The Times Cycling Campaign

^ Heard that. Very good from Cemex, the driver interviewed was spot on.
No so good from the RHA chairman though. What a surprise...

Word in London is that TFL wants ALL lorry drivers to undergo the on-bike 'safe urban driving' course
http://www.lfgss.com/thread72093.html

Word in London is that TFL wants ALL lorry drivers to undergo the on-bike 'safe urban driving' course
http://www.lfgss.com/thread72093.html

TfL can want what TfL wants but if Boris gets back in they can whistle for it. Boris is not going to add to the cost of road haulage or inconvenience a major avenue of finance for the Tory party.

But if it counts towards their 35 hours of Professional Development, and is subsidised by TFL, then it may be cheaper than alternatives, hence quite popular, and allows BoJo to say that he's training lorry drivers too

The 'safe urban driving course' is a module towards the hgv drivers cpc, whereby all hgv drivers' must undergo 40 hours of compulsory training before september 2014. As this module is sponsored by TFL, take up is likely to be quite high in the immediate future. Although truck operators have a bad image, the majority, if not all, do not wish for their drivers to be involved in an RTA and will actively seek training that will/can reduce the risk of accidents.

But if it counts towards their 35 hours of Professional Development, and is subsidised by TFL, then it may be cheaper than alternatives, hence quite popular, and allows BoJo to say that he's training lorry drivers too

Excactly this. Drivers and haulage companies love it especially as it is the only free training that counts to their 35hours of cpc
its win win for bojo, drivers and cyclists

So they have gained a commons debate on the back of this.if you've signed up the next thing is to email you're MP to get them to attend on 23 Feb.

Regardless of the pros and cons of the style of The Times campaign, it has certainly captured the public imagination - 25,000 people signed up and thousands more contacting their MPs directly is pretty impressive by anyone's measure.

There is going to be a Parliamentary debate on Thursday 23rd led by MP for Cambridge Julian Huppert (who rides a bike, huzzah!) So far as we can tell this is the first time in about 15 years there has been any big debate just about providing for cyclists - ie it is quite a big deal. Some of our MPs have quite tabloid views about us cyclists so one or two of us (the London Cycling Campaign plus friends) are organising a big bike ride to Parliament on the evening of Wednesday 22nd (next Wed) to try and focus the minds of our MPs a little (it's not JUST about high vis and helmets!) and raise awareness of the debate and to keep the Times campaign momentum going.

Details are here:

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/ride-to-show-mps-there-are-people-friendly-solutions-to-problems-of-road-danger

http://ibikelondon.blogspot.com/2012/02/time-is-right-join-me-for-ride-to.html

We're meeting at Duke of York steps at 6.15PM for a 6.60 departure on Wed 22nd.

A couple of forumungers have said to me they will be there which is awesome. If you came on the Blackfriars flashrides or the Tour du Danger it is essentially the same set up - would be awesome to have you all there.

Sadly I am out of town next week but I will be with you in spirit. Have a great ride.

Nice and vague.

I'd sign up for that too. No obligations to do anything in reality, and I can appease the voters by saying "Look, I supported this".

In fact, put me down for 5 please.

Gave a talk just now to the campaign team at the Times at news international. Highlighted the need of their campaign to look at messages to drivers as well as to make cycling seem less scary than they are doing. They seemed receptive. There looking at producing a cycling supplement tied in to the edm debate next week

EDMs by their nature are always vague - that's how you get enough people on board to be able to justify tabling a debate. The Government has to give a response to a debate. So.. whatever is talked about next Thursday about cycling, the Gov will give a response on. It might be just as vague, but it is still a big improvement on them talking about helmeting and licensing cyclists, or introducing a dangerous cycling act, which have been the last big occasions when bikes got talked about in Parliament. I for one think it is something worth getting in on.

The Times letters page has been very disappointing. Yesterday, a brilliant letter from the CTC and then three outrageous letters from ignorant numpties who probably hadn't been on a bike for 50 years preaching unscientific nonsense about cycle safety. Apparently we should be obliged to use mirrors and be decked out "like Christmas trees".

In other words, cycling safety is the sole responsibility of the cyclist. The campaign is meant to be dispelling this myth. Why does The Times give them a platform for their ignorant nonsense?

There seems to be broad cross-party support for the EDM so far.

Early day motion 2689.

Only one Tory and he is a decent Tory and hardly reflective of the mainstream of the party.

Interestingly the MP for the City and Westminster has refused his support. Islington South's MP won't say anything on the subject. (although her local party say she is a front bencher and therefore cannot sign EDMs, neither she nor they will say what her position is.)

Only one Tory and he is a decent Tory and hardly reflective of the mainstream of the party.

Interestingly the MP for the City and Westminster has refused his support. Islington South's MP won't say anything on the subject. (although her local party say she is a front bencher and therefore cannot sign EDMs, neither she nor they will say what her position is.)

Was discussing this last night with a campaigning mate, we think the Tory MPs have been whipped as most are sending out almost word for word the same letter as David Cameron did. Their message is along the lines of "we welcome The Times safer cycling campaign but won't commit to it" which isn't very helpful. Still, by rights the Tories should LOVE cycling - "on your bike", "old maids cycling to church" and all that, plus of course it is independent as oppose to public transport. They just don't want to commit any money or Gov resources to it...

Sadly the motoring and particularly road haulage lobbies are very important sources of party funding and so it would be a little unreal to expect the Tories to care too much about cycle safety.

Mind you, the Labour Party is not excelling itself.

Sadly I can see myself voting Green in the Mayoral elections, something I never thought I would find myself doing. I refuse, however, to wear sandals or grow a beard.

I'll vote anything to stop that bell-chief Johnson from getting another term. Anything.
So it's Ken for me despite preferring Jenny Jones.

S I refuse, however, to wear sandals or grow a beard.

Don't worry, I can be your guiding light to the new world.

I couldn't vote for Livingston any more than I could for Johnson.

The Times letters page has been very disappointing. Yesterday, a brilliant letter from the CTC and then three outrageous letters from ignorant numpties who probably hadn't been on a bike for 50 years preaching unscientific nonsense about cycle safety. Apparently we should be obliged to use mirrors and be decked out "like Christmas trees".

Well, it's better than the Black Republican Bloc's black tents.

In other words, cycling safety is the sole responsibility of the cyclist. The campaign is meant to be dispelling this myth. Why does The Times give them a platform for their ignorant nonsense?

Because you can't just pretend that such opinions don't exist--you have to have them argued out properly. If you try to suppress them, they'll just fester and simmer and it will definitely remain more difficult to change things.

What do you expect if people have been fed nonsensical prejudice for decades and then are told that they're 'ignorant numpties' or 'stupid' or something like that, when at present it is simply part of the accepted, and sometimes dominant, culture of this country--a culture of fear of road danger which has been created quite deliberately during mass motorisation and for which most individuals are not responsible and through which they can't necessarily be expected to see. People like sharing culture and aren't necessarily being stupid in it, and they are also only going to simply clam down if they're called stupid. Why not have the debate? It's not going to hurt anyone, and it might change some people's minds, much as it won't change those of others, but luckily we always have generational change to hope for.

(The issue of 'hatred of cyclists/cycling', by the way, is a different question to when people quite 'naturally' resort to superficial differences as in racism, where they have real difficulties understanding others; it is an artificial agenda created for a purpose, and very established by now. It is bound up with perceptions of social status, comfort, modernism, progress--a heady cocktail which isn't easy to swallow, let alone digest, let alone to live with the consequences of it, let alone to pick apart and communicate solutions to.)

Sadly I can see myself voting Green in the Mayoral elections, something I never thought I would find myself doing. I refuse, however, to wear sandals or grow a beard.

You can start by taking after me and growing your hair long, Clive. Everything else will naturally fall into place. And, of course, the forum is all abuzz with the burning question of whether you could even grow a beard. We doubt it and we want embarrassing pictures from your misspent youth to prove us wrong.

Gave a talk just now to the campaign team at the Times at news international. Highlighted the need of their campaign to look at messages to drivers as well as to make cycling seem less scary than they are doing. They seemed receptive. There looking at producing a cycling supplement tied in to the edm debate next week

Great work, David.

My youth was not misspent. I have left that for the latter part of my middle age.