The Times Cycling Campaign

^ needs more sparrow

What if the campaign makes matters worse? makes drivers more resentful? makes the police come down hard on cyclists "for their own good"
Surely we don't want everyone to save us, we are saved already, what we want is everyone else to feel comfortable about cycling. In two days the Times has gone from

"to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels".

"The 500 most dangerous road junctions"

"A national audit of cycling to find out how many people cycle in Britain and how cyclists are killed or injured"

to "The Cyclists' Revolt" as the headline on the front page
That isn't doing anything to endear us to anyone, let alone encourage anyone to join us

They are already promoting number plates for cyclists, and their 8 point plan here http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3308481.ece
is the work of a fantasist.
Now if they had campaigned for motorist liability, tackling careless and dangerous driving with better enforcement and sanction, told Clarkson to shut up, and pledged to encourage their own staff to cycle to work more I might be a bit more enthusiastic, but as it is this could do more harm than good

times is always thundering about something isnt it.
agree that the language isnt going to make your friendly snot gobbling fascist tory reactionary boss class bastard change his mind about much
more than anything i hope the eye does is it up like a kipper

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309168.ece

"Rattling along a main road on a bike older than my mother, with no helmet or reflective jacket. Hundreds of cars whip past. In most British cities, this would be a death wish. In Copenhagen, it is travelling to work"

FFS. That's how I get to work safely in London. Old bike, bobble hat, big hand signals, six miles, big grin. It's hardly a death wish - most London drivers are very courteous to a slow moving lady on a bike. If she'd tried it she'd know that - instead she's just reinforcing what "everybody knows" about how dangerous cycling is.

Initially I thought the complaints earlier in the thread were a bit gift-horse, but when the campaign page features a lot of danger-focussed headlines, together they give a very misleading impression about cycling in London. The reality is that last year hundreds of thousands of us *weren't *killed or injured.

It's a tough call How to react to this campaign. It could potentially have highlighted the fun and benefits of cycling and that london has undergone a massive revolution . Well put broken Betty so many people ride miles and miles with no incident and more could be encouraged to do so. Simple messages about how to go about it and messages to drivers about how to interact with bike riders rather than this scary emphasis. They could do so much better for cycling than this

Late night overnight tweets suggest some more positive articles appearing today...

The Times has an unflattering picture of me today.

Jack Thurston of Resonance FM Cycle show has just tweeted a link to Le Monde article stating that ZERO cyclists were killed in Paris in 2011
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2012/01/26/le-velo-un-nouveau-remede-anticrise_1633390_3224.html

Do they have different policies? Or is it driver attitude making the difference?
What about other years? Are there generally less deaths in Paris? How many people cycle compared to here?

There ain't no logos on exhibition road
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24032482-shared-space-is-the-future-for-londons-roads.do
Now this is dedicated infrastructure that I buy. Not silly strips of green and blue that take bike riders out of driver's way for the drivers convenience.

"The architects Dixon Jones have spent £18 million transforming Exhibition Road"

Really? It costs that much to draw some squiggles and lay down some crazy paving.

#isfknjokes

Bike riders skip red lights, veer perilously close to parked cars and hog the pavement.

Yeah, this campaign is really doing cyclists favours.

I really hope that there's a more positive spin on this soon - it's divisive and aggressive and if they carry on it's going to make things worse.

Cycling ***is ***dangerous.

So is leaving the house. So is not leaving the house.
So is showering. So is eating McDonalds. So is walking. So is...

Cycling in towns and cities is dangerous.

If it wasn't, why the campaign? Cycling isn't inherently dangerous, but I've been knocked off my bike by a bus driven by an inattentive driver.

That's not to say that people shouldn't do it. The benefits far, far outweigh the dangers.

I've tripped and fallen down stairs. Should we ban stairs? Or perhaps equip all stairwells with padding? Or better yet, all people with gridiron padding whenever they are out of bed, maybe in bed too, that would help prevent STDs.

In any case - The Times piece.
I hope it does some good, whatever the intention.

^This.

Hippy, when did I say that we should ban cycling because it was dangerous? I'm a cyclist, this is a cyclists' forum. I don't think that's a position I would assume, do you?

Aren't we all campaigning to get more people on bikes, you know, as a means of getting about?

Will the Times get more people on bikes or will it scare some away from trying?

Those who are not riding already give fear as one of the main reasons. This campaign, along with other initiatives, ought to increase safety and reduce fear.

The Times has an unflattering picture of me today.

Muddyhell?

Hippy, when did I say that we should ban cycling because it was dangerous? I'm a cyclist, this is a cyclists' forum. I don't think that's a position I would assume, do you?

When did I say you said cycling should be banned?

It was just a suggestion for reducing stair danger. Perhaps it's too drastic. Maybe we could license stairwells and then fine the ones that are causing trouble.

Robert Elms now about the Times Campaign

skipped through the 12 pages just now.
seems like the talking cycling heads in there are all well intentioned
but the gap between the 'pros' and the every day riding portrayed is too jarring.
reckon Adoubletap hit the nail on the head last page mentioning the sky-b.c-murdoch nexus
wonder what staffers they have writing because they dont appear that clued up.
sparky wouldnt have it ;)

Muddyhell?

King's Cross Vigil in December on the Letters Page.

Robert Elms on BBC London just now was excellent in his balanced view really minimising the scary factor and strongly promoting cycling as a safe fun activity. He was so enthusiastic and included a critique of crap cycle lanes, recommended cycle training, suggested that assertive cycling is the best way to ride getting out there in the lane claiming the space you need. In fact I don't think I have ever heard such positive messages in the media. Little mention of rljing/ipod cycling,helmets etc. he even busted the road tax myth (sort of). If this was an outcome of the Times campaign good on the Times.

When I had cycle training, I was told that I ought to cycle with an i-pod. How times change.

Yeah, who'd want a lock with iTunes now Steve is gone?

Cycling with an ipod was never a National Standard cycle training message. You must have had a rogue instructor Clive. (There is a concept among instructors that if you do ride without relying on hearing you are able to assess the degree you are visually aware of what is on the road with you- this isn't wat we teach to people though)