The Times Cycling Campaign

Eleanor Mills: "Every time you get on a bicycle and whizz off down a road you dice with death."

That says more about her lack of roadcraft than anything else

The trouble with the line here is that it mentions bicycle and road, neither of which are dangerous in isolation, and no mention of anything which is contributory to the risks.

Just asked my gf to grab a Sunday Times whilst she's out n about, hopefully it's in print in full in there, I can't get any sense out the website - all mobile content is paywalled I think.

In The Guardian exactly 7 years ago....
“There is something about the miscreant cyclist that seems to get people more exercised than they are about the misbehaving motorist…When people get into cars, their metal encasement turns them into robots in our minds, and we’re grateful to them for any act of courtesy. We’re grateful that they don’t deliberately kill children, then laugh a rasping, metallic laugh…[Cyclists] are more civic-minded than anyone else travelling in any other manner, bar by foot. If they do run into someone, they at least (like the bee) do their victim the favour of hurting themselves in the process, which is why, if you had any sense, you’d save your hatred for the motorist, who (like the wasp) injures without care.”
Zoe Williams, The Guardian, 4th February 2006

In The Guardian exactly 7 years ago....
“There is something about the miscreant cyclist that seems to get people more exercised than they are about the misbehaving motorist…When people get into cars, their metal encasement turns them into robots in our minds, and we’re grateful to them for any act of courtesy. We’re grateful that they don’t deliberately kill children, then laugh a rasping, metallic laugh…[Cyclists] are more civic-minded than anyone else travelling in any other manner, bar by foot. If they do run into someone, they at least (like the bee) do their victim the favour of hurting themselves in the process, which is why, if you had any sense, you’d save your hatred for the motorist, who (like the wasp) injures without care.”
Zoe Williams, The Guardian, 4th February 2006

Nice.

Much better than the Eleanor Mills piece, which is awful.

"cyclists out there need to get vocal and insist on more and better cycle paths. In return, bike riders need to respect other road users, stop being so aggressive and obey the law. Maybe then i'll get back on my bike."

She's not a fan.

I don't want a cycle path. I have a road.

I do obey the law. I might be a bit aggressive about doing so, especially when the other people in their cars aren't, but that doesn't mean I want a cycle path.

I can't see much all for one that runs between the places I want to go generally

and only a few months later, The Indipendent:**
“MOTORISTS: Cyclists are not another species - most of them drive cars at least some of the time - and they’re not, by and large, wilfully stupid or reckless. But they experience the roads differently from you…So be patient. After all, it’s not as if getting rid of cyclists is a realistic option now - there are too many of them, and the numbers are growing all the time. And a few years down the line, as petrol gets more expensive, you might well end up as one of them yourself.”
**Robert Hanks, ‘The Independent’, 12th June 2006

I'm out. If they take away my roads I have no choice but to go back to yorkshire and commute by hedgehog or leave this Tynan forsaken shit hole for somewhere that hasn't yet heard of the Daily Mail.

You need to read the whole article, because some of what she says is sane. BUT the title is inflamatory and for someone just glancing at the article, it could polarise their view that we should never be one roads
Playing devil's advocate: Surely it has to be inflammatory in order to have an impact/make headlines, such is the nature of newspapers? It's not going to make those of us who already cycle, stop cycling, so how likely is it to sway or put off those who wont cycle or are thinking about cycling? Not a lot, I don't think. You can argue that cycling isn't dangerous until you're blue in the face but that wont reassure people who want to cycle but are put off by the casualty figures.

Hopefully the positive change(s) that come about because of this campaign, together with all the work LCC, other campaign groups, bloggers, pro-cycling MPs, MEPs and Councillors are doing, will have a far greater impact on those would be cyclists.

I am lolzing at commuting by hedgehog,

LFGSS has a lot to offer this campaign ...
... colourful characters of the forum
The yentzing
...

and this^

Surely anything in a proper newpaper that promotes debate about this imporant issue must be a good thing. I have written to my MP about this as suggested by the Times article. Many members of my club are doing the same. When I was in junior school there was some thing called the Cycling Proficiency Scheme. Reinstating this would give more kids confidence to get on the roads, because more bikes on the road = safer cycling. Just look at the Netherlands and Denmark.

And this^. Surely a troll?

Gosh this thread has been fun. I've been a bit busy this week, so caught up by reading every post in order. Funny to see most slagging off skydancer and other critics, only to stfu when he, tiswas, adroit et al turn out to be bang on. Guess what? Like the pigs, the Times doesn't give a fuck about this. Not really. Not enough to actually use the fucking brain.

Every time I get into my car I am dicing with someone else's life.

Guess what? Like the pigs, the Times doesn't give a fuck about this. Not really.

Really Skully? Because it looks to me like they care a lot.

Spot on Clive

The Times care, they have a colleague in a coma, they just have reacted with little thought or stategy, a gut reaction to their collective pain rather than a thought out campaign about what actually would encourage cycling and minimise risk

The Times has behaved no better than someone who falls off their bike, bashes their helmet (!) and reckons helmets should be for everyone.

The Times care, they have a colleague in a coma, they just have reacted with little thought or stategy, a gut reaction to their collective pain rather than a thought out campaign about what actually would encourage cycling and minimise risk

No thought whatsoever, apart from working with these groups to develop a manifesto that they all backed:

British Cycling - www.britishcycling.org.uk
The AA - www.theAA.com
The European Cyclists’ Federation - www.ecf.com
Sustrans - www.sustrans.co.uk
Brake - www.brake.org.uk
London Cycling Campaign - www.lcc.org.uk
Roadpeace - www.roadpeace.org
Cyclists Touring Club - www.ctc.org.uk
Cycling Embassy of Great Britain - www.cycling-embassy.org.uk
Cyclists in the City - www.cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com

Not sure that many of those organisation would approve of such a negative campaign.
Who in LCC backed this?
I Know Roger Geffen ctc's campaigns person it is unlikely they would have backed this
in what way did ECF input?
what is your role on this sparky?

My role on a Times campaign, where I don't work? I have none.

And if those organisations didn't back the campaign, and The Times claimed that they did, I imagine they'd have spoken up about it by now.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/637/southwark_supports_the_times_cities_fit_for_cycling_campaign
*
"We wholeheartedly welcome The Times' "Cities fit for cycling campaign" and would like to add Southwark Council's name to your paper's new cycling covenant.
We agree that our country's roads need to be safer for cyclists and so in partnership with the local Southwark Cyclists group and cyclists across the borough, we are working towards the goal of making Southwark one of London's safest borough for cyclists. We have earmarked nearly £4million to spend on improving cycling infrastructure and within the next five years we hope to have a new network of safe routes for cyclists with a pledge to keep as many of them as possible free from motor vehicles."*

It seems that everything is coming together to bring about a political will to improve safety for cyclists. Southwark Cyclists gave a slide presentation on 26 January to Councillors (including Cllr Peter John) and senior Council transport officials. Peter John was "excited" at that meeting at the prospect of the Council working with Southwark Cyclists' representatives (by way of a dedicated team) in setting an example to other boroughs on developing a safe cycle infrastructure.

We are now collating emailed suggestions (with contact details) of dangerous junctions/roads in Southwark, and of how existing safe cycle routes might be joined up. Prioritising the spend will be agreed by the Council/Southwark Cyclists review team, informed by the views of those who cycle in Southwark.

Yet another call to segregate, not educate.
?

We want both.

I'm a passionate advocate of cycle training, and I personally regard myself as part of traffic, not in addition to it, but the fact that LCC's own members have voted for the 'Go Dutch' campaign says a lot about what London's cyclists want on their roads.

I don't believe that this call for safe car free routes for cycling is that helpful in the round. The more we get London roads even fuller of cyclists the better and safer for everyone. Both doesn't work. You build these car free routes ( where in london I've no idea ) then drivers will be less tolerant of riders on the roads. And the roads as they are get us from a to b quickly and efficiently.

news from the parallel channel of kate spicers cycle girl column
the latest more hip than possibly hip bike this week in london comes from a "leading light among nightclubbing trannies and well known figure on the london fixed gear and single speed scene" totally word of mouth of course.

theres far too much cheap coke in london.

yeah saw that ^

apparently not 'killing the puppy' is de rigueur too