, or down the pub, stop lending a sympathetic ear to their rant about those daredevil tree-hugging tax-dodgers, and start telling them they're full of shit. That requires more cyclists, which in reality requires more 'ordinary' cyclists (as RC said, the people dedicated enough to buy expensive gear and not feel self-concsious are the ones who won't be put off by bad infrastructure or even bad drivers, so we're a 'solved problem'). If getting more 'ordinary' cyclists comes at the expense of 'serious' ones, I suspect it's worth it for society and maybe even for us.0 -
LondonCycling wrote:I feel like I ought to come on here and correct a few misconceptions:
1) Ann Kenrick isn't the CEO of the London Cycling Campaign nor does she £60k a year. As our chair of trustees, she's a volunteer so earns absolutely zero, and gives her time for free to promote London cycling as she and many like her have done for years.
2) No-one at LCC is demonising men who ride a bike and wear Lycra (that describes quite a few of us). The point Ann was trying to make (successfully or not) is that our road system doesn't encourage a cross-section of Londoners to ride a bike, and therefore it's failing. We want city streets that are safe and inviting for everyone to cycle - and that means *everyone* from the fastest commuter to the slowest child or granny.
3) We don't advocate cycle lanes like the one on Grange Road. In fact, we hate the sight of them. Cycle lanes that are not useful to anyone are a complete waste of money and space.
4) Dutch cycling is not slow. The Dutch do *not* design their streets around the slowest cyclist, as some here seem to be suggesting, nor do they make cycle journeys slow and inconvenient. The complete opposite is true: they design streets that are fast, comfortable and safe - this is why LCC is advocating Dutch standards of street design. Long commutes are common in the NL - much more than they are here, in fact.
I've been late for a meeting in Amsterdam and can assure you can absolutely fly across that city on a bike if you have to. Not only that, but in the Netherlands there's actually a problem with too many motor scooters using the bike lanes - the scooters love the cycle paths because their journeys are way faster and more convenient than going on the roads: big wide bike tracks to overtake slower cyclists, smoother road surfaces, shorter waits at junctions, zero one-way systems to deal with, and so on. The scooters use the lanes for historical reasons (we don't think it's a great idea), and there are so many they might well be banned soon. Lycra-clad roadies are a common sight on Dutch cycle paths too - though normally only on the weekend. They don't complain about not riding on the road because they're flying along the bike tracks.
It's time we abandoned the fantasy that Dutch cycling is about long detours on back roads and 2ft-wide cycle lanes. There's so much information out there on the internet that you don't even have to go to the Netherlands to see the truth – spend 20 mins on either of these sites and tell me you prefer jockeying for space on Old Kent Road or risking your neck on a typical British A-road to what they have:
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/
And don't try telling me we'll never get that kind of quality here, because we're winning the arguments left, right and centre. It's time we abandoned our poor standards of street design once and for all.
Mike C
London Cycling Campaign
PS anyone is welcome to email me myfirstname@lcc.org.uk, though don't expect an instant response as I'm on holiday next week. I'll reply when I get back of course.
Mike,
Thanks for the post. I've been thinking about this a lot recently with the spate of cyclist deaths in London and elsewhere, and have slowly come completely around to the view that largely segregated infrastructure is the only sensible way to accomodate bicycles and motorised traffic, something I vaguely knew in the past but had no great enthusiasm for. I think for those of us who are confident in traffic, there are natural concerns about how such provision would affect us - being 'forced onto the path' etc - and of course whether it would be of a high enough standard to make it worthwhile. Will be interested to see how things develop, from what I understand about the machinations of local politics, I can see some great stuff being achieved in some places, and TSROFA in others. Also of course, as this whole thread shows, cyclists as a constituency are perhaps pretty lukewarm on the subject. But please keep up the good work and I'll throw my support behind protest rides etc where I can.0 -
I am very dubious about cycle lanes - it is in the natural order of local government (and I should know) that they offer provisions for the majority - this will mean that if cycling becomes as global as people want - then it will be cycle lane restricted and slower - sorry I don't buy the "fast Amsterdam" - I felt it was slow and I felt compelled to go much slower as I didn't want to harm another cyclist - I am happy to take risks with my own life not others.
But above everything else I am really tired of this lycra lout label - 90% of RLJ's I see are people in normal clothing on bikes. The lycra lout tends to not only be faster but far more concious of representing other cyclists by not giving us a bad reputation in front of car drivers.0 -
LondonCycling wrote:It's time we abandoned the fantasy that Dutch cycling is about long detours on back roads and 2ft-wide cycle lanes.
...
And don't try telling me we'll never get that kind of quality here, because we're winning the arguments left, right and centre. It's time we abandoned our poor standards of street design once and for all.
But we haven't got that kind of quality here, even with the super-flagship projects such as CS3 and the A316 cycle path between Richmond Circus and Chalker's Corner, and it's not really likely to change. Giving way to vehicles turning into/out of side roads (and even people's fscking driveways!), so narrow it's almost impossible to overtake when a cyclist is coming the other way, poor segregation from pedestrians, it's no wonder that 3/4s of the cyclists I work with take the Highway or Commercial Road from the City to the Wharf rather than CS3. Given cyclists make up more than two thirds of traffic on some routes during rush hours, why are we being shoe-horned into such a tiny space? Give me Embankment-style CS8 any day, direct, fast, flowing with traffic and not having to stop every time there's a road that crosses the route. LCC should be campaigning on these issues, but instead they give the impression of just caring about the slower shorter-distance cyclists and not the current longer-distance commuter-style cyclist as this article proves."Mummy Mummy, when will I grow up?"
"Don't be silly son, you're a bloke, you'll never grow up"0 -
Keyser,
Surely fast, direct, flowing CS8 Embankment style cycle tracks could be a key part of an overall provision of segragated bike infrastructure? It's an obvious requirement for getting around a city the size of London in reasonable time. Any 'policy' document I've ever read of anybody advocating Dutch-style infrastructure refers to segregated cycle tracks on main arterial roads. If these are given priority at junctions and enough width, they will be fast routes. Maybe not ideal for SCR but good enough for a reasonably fast average with few stops.
We have to get away from the idea that such infrastructure must necessarily be sub-standard. That is the point Mike is making above. We seem to always work from the assumption that the current standard of infrastructure is all that can be achieved. If we all think that, what hope is there of ever persuading local authorities to provide something better?
Again, I'm as selfish as the next man and like things as they are now as far as my own preferred way of cycling goes - but when you have what seems like weekly fatalities and huge swathes of the population still too intimidated to ride a bike as a means of getting about, then surely things have to change.0 -
Gallywomack wrote:If these are given priority at junctions and enough width, they will be fast routes. Maybe not ideal for SCR but good enough for a reasonably fast average with few stops.
We have to get away from the idea that such infrastructure must necessarily be sub-standard.
That's a big if though, and it certainly hasn't been the case on most of the 'flagship' segregated routes. It seems so many influential groups are pushing the segregation aspect over the width and flow/priority. Pretty wide mandatory cycle lanes with with-traffic flow are being removed and poor narrow cramped segregated lanes where cyclists have to give way to every single side road are put in in their place, and all the groups harp on about what a great victory it is but the cyclists using them are in a worse position than before. True Dutch infrastructure incorporates both segregation and proper flow, yet over here we only hear campaigns about the former and hardly ever the latter."Mummy Mummy, when will I grow up?"
"Don't be silly son, you're a bloke, you'll never grow up"0 -
Well no doubt that is a question of original good intentions being watered down by planning depts. I don't think Dutch best practice is for segregated bike paths not to have priority over side-streets and bloomin' driveways!
TBH I do share your pessimism with what will be promised vs what will be delivered. As I said before, I think in the short-mid term we'll end up with a curate's egg - some areas with fantastic new infrastructure, and some other areas where it'll remain much the same as now or worse, have well-intentioned but poorly-designed provision that is actually worse than nothing (actually, that is essentially what we have now in lots of cases). I suppose the optimistic longer-term view is that if we are able to get it right in one or two areas, those areas will serve as examples of what can be achieved and more planning authorities will follow suit.0 -
I like the embankment part of the CS8 and the shared path on Hampton Court road, very different but both work (for me) well CS8 cars keep out for most part and it's a trouble free fast blast though.
Hampton Court shared path means I don't have to worry about traffic, U turning cars and so on, it's very rare to meet any walkers etc, and it has good entry the exit wasn't finished but ie equally trouble free.
most of the rest I ignore, CS7 is dreadful.
With both the London Cycling Campaign and Sustrans one gets the feeling they have been caught out by the rise of the *wrong* type cyclist and the fact there are so many of them ie the fast commuter.0
