New Cycling forum

(Deep breath)

The evening standard have, today, launched a new cycling forum. I know the paper is right wing scum and most of its journalisits are wankers. But it is read by many people and it may do some good.

http://cycle.standard.co.uk/

am I being a spaz, but I can't find the forum?

It's a collective blog by several journos. In that sense it's a forum, Jim, but not as we know it, i.e. not a user forum. The Independent have had their own version of this for a long time, and this new Standard effort takes quite a similar format.

Anti-thieves article? Check
How to get fitter when cycling? Check
Helmet debate? Check
Why do people hate cyclists article? Check

They're going to run out of topics soon unless they start trawling our forum :)

As this blog bundles links to opinion pieces and news items, it is extremely unlikely that they'll run out of topics anytime soon. There is so much happening in cycling (of which this forum only catches a few specialised (although very fun and worthwhile) side aspects) that cycling is going to keep increasing as a story for all newspapers.

I thought that the Standard was written for and read by people who commuted by train to the outer suburbs. Certainly very difficult to read on a bike and, as riding a bike is not so boring to require one to delve into the neo nazi nonsense that is The Standard (sister paper to The Mail) not really something for cyclists to bother with. Noticeable that their first piece is about why "people" (for which presumably read "Standard readers") hate cyclists.

The Evening Standard began extensive coverage of cycling in early 2007, if memory serves correctly. Why this is we may speculate, but as it is a single issue that is also non-party political, there is less danger of the unpleasant associations that the paper has coming into play. My observation is that the cycling-related content is often aimed at the lunchtime edition, and on a heavy news day is usually not present in the late editions. This makes sense, as cyclists would be unlikely to read the paper on their evening commute, as Clive sagaciously observes. ;) I would imagine that the Standard would have done at least some market research in this area.

Just had a look at the site. It is utter wank. Avoid.

If we want to mainstream cycling, we had better engage the mainstream media. A lot of people will have their opinions formed by reading the Evening Standard. I wouldn't say the content is always good, but all three journalists in the 'Cycling Team' have written very good articles on cycling. It is certainly not the case that it is all 'utter wank'. Gilligan's piece on bike theft today is pretty accurate, for instance.

Their charter starts off on the wrong foot IMO:

Only the second point is truly worth dissenting from, surely?

Yes, but the initial focus on a cycle network and cycle routes suggests (to me) that there is nowhere to cycle at the moment... as if the roads aren't suitable for cyclists as it is.
I think some of the other points could be placed first and perhaps emphasised.

I don't like this bit: "segregation".

The roads are mine as much as any driver.
I probably pay more tax and I'm less of a burden on the planet.

The Standard's 'charter' appears to have been put together in some haste when (from memory) the editor ordered a couple of journos to write stuff on cycling over an intense week-end. It certainly doesn't reflect the order of priority that we recognise, but as there is a broad consensus concerning segregation (low in the hierarchy of solutions, signalling a failure to address the speed and volume of motor traffic, Continental comparisons largely inapplicable, etc.--don't want to go into too much detail, if you're interested in this, join the LCC and its Cycle Planning and Engineering Committee) and it is largely unfeasible in London, anyway, it's not a major worry. There are places where a small amount of segregation makes sense, e.g. Eagle Wharf Road N1, where a stretch of segregation basically performs the function of stopping rat-running along this street, which we had returned to two-way operation recently, but segregation is not a panacea, and that is recognised by everyone.

On the networking point, you will always have people calling for specialised networks, and they help with putting funding programmes together, such as the LCN+ project, which has delivered very beneficial improvements but is not being supported by the current administration. Ultimately, they are about knitting things together, improving permeability, as well as improving wayfinding (one major, major reason why people don't cycle in London is because they're simply intimidated by the size of the place and they can't find their way; a lot of people find it really hard to read normal maps of London, which is why the London Cycle Guides, which reduce possible route choice to a smaller selection by using colours, have been so successful--they make map-reading easier).

I'm out of this thread before Oliver tears me apart.
TOO LATE. I've already MULTI-QUOTED you. :)

Good point Prav. Yep. And watch out for Mr Logic. He'll get all statistical on yo ass. (This place would be poorer with him though. Love you Schickster.)

Surely you must mean 'poorer without him'. Freudian slip time? ;)

a lot of the central roads aren't suitable for cyclists as they are. nothing to do with cycle paths though, more to do with massive chunks of road missing all over the place.

True. Carriageway surfacing is extremely poor. Happy to report that LB Hackney are investing £20m in improving footways and carriageways, though.

I pay vehicle excise duty ("road tax") on two cars but when cycling drive neither. Does this mean that I am able to occupy two lanes of the road with my bicycle?

Don't you, anyway? ;)

I had an article on cycling published in the Standard once. My name was on it and everything. I should probably be culled immediately

Liar. I've never seen an article by tricitybendix in the Evening Standard. Oh wait, I've seen plenty of stuff by TB in it. Hmmm ... :)

The daily mail have their own agenda, there can be no doubt about that. Perhaps one of their journalists is about to open their own bike shop or something. Who knows.

But anything that promotes cycling has to be good surely. Although, this may mean there are more fuckers getting in my way on my morning commute/race that I have to take down grrrrrr ;)

... and fewer cars, Mike. If cycling increases, there is most likely going to be some modal shift taking place, too. It's all good.

I never understand why people object to having more people on bikes. I love it when I come up to the Angel junction to join twenty other cyclists waiting there in the morning peak. Or this nasty word 'nodder'. That should be banned with immediate effect. Why discriminate?

Cynical for a reason, the Standard have a godawful history of publishing complete nonsense about cycling. Where is Oliver? Oliver, sort the thread out.

It is true that before the Standard took the turn in its new direction of being pro-cycling, its coverage of cycling was often hostile and inaccurate. Even now, it can be hard work sometimes and we have certainly taken issue with some of their reporting, but as with other papers you've had journalists who first had to acquaint themselves with the subject matter. A while ago, pretty much the only person writing knowledgeably was Matt Seaton, but that's definitely changed. The history to which you refer is certainly still detectable in the work of some of their, let's say, long-standing correspondents on certain issues, but I do get a feeling that there's less of it now.

Years ago, you used to get 'bloody cyclists' rants (columns etc.) with depressing regularity, even in the Guardian, but it doesn't happen so often now. We've done an enormous amount of press work that's been very effective in turning opinions.

Cycling will keep getting bigger, and as it's in London it will keep being a major story, so brace yourselves for more coverage right across the spectrum of the press.

LIVE TOPICS certainly make multi-quoting even more fun than before, he, he.