I might be missing the point Oliver, but surely these factors can only be assessed anecdotally?
They will need to be assessed by traffic counts, surveys, and traffic observation. All produce numbers--not perfect, but from a certain sample size upwards they give you good grounds for judgement. TfL are doing some of these things, so let's see.
I agree that changes that might be imperceptible to me, may be of greater consequence to other road users. However, I also have my doubts that the interpretation of statistics used to measure policy implementation and success, is always impartial.
It certainly isn't always impartial, but there is no reason to assume that it won't be here. It will be heavily scrutinised by transport experts in any case and has to stand up.
Fundamentally, I dislike the reporting and lobbying that seeks to position different groups of road users at loggerheads.
Of course. This isn't about presenting different groups at loggerheads but about strategic direction of transport policy. It is a little impersonal at that high level, and it is key to consider people not as users of a sole mode, but as users of many, with different modes suitable for different trips. People shouldn't define themselves by their mode, e.g. I would never say 'I am a cyclist'.
I think that rather than being productive, constant battles for different road user rights have precipated higher levels of agressiveness and intolerance. (Although, there I go again with the anecdotal....)
What you see is more a consequence of years of less than strategic transport policy as started with the Mayor's Transport Strategy of 2001, than the effect of a single policy. This was an improvement on previous policies, e.g. by the Traffic Director for London, or local authorities, but still aimed to at least maintain motor traffic capacity, and in some cases increased it. More motor traffic capacity means more conflict--it almost invariably increases motor traffic volumes and speeds.
I think we should dedicate a little more energy to live and let live.
I agree. We should promote cycling as the default non-walking mode of transport in order to best achieve this aim.
They will need to be assessed by traffic counts, surveys, and traffic observation. All produce numbers--not perfect, but from a certain sample size upwards they give you good grounds for judgement. TfL are doing some of these things, so let's see.
It certainly isn't always impartial, but there is no reason to assume that it won't be here. It will be heavily scrutinised by transport experts in any case and has to stand up.
Of course. This isn't about presenting different groups at loggerheads but about strategic direction of transport policy. It is a little impersonal at that high level, and it is key to consider people not as users of a sole mode, but as users of many, with different modes suitable for different trips. People shouldn't define themselves by their mode, e.g. I would never say 'I am a cyclist'.
What you see is more a consequence of years of less than strategic transport policy as started with the Mayor's Transport Strategy of 2001, than the effect of a single policy. This was an improvement on previous policies, e.g. by the Traffic Director for London, or local authorities, but still aimed to at least maintain motor traffic capacity, and in some cases increased it. More motor traffic capacity means more conflict--it almost invariably increases motor traffic volumes and speeds.
I agree. We should promote cycling as the default non-walking mode of transport in order to best achieve this aim.