-
I struggle to understand what's just happened. An official consultation was in process, but instead of waiting literally 3 days for that to close and listening to the outcome (as they said they were going to do) the council have decided today apparently based on a few emails they've received to object to the plans and veto the scheme.
Contrast that Standard article above, to something closer to objectivity:
-
The the council supported the consultation and encouraged tfl to build plans at public cost.
At the commence of the public debate they began there speech before the tfl one ending on the note that they do not support it..effectively vetoing immediately. And wasting everyone tine and tax payers money.
There was never a debate.
The noisy minority have won..it's likely that tfl will withdraw funding. -
Unbelievably, it gets even worse:
-
Whoah. That's a new low.
We obviously have a number of threads for Eilidh, but I'd suggest not to post it there.
Just what gets into people's minds?
-
A response from K&C to the mayor:
-
Unbelievably, it gets even worse:
OK, fortunately it seems less bad than originally reported, but still--she attributed views to Eilidh that she couldn't have known she would have held:
After the Guardian published extracts of the letter, the family managed to track down the woman. She is a non-blood, distant relative they insist they have never met and whom Eilidh would not have known either.
They were originally told the woman had claimed to be Eilidh’s aunt, but after listening to a patchy recording of the meeting it sounds like she simply claimed to be a “relative”.
Kate Cairns, Eilidh’s sister, a road safety campaigner and an advisor on managing road safety risk, said the woman mispronounced Eilidh’s name. She transcribed the recording and says the woman said: “It’s difficult for me not to be emotional because Elodie [sic] Cairns was a relation of mine and I totally disagree with this scheme …
“It’s going to be dangerous and I’m sure Elodie [sic] would be very upset with the very thought of such a stupid idea coming forward.”
[...]
Kate Cairns said the woman in question used her sister’s name “to give credence and authenticity to her own personal views”, which she insisted were “completely contrary and conflicting to those of all Eilidh’s family and all of her close friends”.
-
Result from the Tooley Street consultation are in:
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/tooley-street/ -
Update on the Wood Lane to Notting Hill proposals.
TFL have released the responses to the consultation that RBKC decided they weren't going to listen to after all:
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/wood-lane-notting-hill/
Unlike RBKC, Hammersmith and Fulham support the proposals and TFL will be finalising plans along this stretch.
-
The residents of Kensington and Chelsea are so anti cycling they have mobilised and blocked almost every improvement that tfl has suggested.
Even putting Kensington palace gardens on a quietways map. Which would have made no intrinsic difference to anyone on a road that is closed to non resident vehicles.
Being well connected and organised really pays off..Even if that means you lie about being the aunt of cycling fatality in the area.
And now they expect registration plates!
https://road.cc/content/news/268357-no-safe-cycle-routes-until-riders-are-licensed-insists-holland-park-residents -
Well, they're obviously not alone in this. Calls for registration of cyclists are made all the time. One shouldn't be complacent about it, as you never know what might happen, but it's exceedingly unlikely that this will ever be taken up (so convenient for people who want to use it as an excuse to kick something into the long grass). The DfT has long been quite clear that it would require considerable changes to primary legislation (as bicycles are judged to be carriages as per the 1835 Highways Act, you have a right to cycle, whereas for a motorised vehicle you need to acquire a licence--they're basically calling for the right to cycle to be removed, represented by 'licence plates' (although most people calling for that probably don't realise what they stand for and what changes they would require)) and would in any case be impossible to implement and enforce.
Needless to say, it is not something that only wealthy people call for, but a large part of the population regardless of income. It's a very interesting topic of how people feel about modes of transport. Fundamentally, people complain about their lack of freedom (i.e., the lack of a right to drive) as compared to the freedom that people have to cycle (because they have a right to). This is perceived as unjust by many, and while people of course exaggerate the perceived problems that cycle users supposedly cause in order to advance their argument, it is certainly not a complaint to just dismiss, but one to take seriously and discuss properly.
Fundamentally, it is clear that if there was a right to drive, this would cause very considerable problems, e.g. it might no longer be possible to attach conditions to people's purchase of a vehicle licence, or to require them to pass a driving test. I suppose these could be got around somehow (by introducing some other kind of mechanism), but the whole licensing régime is the main control mechanism to try to ensure at leats some minimal standards, and as we know, these are low enough as it is. Simply, it makes no sense to grant people a right to drive, as the checks and balances we have would still be necessary.
Conversely, that people have a right to cycle is, of course, not without problems (in the way that nothing is). The main problem that exercises opponents of cycling is, of course, the perceived lack of accountability (myths include 'paying no road tax' (Vehicle Excise Duty), not being insured (most cyclists are, either because they are also drivers or because they are members of a cycling organisation that includes third party insurance in their membership package), and legal differences, such as the applicability of speed limits (they don't apply yo cyclists), etc.
Calls to treat cyclists the same are therefore understandable in a way, and there are some things, like speed limits, where because there were very few limits under 30mph it was unnecessary to include cyclists in them, but as many riders can easily exceed 20mph, with the recent proliferation of them, the situation is now different (and that's not even to start on the whole can of worms of e-bikes). However, it is also clear that you need to treat different modes of transport differently (as they are different, natch), and most of the things usually demanded as part of a regulatory response to perceived problems with cycling are impracticable.
tl;dr--this one will run and run.
-
One of the things that really bugs people is the anonymity of cyclist they can essentially break rules and nearly always get away with it..whether it's riding footpaths or red light jumping.
The more cycling infrastructure that's built will mean better adherence to rules, as seen in Holland. And the justification for licensing will soon subside.
I often go well past the stop line on junction when stopping at reds especially if there is no cycle box, it makes me far more visible. Unfortunately cyclist have died adhering to road rules where as had the broken them they would have survived. This is the paradox we live in.
Licensing argument is all about kicking the can down the road and nimbism. -
Oliver killed that term yesterday, we’re now in post fake news era.
-
I'm convinced that as K&C are so anti-cycling, and have been for years, that some senior bods in the Council were dumped by their wives, who ran off with a cyclist, who was obviously funnier, better looking, fitter, healthier, a better lover and all round more awesome than some fat wheezing grey K&C droid. And that bitterness and jealousy has festered or years.
The problem is K&C and Westminster think they are special (ie better) than other boroughs. I used to work in K&C and the 'Bike it' officer at the time said his post was effectively useless as they blocked everything, and were determined to do the bare minimum in terms of public health but had particular animosity towards cyclists. His hands were effectively tied, poor sod.
I don't know how one borough can be so obstructive and why TFL can't just overrule their lame objections. Surely if all the other 30+ boroughs accept the benefits of cycling and co-operate with TFL, and only one objects, and that one has for years consistently raised objections at every turn, then its surely time to look at that borough with more scrutiny, and start forcing through these plans.
It is so obviously discriminatory against cyclists, I don't know how they've been allowed to get away with it for so long. Their objections offer nothing new, its the same old lame taxi drivers 'total gridlock' claim, and un-evidenced threats to business, that I'm sure other boroughs have tried before. And if that excuse has not washed elsewhere why is it even being given the time of day for K&C? They are single handedly obstructing the cross London integrated Super Highway scheme and creating double standards.
Out of interest is there data for accidents and injuries involving cyclists in K&C? Is it the worst or amongst the worst in London? If it is amongst the worst, can that not be used against them as evidence that their obstructive policy is actively harming not only cycling infrastructure progress, but cyclists themselves?
Those bastards need railroading into submission once and for all.
-
The only real solution with this level animosity is to make high street ken a TFL road and force it through..this will however pass on all future maintenance costs, so they won't be too keen, but it has been talked about.
This and Swiss cottage should have been priorities to make cycle friendly absolute tragedy a few noisy locals can stop it.
Chiswick put up a fight but common sense prevailed. -
I think much of this kind of attitude stems from a belief that the current situation is somehow natural and/or inevitable and that any proposal to aid cyclists is somehow an affront to the natural order. That in turn is heartily (albeit covertly) propped up by the status quo being comfortable for people who would never consider cycling (as a means of functional transport) themselves. It's all just rather depressing.
-
Thanks both, agree the glacial progress is depressing and frustrating. With the K&C Town Hall being just off HSK I can imagine there are gaskets being blown left, right and centre at the thought of HSK being designated a TFL road.
And I cycled down from Swiss Cottage for the first time in ages yesterday, and that stretch is still a total bloody nightmare for cycling and driving, so I don't understand what delights the objecting locals are hoping to preserve, as is its bloody hideous.Good luck @wildwest I hope this doesn't drag on for too much longer.
-
Well cs9..or rather cw9 will soon knock on the borough door, by ending at the Olympia.
The idea being eventually the public opinion will sway, when is anyone's guess.
With regards to Swiss cottage...sadly it will take a death before anything changes even then I'm not holding breathe.
chris0
wildwest
mespilus
pleaderwilliams
Oliver Schick
Alex_88
jonuxuk
Backstop
amey
Mickie_Cricket
user75204
ffm-
Post a reply
About
Centralised discussion space for TfL plans and cycling in London
Posted by
@skydancer
Just saw the snippet of London live..
infuriating..the council rejected it on the ground of increasing congestion and felling of 19 trees.
Yet they allow a massive shopping centre and recently allowed it to expand with thousands coming in by car daily...even using it as commuter car park.