-
i took the time to email this nick lester bloke last night. cudos on the speedy response. but it makes 'interesting' reading. whats everybody else thoughts on this......
Contrary to the scaremongering by the London Cycling Campaign, there are no proposals in our current Bill which would allow for the wholesale removal of cycles as 'clutter'. The Bill is adressed at dangerous obstructions to the footway such as advertising 'A' boards, objects for sale and building materials. Council officials seeking to exercise these powers would, first, have to determine that the object was left in a way which caused a danger or serious obstruction. Second, they would need to make an effort to contact the owner of the object in question to get them to remove it. Third, they would need to place a notice of their intended action in removing the object. Failure to undertake any of these actions would render any removal unlawful. There arfe no plans to authorise parking attendants to exercise these powers as it would seriously distract them from their main work. In any case, councils in London are committed to increasing cycling and spend tens of millions of pounds a year on this. Large scale removal of parked cycles would serve no useful purpose towards this. Having said that, the Bill's provisions could be used against cycles that were willfully left in a dangerous or seriously obstructive place. I can see no reason to turn a blind eye to such actions. I appreciate your comments about the need for more cycle parking and councils do provide this. It may not be enough in your eyes. However, cycle parking takes both space and money and there is strong competiton for both on London's streets. Councils have to strike a balance, often with difficulty, between competing demands. Just as lack of a convenient legal parking space is no excuse for someone to park a car illegally, it does not seem to me to b an excuse to park a cycle in a way which causes danger to anyone else. Yours sincerely Nick Lester
-
This is the response I got today from the mayor's ofice:
"Thank you for your e-mail dated 23 January 2008 regarding the joint London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill 2007 proposing the removal of items deposited on the highway. Your query was forwarded to us from the Mayor's Office for our response.
I can understand your concerns about the possible effects of these proposals. In 2003, our Cycling Centre for Excellence expressed concerns at a clause in proposed legislation containing express provision to allow for the removal of cycles. This proposal was eventually dropped.
We are aware that the provisions of the Bill include new powers to remove and dispose of items deposited on the highway, where it is considered necessary for the good or safe management of the highway or for the purposes of performing highway authority functions.
Unlike the earlier Bill, which contained provision expressly allowing for the removal of cycles, the 2007 Bill has a wide ambit. The primary intention of the provision is not to facilitate the removal of cycles.
We plan to meet with cycling representatives to discuss their concerns further, and to discuss with the Mayor's Office and London Councils appropriate action at the Bill's Committee stage.
I appreciate you taking the time to write to us about this issue. If I can be of assistance with any further queries please feel free to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Gemma Jacob"Well, to be honest, I don't trust the London councils one bit to exercise their powers in a responsible manner if they see an opportunity to make some cash off the scheme... (tickets, removal fees, whatever...)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/22/carbonemissions.travelandtransport
http://www.lcc.wholething.co.uk/index.asp?PageID=1061 -
Dear Ms Erickson
There is no truth in the rumor that' there is a bill currently being developed
that will allow councils to forcibly remove bikes chained to railings/lampposts etc in order to "de-clutter"
the streets of London' and I regret the scare mongering that has been caused over this.The Bill is addressed at dangerous obstructions to the footway such as advertising 'A' boards, objects for sale and building materials. Council officials seeking to exercise these powers would, first, have to determine that the object was left in a way which caused a danger or serious obstruction. Second, they would need to make an effort to contact the owner of the object in question to get them to remove it. Third, they would need to place a notice of their intended action in removing the object. Failure to undertake any of these actions would render any removal unlawful.
There are no plans to authorise parking attendants to exercise these powers as it would seriously distract them from their main work. In any case, councils in London are committed to increasing cycling and spend tens of millions of pounds a year on this. Large scale removal of parked cycles would serve no useful purpose towards this.
Having said that, the Bill's provisions could be used against cycles that were willfully left in a dangerous or seriously obstructive place. I can see no reason to turn a blind eye to such actions.
I appreciate your comments about the need for more cycle parking and councils do provide this. It may not be enough in your eyes. However, cycle parking takes both space and money and there is strong competition for both on London's streets. Councils have to strike a balance, often with difficulty, between competing demands. Just as lack of a convenient legal parking space is no excuse for someone to park a car illegally, it does not seem to me to b an excuse to park a cycle in a way which causes danger to anyone else.
I was interested in your other suggestions. Some are already in place. For example, most councils have mandatory requirements for cycle parking as part of large new developments. The details will vary from council to council but the principle is clear.
In general parking cycles on public land is permitted. There are exceptions, not just for obstruction and damage but also where parking cycles would be wholly inappropriate. Signs you see on railings, though, are from property owners, who are usually private.
Tax breaks for those who cycle are a matter for central Government and not for local councils, though local councils do give cycle allowances to their employees who cycle and many operate pool cycle schemes.
I understand why you say that new bike lanes should be at least 500 metres long, but this would effectively ensure there were no new bike lanes in London. Junctions and legitimate needs of residents prevent such long continuous lengths and shorter bike lanes can still have great value..
Cars are not allowed to stop, park or drive in mandatory bike lanes at present. However, enforcement of this by police is limited. Councils do more enforcement of the parking restrictions.
Sentencing in the case of dangerous driving or causing death is a matter for the courts.
I think there is a very positive approach to cycling in the media, except where cyclists are thoughtless or selfish, such as cycling on the pavement or running red lights.
Bike thefts, as you say, are a matter for the police.
I think the Thames path cycle route will easily exceed the length of your proposed route and, what's more, much of it is already there!
Yours sincerely
Nick Lester
Director, Transport, Environment and Planning
London Councils
59½ Southwark Street
London SE1 0AL
020 7934 9905
nick.lester@londoncouncils.gov.uk
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk -
What is a "mandatory bike lane"?
There's loads of bike lane along Uxbridge Rd. and near Kew Gardens but they are both rammed with cars daily.
I was under the assumption that these were optional bike lanes (dashed line?) which aim to remind drivers about cyclists rather than give cyclists a lane.
If that is the case, where can I actually see one of these magical mandatory bikes lanes? I guess they're fscking useless to anyone doing over 20kph? -
"Cars are not allowed to stop, park or drive in mandatory bike lanes at present. However, enforcement of this by police is limited. Councils do more enforcement of the parking restrictions."
Limited!? that implies that there is some enforcement.
EDIT:
Well done Roxy for raising the profile and making the effor to write in.Last time I wrote to my MP regarding a cycling issue (it was the proposed changes to the highway code) I got an automated reply of acknowledgment and nothing else.
-
I'm very pleased to report that the LCC's legal eagles scored a comprehensive victory over the anti-cycling provisions in the LLA/TfL Bill Nr. 2 this week (see OP). Press release below. Web-site:
http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1299
**[B]Crucial bike parking victory for London cyclists**[/B]
LCC and London cyclists are celebrating victory against legislation that could have seriously undermined the growth of cycling in the capital.
A proposed law that could have made bike parking in London a ‘lock it and lose it’ lottery has been rejected by a committee of peers in the House of Lords.
The law, had it been passed, would have allowed council contractors to remove without notice bicycles chained to railings even if they were not an obstruction or abandoned.
Evidence from the London Cycling Campaign played a crucial role in the peers' deliberations. Committee members listened to the case for and against the legislation and concluded that the relevant clauses should ‘not proceed’.
Speaking for LCC before the committee, the organisation’s counsel Ralph Smyth said, "Because of the lack of clarity as to where you could or could not park your bicycle, this aspect of the Bill would have a chilling effect on people’s desire to cycle. One of the peers asked if cyclists would have to carry a tape measure to make sure they were parking in a street of the required width."
Peers were told that local councils already have powers to remove bicycles that are an obstruction or which are abandoned. The rejected law could have been applied to thousands of bikes that were not attached to bike stands.
LCC’s chief executive Koy Thomson said, “After a long campaign we're delighted that committee members decided to throw out legislation that could have been a serious deterrent to cycling.”
“Cycle stands in London are overflowing with bikes, even in the winter. We need more bike stands, not new laws making parking more difficult.”
Many LCC members wrote to the Mayor and to London Assembly representatives last year protesting against the proposed legislation. Intense work by LCC volunteers with legal expertise over recent months enabled the House of Lords committee to base its judgment on a range of evidence.
The House of Lords committee also rejected legislation that would have allowed councils to set different penalties on different streets for footway cycling. Peers said there were problems with the traffic environment in London, but that the proposed legislation would not solve them.
One peer suggested that the legislation could have allowed councils to create 16 different penalties. The UK Government, as well as LCC, opposed the proposed legislation.
deleted
big_richy
roxy
beesknees
tynan
hippy
TheBrick(Tommy)
d_c
Oliver Schick
mikec
drdingy
justMouse-
Post a reply
About
Draft bill will give London councils power to remove your bike from lamposts
Posted by
@Build
There's not exactly a lot to go on in that BBC article..