Cycle campaigning

I notice Dave Skydancer copping flack today from the Infrastructure campaigners on Twitter. Strikes me as a myopic single solution argument. The related space4cycling campaign petition in Manchester makes no mention of behavioural change by any party in the roads, just necessary separation (to the detriment of motorists no doubt, enhancing bad feeling towards cyclists).

That one will run and run. If you think the helmet 'debate' is bad, you haven't done the 'segregation'/anti-'segregation' 'debate'.

Has this problem been resolved yet?

I notice Dave Skydancer copping flack today from the Infrastructure campaigners on Twitter. Strikes me as a myopic single solution argument. The related space4cycling campaign petition in Manchester makes no mention of behavioural change by any party in the roads, just necessary separation (to the detriment of motorists no doubt, enhancing bad feeling towards cyclists).

Not sure where that came from. Its the attack on the value of training people that is of concern

http://road.cc/content/news/94166-londoner-challenge-red-light-fixed-penalty-notice-after-appeal-raises-%C2%A32300-legal

Not much sympathy in the comments. Two wrongs don't make a right.

No they don't, but this a more complex situation here. The argument is the case here is that the policing methods weren't credible or sufficiently robust as the issuing officer hadn't observed the event and therefore couldn't make sufficient judgement of it.

Although I think that there would be better cases to pursue against the police, I don't think that this one is entirely without merit. It highlights what amounts to an institutionally systematic unfair and unbalanced application of the law. The argument that, where an issue of personal safety is enshrined in law and supported by infrastructure, it seems unreasonable to penalise someone for perpetuating that level of safety where other illegal activity has compromised it is a bit more flimsy, but probably one still worth making.

Not sure where that came from. Its the attack on the value of training people that is of concern

Sorry Dave, I've combined the two as those attacking the value of training seem to be the "separate everything" camp, with no consideration for other options.

I know they are still attacking this morning. Seems they belive no one should be riding a bike until we've gone dutch. (LCC opened a can of worms with this one)

I really want to review my membership with the LCC but this isn't helping one bit.

I recently joined the LCC, partly because of the protest rides they organised this summer, and donated extra towards their HGV campaign fund, but i'm feeling more and more they've been hijacked by a sanctimonious group who'd rather blame actual current cyclists for everything rather than address anyone with real power and authority. The back-slapping, out-group attacking, pack mentality of these self-appointed spokesmen for the unconscious hordes of potential future cyclists is increasingly sickening.

I'm not usually a fan of Boris, but he seems more focused on actually addressing the HGV problem here and now than the LCC. This stuff http://transportoperator.co.uk/2013/09/14/boris-and-dft-announce-hgv-crackdown-in-capita/ is good and should be engaged with and supported. Instead all we're hearing right now is this nebulous 'space for cycling' crap.

The kerb nerds will never win everyone over because cycling on real roads is just too much fun, and anyway, there is no fairy waiting for cycling to achieve sufficient ideological purity before she waves her magic wand and grants us dutch infrastructure.

More cycling would be good because of cost, climate, congestion, pollution, health and empowerment and the sheer joy of it. Cycling is growing partly just because its time has come again, but also because of all the things that nurture it like like training and awareness programs and filtered permeability and 20 zones and the cycle to work scheme and yes, off road routes for those who won't start riding on the roads and safer links across busy roads and so on. In turn those all rely to some extent on political support, which in turn relies on there being an actual growing constituency of people feeling the benefits of increasing cycling. The way to grow cycling is to grow cycling. Slagging off cycling instructors isn't part of that. Dividing the cycling community against itself isn't part of that. Grrr.

I guess I should post a link to this in here, too:

https://www.lfgss.com/thread114631.html

A mate posted this on Facebook - it's for Americans but some interesting things in it.

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/the-gorilla-in-the-room

"Our counterparts in the Netherlands and Denmark—arguably the two best bicycling nations in the world—advise us to work on making bicycling safer, but not talk about it publicly.

Talking directly and explicitly about safety, they say, is problematic because it reminds people that bicycling can be dangerous and it actually discourages some from riding. And where fewer people ride, motorists don’t expect to encounter people on bikes. The result is more dangerous riding conditions. It’s a vicious circle."

^There is a thread regarding this risk
http://www.lfgss.com/thread113282.html

What has happened to the Southwark Cyclists facebook groups? Have a few of them been shut down?

That mental guy who's always shouting and whining and crying about everything got made an admin and instantly changed the group status to secret, then presumably started kicking off anybody who knows Missmouse. As far as I can tell, anyway. He's not a happy man.

Bill Arsehatfuckwittery?

They made a new group (community to be specific) as the old one was closed and due to Facebook's ToS, you can't open it again.

The original was now redundant and TBF, it does need removing.

Bill Arsehatfuckwittery?

That's the chap. Now if only everybody would move or be ejected from Southwark who isn't on his approved list perhaps his vision of a utopian cycling future could be realised.

that would probably be more segregation and for him to be allowed to ride on the pavement

That one will run and run. If you think the helmet 'debate' is bad, you haven't done the 'segregation'/anti-'segregation' 'debate'.

It is a hot topic in Reading, the council want to build a bridge over the river Thames, which will take at current levels 3 or 4 times as many cyclists as the council estimate and which won't have any capacity for future expansion. The local cycle campaign are mounting a strong campaign to get it segregated and wider before it gets planning approval.
The nearest road bridge has been subject to a vigorous campaign by the police to prosecute cyclists riding on the pavement because it is the second most complained about anti social activity according the the Neighbourhood Action Group survey, yet this pavement is nearly twice as wide as the planned bridge.
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/drivers-cyclists-nabbed-police-swoop-6126678
http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2013/10/05/93771-poles-apart-on-new-design-for-bridge/
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/new-cycle-bridge-design-hopelessly-6137080#comments

I got pounced-on for tweeting that I thought LCC had lost the plot. Segregation is not what London needs. 'Unsufuckingscribe'.

Strange times...

It is a hot topic in Reading, the council want to build a bridge over the river Thames, which will take at current levels 3 or 4 times as many cyclists as the council estimate and which won't have any capacity for future expansion. The local cycle campaign are mounting a strong campaign to get it segregated and wider before it gets planning approval.

The nearest road bridge has been subject to a vigorous campaign by the police to prosecute cyclists riding on the pavement because it is the second most complained about anti social activity according the the Neighbourhood Action Group survey, yet this pavement is nearly twice as wide as the planned bridge.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/drivers-cyclists-nabbed-police-swoop-6126678
http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2013/10/05/93771-poles-apart-on-new-design-for-bridge/
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/new-cycle-bridge-design-hopelessly-6137080#comments

Constrained bridges are, of course, not good news. Without seeing drawings, and not knowing cycle and pedestrian flows, I'd say 3.5m isn't an ideal width for sharing across a bridge. Is that the width at the pole?

Since widths on that bridge range from 3.5m to 6.75m, I assume you're not saying that the footways on the old bridge are 13.5m wide? How wide are they?

The question about 'segregation' here is quite a different one to on-carriageway segregation, as you're only talking about segregation from pedestrians, not motor traffic. 350 cyclists in the peak hour is quite a lot, so I'd say the bridge should be wider--but I assume it's already designed and engineered?

Delays in bridge building can be very costly.

I can never keep up with this thread and other campaigning threads, by the way. There's usually more to respond to than I can manage.

Why not put this on both side of the bridge? (replacing peds refuge with bridge).

Well, it would arguably have been better there not to create a pinch point in the first place.