Wednesday, 9 November 2011









Other lowlights from the debate:



Gems like this:



New York - normal bike lane




Transport for London -
normal bike lane






If you want to get involved:


This Saturday. Departing at 10.30 from 



  1. I agree the Mayor is guilty of letting his own feelings as an experienced cyclist reduce his sensitivity to less experienced cyclists and Jenny's put down on this point is very good. But overall this exchange is reasoned and balanced. The Mayor is in a difficult position, and striking the right priorities is very, very hard. Your passionate campaigning is fantastic and makes a real difference, but I would rather vote for a Mayor who cycles than one who doesn't. There are no mayoral candidates who can or would even try to turn London into Amsterdam. Boris Johnson is right to emphaise his achievements, just as we are right to demand more. Join LCC, read Cyclists in the City, but don't let this clip stop you considering supporting a Mayor who does actually cycle over Blackfriars Bridge.

  2. @amjb

    Actually, striking the right priorities isn't hard at all. Boris and Peter Hendy are just wrong when they say that 'streetworks' wouldn't prevent accidents like the ones we've seen this year. Dutch junctions design out left hooks by HGVs, by separating traffic flows, and using cycle lights. At a rough estimate, TFL could reduce cycle deaths and injuries by half, at least, through better design. They're choosing not to do that because it would reduce motor traffic capacity. The fact that they're reducing cycle traffic capacity (by creating the barriers to cycling that are unsafe streets and junctions), preventing modal switch that might reduce congestion, and will certainly reduce pollution, and killing people in the process, doesn't seem to worry them.

  3. As a cyclist, I would sooner vote for a non-cyclist who shows commitment to improving safety for vulnerable road users than for a cyclist who just believes in the Law of the Jungle.

    In any case, Johnson is not the only cycling candidate. Jenny Jones cycles and Brian Paddick was seen on a bike at the Blackfriars Flashride.

    Vole o'Speed

  4. Jenny Jones and Brian Paddick are great people, but they are not going to win. The choice is Ken or Boris. We have seen both their track records, Ken is a tube user, Boris cycles.

    I think saying Boris believes in the Law of the Jungle is overly harsh, and Ken has yet to come out with a truly cycle friendly plan.

    I am a cyclist first, and a reluctant motorist or taxi hailer second. I would not want my children to ride into London if they had to do it in the confident, assertive way that I do. Our roads are a long way from being cycle friendly.

    That said, my route has improved immeasurably since I starting commuting (five days a week, eight miles from SW London to centre). CS 8 is now on half my route, and it is a big improvement.

    We all agree what we want. Personally I think progress towards what we want is also success. Without blogs like this though, demanding the highest of standards, we wouldn't even make that progress.

  5. amjb - I am not a Ken supporter, but
    1) AFAIK the superhighways and bike share scheme were Ken's ideas, which he didn't manage to implement
    2) Boris is riding on a wave of increase in cycling which has a lot to with a lifestyle trend and travel costs and not with the measures he implemented - when I started cycling I didn't even know about CSs, also I began cycling just before CS3 has been built and apart from paint I didn't see anything being redesigned -so what's the point?

    Boris displays a very typical British cyclist approach - "if I can do it every one can, you just have to be brave and have your wits about you, and be careful at all times, but it's really not that dangerous" (lot's of contradictions there, no?). What bothers me more is the fact that this is supposed to be a democracy - if 2.5k people are telling you that the Blackfriars design is wrong, you can't just tell them - "it works for me, sod off". This is called autocracy. It's not the kind of mayor that I want.
    I mean seriously I'd pay "Cycle track tax", got a licence and a plate if this means that I get the same kind of road infrastructure that cars get, only for bicycles.

  6. amjb, yes the realistic alternative to BoJo is probably only Ken, but with the voting system in London you can send a strong message by putting pro-cycling candidates first, without harming the chances of kicking Boris out or keeping him in, should that be what you want to do.

    Although there are issues I disagree on with Ken, at least he did "get" public transport, and focussed on getting that sorted, then started to promote cycling but did not have the time to implement most of it. There is no question that for him London is the priority (no cushy column with the Telegraph), whereas the vibe given by Boris is clearly that he wants to be PM and London is just a stepping stone for him.

    At the end of the day, I'd rather vote for someone who gets public transport, has gotten the ball rolling on bike hire and cycling superhighways, and lives a relatively normal London suburban life (he lives round my area, you can bump ito him regularly on tube, bus, walking...) rather than a "man the f*** up" cyclist who thinks £250k a year is chickenfeed.

    As far as I can see Boris' "achievements" so far have been taking credit for his predecessor's policies ("Boris bikes", really?), erecting a metal tower near the Olympic park and stringing balls across the Thames (at great cost to the train maintenance fund). Not impressed.

  7. "Jenny Jones and Brian Paddick are great people, but they are not going to win"

    Cyclists will be able to exert more influence by voting for Jenny Jones. The candidates who come first and second will look at how they could win votes from smaller candidates.

  8. Joining the chorus here, saying that you'd sooner vote for a cyclist is like saying you'd vote for Franklin or Forrester - they're both "cyclists" but I'd sooner vote for a non-cyclist who "gets it".

    Ironically, "Red Ken" was actually quite popular with the London business community eg London First, precisely because he promoted the interests of ordinary Londoners. Why? Because, perhaps this seems cynical, it is ordinary Londoners whom the business community need to perform all the support services that the city slickers need to function, and if you don't make the city habitable for them they will vote with their feet, and then "you just can't get the staff these days".

    Boris may have lent his name to the CSs and the hire bikes but both were conceived in Ken's mayoralty. All Boris can come up with on his own is a cable car. Seen any ski slopes around Greenwich?

  9. I'm a cantankerous early middle aged lycra lout who'll not back down from a confrontation. My kids, on the other hand, are not. The cycle superhighways are not about building confidence, they are about a little bit of (slippery when wet) blue paint that makes it looks as if Something Has Been Done.

    I want my kids to grow up being cyclists. I want London to grow up and recognise what needs to be done.

    I want to vote for a Mayor who'll make a difference to ordinary people just trying to get around who'd rather not have to make a political point while commuting. I want my kids to be able to use the same roads that I do.

    Boris has lost any confidence many people might have given him. TfL is worse than a laughing stock.

  10. Dear Boris, here's some facts. Elephant & Castle roundabout, with its 3 lanes of fast traffic is a nightmare even for very experienced cyclists, worse than the very 'bad dreams' of Vauxhall and Hyde Park Corner, hence the high rates of accidents at all such locations. Road layouts and motorists's speeds there and throughout London are off-puttingly terrifying (and worse, dangerous) for all cyclist. As figurs show, and you already know large lorries, though only 5% of London traffic, already cause 50% of cyclist fatalities and 80% of injuries, yet you propose to allow even longer ones on the streets as a "10 year experiement" (!). It is obviously illogical for you to state that road layout has little effect on safety. Please revise your senseless views if you genuinely want to encourage safer roads for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

  11. Jenny Jones is a twit. I too want a city where everyone is safe and no one gets hurt. I also want world peace and a cure for cancer. I desperately hope father christmas brings me a new bike and that I win the Euromillions. Sadly, we live in the real world and it's never going to be completely safe for anyone, let alone 12 year olds to cycle around one of the busiest road junctions in the world. In the meantime, if we have our 'wits about us' and take responsibility for our own actions, we can reduce the likelihood of getting hurt. Like, taking a different route, or using the cycle superhighway which completely avoids the hellish E&C roundabouts.

  12. There is another issue here, which is the democratic deficit in the governance of London. Why do we have a London Assembly, each of whose 25 members is paid about £53k pa, plus all the cpsts of their PAs, research assistants, expenses, offices etc, when hey evidently have absolutely no influence over the mayor who is for all practical purposes an elected dictator? Presidents and prime ministers of democratic countries the world over have to carry their parliaments or congresses with them. If the London Assembly were given some teeth of its own, I am sure Boris and TfL would be reined in.

  13. I'd love to be able to avoid my own particular hellish roundabout (Bow flyover). Unfortunately, I can't. All my wits can't magic up another route, a cyclist/pedestrian bridge, or even some pedestrian lights. I have no shame, I would quite happily get off and walk at that junction, if doing so didn't put me at even more risk than being on my bike does.

    It is the only way out of Stratford if you're heading west (or into Stratford if you're heading east), which doesn't require a diversion of some miles or crossing a bridge that is so steep that it's all but impassible in icy conditions with a bike.

  14. @James said...

    So the Elephant has a narrow, slow, convoluted bypass with lots of traffic lights... brilliant!

    Hasn't anyone told the mayor that cyclists use their muscles to travel, so sending them on long detours is a bad idea.

    And what about the Bow roundabout, or Kings Cross, or Vauxhall... or any of the other un-bypassed killer junctions in London

    You've clearly never visited the Netherlands, which actually is 'safe for everyone'. They're the ones living in the real world, and they have done for 30 years, since they realised that car-centric road design destroys the quality of urban areas, not to mention lives

    One day, we'll have a Mayor that's serious about giving Londoners the choice to ride or walk without fear of death or serious injury

  15. @Nico - if you are going to criticize Boris's implementation of the SuperHighways then you must give him credit for the implementation of the CycleHire scheme hence BorisBikes. Assuming credit is due of course, BorisBike is not quite a badge of honour during the peak periods.

    Ken said he'll set out a cycling policy closer to the election. I really don't know given the bad rap that cyclists get because of pedestrian conflicts, how this issue should be presented. I feel just saying make it better for cyclists won't get many votes. Reduce pedestrian conflict, reduce congestion, reduce air pollution (all outcomes of cycling policy) might work better.

  16. I think Boris needs to understand that many outside of London are watching this and knowing that it will have effects on cycling policy in other cities and districts, it is also watched by potential visitors to the city who may have been tempted to use the Borisbike.

    I don't think this is as much about "Amsterdamizing" London, but actually providing safe passage for the many cyclists and pedestrians who have suffered and preventing death.

    Is Boris subsidized by Automotive related firms or something?

  17. I'm amazed that any of this is a surprise to anyone. Boris does ride a bike, but other than that, his policies amount to pretty standard Conservative fayre; i.e. every man for himself and survival of the fittest/most powerful. And don't upset big business, whatever. His primary interest is in becoming Prime Minister and therefore, he's not going to do anything remotely controversial that might raise eyebrows with the right wing press and all those elderly suburban Tories who he relies on to get elected. The lack of leadership from either the Mayor or Central Government (the Transport Secretary was, until the other week, a millionaire car enthusiast) just gives TfL traffic engineers the excuse to do what they do best; sit in their bunker and tinker with their computer models and traffic flows. I've met some of these people and in some cases, they're exactly the same people who spent years in the boroughs impeding any progress towards safer, more attractive cycling. They're not going to change.
    Ken Livingston has limited interest in cycling itself, but as a maverick, with no political ambitions beyond the London job, was prepared to be radical to change the approach to transport in the capital and improve urban spaces and the general street scene. His cycling policies didn't go far enough, but at least he wasn't just perpetually blocking progress towards a more civilised city.

  18. Thanks for sharing this information. I envy u for having this discussion in the parliment. We dont even get a hearing to discuss this in Singapore.

  19. The advice to cyclists, 'Keep your wits about you', is essential advice on London's roads. But coming from Boris, it's tacit admission that London's roads are dangerous for cyclists. Instead of offering advice, Boris and TfL need to make the provision for cyclists and pedestrians safer, much safer. It appears that Boris' recipe involves more motor-vehicles, and increased danger for vulnerable road users.

    Cyclists need high quality safe infrastructure, that provides an environment that doesn't threaten sudden violent death for even experienced cyclists.