Thoughts On The London Cycling Lobby

[MrPin]

I thought I might cycle to work in my last job, as it is quite countryfied, but it looked too dangerous, with the amount of buses, trucks, and impatient drivers in rush hour. the road was too narrow. I wouldn't attempt it in London.

[MrPin]

Without banning motor vehicles and reverting to an agrarian society, it simply isn't.

We could all have donkey cart accidents instead.

[StainlessSteelCat]

I don't really disagree with very much of that and if I'd carried on writing instead of getting stuck into a bottle of voddy I hope that would have become clear. You have gone on to make a couple of points that I was going to:

1: that London is an old city constrained in traffic capacity by streets that were mostly laid out decades ago.

2: that air pollution is already terrible- this can surely only be made worse by having more traffic jams where stationary buses, trucks and VWs ( ) hurl particulates and NOx into the hardworking lungs of people cycling by on their lovely new Superhighway.

As for the rest of it, I would also like to see shop deliveries being done in the evening or early morning, mainly because parked trucks can and do cause congestion and hence delays to my bus routes. However you need to factor in the additional cost of having to pay drivers to work unsociable hours, and paying shop staff to be there outside of shop opening hours.

Your point about being able to commute as quickly by bike than you would have been able to by tube is also very pertinent, as (as others on the thread have pointed out) few people other than the rich or terminally lazy commute into central London in private cars. Most people (I'd say the vast majority) switching to cycle commuting will be switching from travelling by public transport. That's no bad thing in itself (beyond the loss of revenue for train operators/TFL) as trains and tubes are often stuffed beyond capacity at peak hours, but it rather gives the lie to the argument that encouraging cycling will decrease road traffic levels and hence cut pollution.

And finally, the feeling safe argument. Albeit that I occasionally get cut up/turned left on/pulled out on by idiots in cars, I've never had a collision with a car that caused me to fall off in 25 years off cycling on the roads- I started seriously when I was about 11, I'm 36 now. Maybe I've been lucky- an acquaintance of mine recently broke his back when an oncoming car turned right across his path- but equally I'm a competent, assertive cyclist who doesn't take unnecessary risks to save a few seconds. My mum is a pretty slow, unconfident cyclist, and although apparently some (female) idiot recently shouted at her to 'get off the road!' when she was in a line of traffic turning right, she's never had an accident that I can recall, and she goes pretty much everywhere by bike when she's not got my niece in tow. She certainly rides more miles a week than I do.

I'd argue therefore that trying to make every potential cyclist feel safe is futile- yes you could probably save 15 lives a year and increase the percentage of journeys undertaken by cycle from 2.5 to 3.5% or whatever, but then you'd have people who aren't really suited to cycling clogging up the superhighways and annoying anyone competent! The mistake the cycling lobby make- along with other organisations like Brake- is to think that achieving a zero road casualty rate is a realistic possibility. Without banning motor vehicles and reverting to an agrarian society, it simply isn't.

And equally, I don't disagree with much of what you've said. Perhaps we simply need to seek inspiration from the global towns and cities that have got it right. Amsterdam was a hell hole in the 70s for traffic, now it's not and while I don't remember seeing many buses it has plenty of trams alongside cyclists and pedestrians.

Regarding feeling safe, I think this is less of an infrastructure problem and segregation isn't the answer for London. I'd actually argue for full shared use between motorised traffic, pedestrians and cyclists - together presumed liability/right of way in favour of pedestrians and cyclists (ie get rid of pavements etc). I saw the resulting cultural change first hand in Germany when a friend and I were both trying to get to grips with a riding together on a tandem for the first time in a strange city where the roads were the wrong way round. Admittedly, it was late but the few drivers we encountered were patient, considerate and smiling.

Certainly agitating for ban on motorised traffic etc will get nowhere. I do think more of them should be hybrid/electric though to cut down on city pollution though.

Many delivery drivers seem to work unsocial hours anyhow - so this is simply about shifting the travelling and destinations and being a 24 hour city many shops are open and staffed til late too, particularly the big stores which are likely responsible for the lion's share of delivery traffic.

It is worth mentioning that I believe it is motorists which suffer most from traffic air pollution than cyclists. Something about sitting stationery in traffic in a tin box concentrating your exposure.

[ccc]

Its cyclists who suffer worst, then pedestrians - then cars. Mainly due to the filters in cars these days. There was actually a programme wbout this on TV this week - or a report in part of a programme or something. Cant remember exactly.

As for 'professional' drivers. I dont agree. Just because you do it for a living - doesnt mean you are any better at it - in regards to safety.

[StainlessSteelCat]

Its cyclists who suffer worst, then pedestrians - then cars. Mainly due to the filters in cars these days. There was actually a programme wbout this on TV this week - or a report in part of a programme or something. Cant remember exactly.

As for 'professional' drivers. I dont agree. Just because you do it for a living - doesnt mean you are any better at it - in regards to safety.

This is what I was basing my comment on:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/cyclists-exposed-five-times-less-air-pollution-cars-experiment-suggests-133129

but perhaps there has been a more recent study showing otherwise?

[happy_renting]

We could all have donkey cart accidents instead.

You jest. Accidents with horses in Victorian times were very common and the health hazard they posed (waste, and abandoned dead working horses in the street) made horses quite lethal.

http://www.banhdc.org/archives/ch-hist-19711000.html

[SarahBell]

Or people could all live nearer where they work.

They could walk to work then.

[Northerner]

You jest. Accidents with horses in Victorian times were very common and the health hazard they posed (waste, and abandoned dead working horses in the street) made horses quite lethal.

You mean ....

[justthisbloke]

Very few people would argue that the cause of encouraging people to swap their cars for bicycles for journeys in London is not a noble one. But the power wielded by cycling lobbyists over transport policy in the capital amazes me, and I do not believe that that policy, which seemingly prioritises cycling over all other road users, is good for the economic future of our city.

It's not prioritising cycling over other street users by any stretch. Think of the percentage of street space taken by motor traffic or urban space taken for parking the things. Cycling - and walking - will be marginally provided for even if the ambitions are achieved. I'd bet there are more miles of urban motorway in London than miles of SuperHighway - let alone square metres of each.

Nearly a billion pounds has been earmarked for investment in cycling infrastructure in the capital in the period from 2013 to 2023. The results are already visible in the construction of 'Cycle Superhighways' on major trunk routes. And the effects are already being felt, in the form of major traffic delays.

C'mon. Traffic jams in London cannot be blamed on people cycling! It's an old capital city in a country with car-addiction.

I'll declare my professional interest in the matter at this point- I work as a bus controller for a company that runs London bus routes, and traffic delays make my working day more difficult. I would of course prefer to sit watching my buses run up and down the full length of their routes on time without having to make decisions about where and when to ask my drivers to stop short of their original destinations in order to get them back on time. But I'm being paid to do that, and my additional workload is of almost no consequence compared to the inconvenience of our passengers, who are finding themselves having to leave for work anything up to 30 minutes earlier than before the delays began, and still running the risk of having to wait for a connecting bus to take them to their destination when their first bus stops short of it.

This has happened for as long as I've known London.

I am also a regular cyclist, though I choose not to do my 8 mile commute to work on a bicycle as that would add an hour to my working day; my small motor scooter costs about £100 a year to tax and insure and uses a gallon of petrol every 120 miles. The most recent figures I can find show that at this time fewer than 2.5% of people commute to work by bicycle in London. The most optimistic projections I can find foresee that doubling to 5% by 2023.

So how have the cycling lobby so comprehensively skewed transport policy to favour such a tiny minority of road users? And why have the vast majority who have been negatively affected not made their voices heard? Road lanes on major routes in and out of Central London are being taken out of use for the majority of vehicles who use them in favour of a small minority. This change is fairly permanent, as the new cycle routes are typically segregated by newly installed kerbs and barriers. The delays caused to anyone who can't cycle- elderly people, disabled people, parents with young children- seem not to matter.

It's not a "cycling lobby". The reduction in motor traffic throughput benefits everyone - particularly the majority of the classes you mention. Less noise, cleaner air, better streets, safer roads. What's not to like? And why is 4 lanes of fast motor traffic somehow less of a problem to elderly/disabled/etc/etc than a bike lane?

Rentierism aside, London is a dynamic city powered by hardworking people. Commuters need to get to work; tradespeople need to get to sites; shops need to get deliveries. Delaying road traffic to favour a tiny minority of right-on pedal pushers is madness.

Rentierism? It's the opposite, surely. Current status is full on rentierism - "get off the street unless you've paid your dues to a monopolistic provider and are driving a car". Freeing the streets for people to walk and cycle free of testing, licencing, etc, etc is a liberation of the streets.

BTW, you're still traffic if you ride a bike one day and drive a car the next.

PS. I ain't no "right on pedal-pusher", I'm a libertarian pedal-pusher.

[ccc]

This is what I was basing my comment on:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/cyclists-exposed-five-times-less-air-pollution-cars-experiment-suggests-133129

but perhaps there has been a more recent study showing otherwise?

Well that is interesting - the 'study' I saw this week was done exactly the same way - and in central London also. In that one - the car was best by a huge amount.

I suppose it shows that a hell of a lot more detailed on has to be done to really know the truth. Must have been done already somewhere on the planet ?

[Rave]

Damnit JTB, you've remembered how to split quote posts and I still can't figure it out. Apologies.

1: It's not prioritising cycling over other street users by any stretch. Think of the percentage of street space taken by motor traffic or urban space taken for parking the things. Cycling - and walking - will be marginally provided for even if the ambitions are achieved. I'd bet there are more miles of urban motorway in London than miles of SuperHighway - let alone square metres of each.

2: C'mon. Traffic jams in London cannot be blamed on people cycling! It's an old capital city in a country with car-addiction.

3: This has happened for as long as I've known London.

4: It's not a "cycling lobby". The reduction in motor traffic throughput benefits everyone - particularly the majority of the classes you mention. Less noise, cleaner air, better streets, safer roads. What's not to like? And why is 4 lanes of fast motor traffic somehow less of a problem to elderly/disabled/etc/etc than a bike lane?

Rentierism? It's the opposite, surely. Current status is full on rentierism - "get off the street unless you've paid your dues to a monopolistic provider and are driving a car". Freeing the streets for people to walk and cycle free of testing, licencing, etc, etc is a liberation of the streets.

BTW, you're still traffic if you ride a bike one day and drive a car the next.

PS. I ain't no "right on pedal-pusher", I'm a libertarian pedal-pusher.

1: Don't know if you've been to London to see the recent developments. I'd say that taking a previously mixed traffic lane (or even a bus lane, which I'm not sure actually help buses, taxis, cyclists and motorcyclists overall, but that's another argument) and dedicating it to cyclists definitely is prioritising cyclists over other traffic.

2: The traffic jams are as a result of removing the aforementioned mixed traffic lanes to make them for the exclusive use of cyclists.

3: I've worked as a bus controller here since 2008 and it is definitely getting worse- routes that used to usually run fine now experience 20+ minute delays in the rush hour every single day.

4: You are assuming that encouraging cycling reduces car use on London trunk routes. I've already made the point that only idiots commute into central London by car. The vast majority of new cycle commuters would previously have used public transport; so removing road capacity available to motorised vehicles in favour of cyclists reduces demand for that capacity by a trivial amount; the buses, lorries, taxis, tradesmen's vans etc. still need it.

I'd quite happily describe myself as a Libertarian Pedal Pusher. As a Libertarian I'm very much against the idea of the government spending a lot of money to benefit me at the expense of everyone who for whatever reason can't use a bike for their transport needs?

[SNACR]

You mean ....

Watch it, avatar theft is a recurring problem for Mr Renting and, consequently, the rest of us.

[SNACR]

They probably never have driven a truck.

I want a sign to put on my trucks that says 'if you can't see my mirrors then don't worry I'm probably fiddling with the radio anyway'.

Could branch out to a bedroom range that says 'if you can't see my mirrors then I must be nailing you from behind'

[MarkG]

They seem to want to get cars off the road rather than get people cycling.

Well, duh. That's been the goal of most cycling organizations in the UK ever since they were taken over by SJWs in the 90s.

Fortunately, it's harder to convince people that cars are evil when it's forty below zero outside. Don't see many cyclists around here in the winter.

[Orleans]

I agree with a lot of the points raised, and while I do understand the disruption to bus timings caused by trucks, I'm not convinced that the 'controlled hours' solution will work.

Moving truck deliveries into the night time is only really practical for full loads or own-account operators IMO, eg the M&S artic trunk into Oxford Street.

A significant amount of delivery traffic into London will be a product of hub-and-spoke systems in the overnight and 2/3day market, and originates in all those huge warehouses you see in the Midlands. In order to offer true nationwide next-day coverage to areas such as Edinburgh and Cornwall you have to linehaul (trunk) at night (when the motorways are quiet) and deliver locally in the daytime.

These are enormous transport markets and to suggest that deliveries could simply be shifted to, say 10pm-6am, is to misunderstand the practicalities and render many supply chains unviable IMO.

[porca misèria]

Well, duh. That's been the goal of most cycling organizations in the UK ever since they were taken over by SJWs in the 90s.

Fortunately, it's harder to convince people that cars are evil when it's forty below zero outside. Don't see many cyclists around here in the winter.

Funny. I recollect more, not fewer, cyclists in the Swedish winter, compared to Blighty. Less terror of the great god motorcar being overwhelmingly the decisive factor.

Oh, and that goes back to the '70s, when I was cycling to (primary-age) school throughout the year.

[MrPin]

Funny. I recollect more, not fewer, cyclists in the Swedish winter, compared to Blighty. Less terror of the great god motorcar being overwhelmingly the decisive factor.

Oh, and that goes back to the '70s, when I was cycling to (primary-age) school throughout the year.

I went to a more local school than Sweden School.

[winkie]

[Rare Bear]

I went to a more local school than Sweden School.

Met a bird in Canada a few years back who had gone to school on a snowmobile.

[StainlessSteelCat]

Cycling increases life span in Dutch cyclists:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34498871

[Scunnered]

Cycling increases life span in Dutch cyclists:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34498871

I think it does that everywhere; it's a well-known cycling statistic, and one that's backed up consistently by all research. (Unlike some purported cycling safety facts.)

[MrPin]

I think it does that everywhere; it's a well-known cycling statistic, and one that's backed up consistently by all research. (Unlike some purported cycling safety facts.)

Mrs Nutty Lady, who must be 80 something is always cycling around the quiet roads here. I just get out of the way, and she tinkles her bell at me. I'll bet Mr CCC would.

[porca misèria]

I think it does that everywhere; it's a well-known cycling statistic, and one that's backed up consistently by all research. (Unlike some purported cycling safety facts.)

As I recollect it, your (scottish) government produced a very good report on that subject a few years back.

[Rave]

I see that this thread has earned some advertising for Fubra, just clicked the banner above the main page and got this:

https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/east-west-travel-advice?cid=eastwest

They're even embedded in the thread!

Happy to see the company who run this excellent forum get some revenue, and I guess it makes my research into why they're a bad thing a little easier. On the other hand it's a piss take that as well as spending loads of public money to make the roads worse for the 97+% who don't get about by bike they're spending more on online ads to justify it!

[DeepLurker]

Photographer Alain Delorme documents the Shanghai deliverymen who marry the ancient cart and the demands of modern commerce in a balancing act that has to be seen to be believed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/galleries/2011/12/25/china-alain-delorme-totem-photos.html

(Apologies for the late reply - don't want to derail the thread).

The delivery men might be real, but the photo is still Photoshopped. Says so quite openly in The Guardian.