The Times Cycling Campaign

What about all those uninjured and unkilled cyclists?

They are my favourite ones.

My local papers commentator has responded.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/comment/blogs/s/1472953_andrew-grimes-why-the-bicycle-has-no-place-on-our-city-roads

WAC.

Is Andrew Grimes known for his 3rd rate Clarkson impression?

He manages to miss all the funny and major on the cunt.

You point becomes more and more elusive the more you write.

[Sparky bows out]

Sorry to get invovled, but I think the essential difference between your viewpoints is the extent of risk.

You deem cycling to be dangerous because there is a risk of injury or death

Tiswas wouldn't say cycling is dangerous because the risk is low and comparable with other activities not commonly said to be dangerous.

A dangerous criminal, is very likely to offend. Cycling isn't a dangerous activity, because the vast majority of cyclists suffer no injury.

Just an example (Cycling to work may not be including in sporting stats.) BTW Who the fuck is dying from playing Tennis?

He manages to miss all the funny and major on the cunt.

Hitting all of Clarkson's bases, then.

I have re-tweeted the The Times campaign thing from the @lfgss account.

Do I think the 8 points should be seriously looked at? Yes.

Do I think it's the be-all and end-all of campaigning that should be done? No.

The best thing is simply to have more people cycling, and if The Times helps to slowly bring about an increased confidence that cycling is improving (later in their campaign) and that people are listening, then that could make a difference to some.

It seems silly not to support it, even if we don't think it's a comprehensive campaign. Anything that gets the message out there, and creates a bit of heat for the Mayoral candidates in our favour will be a good thing I reckon.

I haven't read page 2 of this thread, you may have all explained why I'm wrong to think it's half-decent.
This x 100

I hope everyone has joined the campaign. It's such a big step in the right direction.

And written to your MPs! http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/contact/

2 Feb 2012

Dear Harriet Harman,

I write to you on behalf of London’s cyclists, those who wish to cycle but feel it’s not safe enough and on behalf of The Times Cities fit for Cycling campaign.

1. Cycling MUST be made safer if more people are to cycle.

2. There were 4,274 REPORTED collisions involving cyclists on London's roads in the year to July 2011.

3. Many more collisions will have gone unreported.

4. Of the 4247 -- 471, that's 11%, resulted in serious injury.

5. 16 cyclists died on London's roads in 2011, the highest annual figure since 2006.

6. Two of those cyclist deaths were in North Southwark – one at the junction of Tanner Street and Jamaica Road; the other at the junction of Tower Bridge Road and Abbey Street.

7. Both cyclists were killed by lorries and were in their early 20s.

8. The overwhelming majority of cycle collisions involve cars, but the statistics show that a cyclist is 78 times more likely to be killed if they are in a collision with an HGV or large lorry.

9. If Southwark has the foresight to create a safe cycling infrastructure, it will transform how journeys are undertaken.

10. The Netherlands is a good example. Due to an excellent cycling infrastructure, it is now the safest country in the world for cyclists and a huge number of journeys are undertaken by bicycle. 40 years ago Dutch roads were overwhelmed by the car, but changes were brought about in the early years of the 1970s by cyclists and pedestrians protesting at the number of cyclist deaths, particularly deaths of children. The changes are clear to see – in 2010 there were 14 cyclist deaths of children in the Netherlands, compared to over 400 such deaths in 1974.

11. There are now more bicycles in the Netherlands than people.

12. Build the good infrastructure and cycling will grow. We need cycle-friendly, navigable routes with permeability through the streetscape for both pedestrians and cyclists.

13. Cycling needs to be an integral part of transport planning.

Please do whatever you can to make cycling safer. That will encourage more journeys to be undertaken by bicycle, with obvious benefits of less congestion, less pollution, improved physical and mental health, lower NHS costs.

Thank you for reading this.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Crawford -- a keen cyclist and Coordinator of Southwark Cyclists

My local papers commentator has responded.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/comment/blogs/s/1472953_andrew-grimes-why-the-bicycle-has-no-place-on-our-city-roads

WAC.

Wow. Complete troll, surely.

I see most commenters have picked up on the 'road tax' thing but I'd like to see someone point out the thing about cycling increasing life expectancy. I personally can't be arsed however..

There is a letter in The Times today by someone who pays "road tax" on two cars.

Well, blow me down, so do I. I rarely use either of them though.

Apparently something called 'BBC Breakfast Time' had a piece about cyclists this morning - the BBC Facebook page has a thread on it just now - it's the usual hilarious rent a gob BS and 'they ought to be in the bloody Army' opinions

There is a letter in The Times today by someone who pays "road tax" on two cars.

Well, blow me down, so do I. I rarely use either of them though.

So many myths around cycling that drivers (and even some cyclists) bring up
Should pay Road tax
Should get insurance
Should all wear helmets
Riding on pavements is dangerous
Should wear fluoro all the time
All cyclists jump Red lights which is dangerous
They must use cycle lanes
Cyclists should have a registration plate
Cycling is dangerous

I'm thinking of starting a cycling myth busting thread sp people can find a suitable response to these prejudiced assumptions

whats the latest on this? 3 pages inside today ive been told

that is a good idea Tiswas- a repository of all the evidence that lays the myths bare

I will start a closed sticky thread when i get some time in the cycle training forum with some of this. At least that way we can control as mods , how it looks and ensure it doesn.t get spammed up.

My local papers commentator has responded.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/comment/blogs/s/1472953_andrew-grimes-why-the-bicycle-has-no-place-on-our-city-roads

WAC.

Is Andrew Grimes known for his 3rd rate Clarkson impression?

He manages to miss all the funny and major on the cunt.

+1. It's just awful, awful low rent trolling.

It needs a website, not a thread.

A page that has the myths, and that dispels the myths.

In an easy to read and digest format, with deeper links into the analysis etc...

We should link the rent-a-rant crowd to it whenever they trot out the usuual cliches: link.

Bang!

If Murdoch is happy to give this column inches and a front page, I for one would much rather it went in The Sun.
Which is sitting on the dashboard of white vans, taxis, lorries and other 'professional' drivers up and down the country,

[RED!] top FTW

The biggest problem IMO with cycle lanes is that they give other road users the impression that a cyclist has to use them, and if they are not then they are fair game to be abused and ignored. I.E if the cyclist is not in a cycle lane when one is available, they are automatically in the wrong.

This is a particular problem since so many cycle lanes (IMO) are badly designed and place cyclists in dangerous positions.

The biggest problem IMO with cycle lanes is that they give other road users the impression that a cyclist has to use them...

...also give the impression that a cyclists should always be in secondary position no matter what.

Nicely put Adroit.
I'm getting in touch with them

And what message are you giving to them? On whose behalf?

Ctuk is putting something together in response. Generally approving of the initiative and suggesting some shifts in emphasis of their campaign

In a similar vein to the Times campaign, this article was in the indy today.

The second half of the Telegraph article was pretty much spot on, IMO.

If someone cycles towards me on a pavement, I must confess that I am inclined to use my shoulder to put them off balance. I work on the presumption that anyone cycling on the pavement over the age of 12 is likely to be doing so in order to rob or assault pedestrians and I will defend myself.

Cycling on the pavement is intolerable and we as responsible cyclists should condemn it.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with riding on the pavement. Its the thick *****s that don't get: If you have to, ride at pedestrian speed.

I thought it was illegal for those who are over 11? Can you clarify what you mean? As I probably don't quite understood what you meant.